The curse of composition

Something has happened in jazz culture in the new millennium. There is more emphasis on original composition than ever before. There has been remarkably little discussion and analysis of this phenomenon, perhaps because many assume it is a positive development. Jazz, after all, prioritizes originality. 

- THOMAS CONRAD

There is a counterargument. It goes like this: Jazz today is vital and dynamic because great players keep popping up, all over the world. Very few of those great players are also great composers. Yet they apparently feel obliged to be. A large proportion of new jazz albums contain all or mostly originals.

Economic incentives are in play. Original compositions possess the potential to generate royalties, in addition to the payment for performance. Conversely, if you record music written by others ("covers"), it may be necessary for the performer to pay royalties. But money alone does not fully explain this fixation on original material. The proliferation of academic jazz programs may be a factor. A young musician who got an A in composition class might be forgiven for assuming that she is a composer. Current jazz musicians seem to think that to be taken seriously, they must compose. That perceived obligation can be a curse.

Original composition has always been an essential element of jazz, and there are some excellent composers on today's jazz scene. What is new is the presumption that to play a cover is to compromise. Back in the day (ie, in the 20th century), more value was placed on creative interpretation. Jazz musicians commonly used sources like American Songbook standards, classical pieces, pop and country tunes, and folk music as settings for improvisation.