I have three CDs on which Dave Brubeck and his quartet play their signature tune ‘Take Five’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Five). Two of them have exactly the same version, but the third is a live account at almost double time. Being familiar with the music and a big Brubeck fan, the first time I heard this ‘Take Five’ I was surprised and inspired – but I really wasn’t sure why. Was it the cognitive harmony (if you’ll excuse the pun) of recognising something familiar in something strange? Was it some evolutionary resonance with the faster, almost jungle-esque beat? Or was it just the idea that I now had another titbit of interesting trivia to slip into a conversation somehow, somewhen? I mean there was nothing intrinsically ‘new’ or ‘better’ about the quick ‘Take Five’. Its solos were different I suppose, but the instrumentation and structure were almost identical to the original. This was no scatty interpretation by Al Jarreau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jarreau) but simply a new version of an old thing.

The fact that interpretation is so central to jazz – that the new ‘Take Five’ works – is one of the things that fascinates me about it. Though some pop/rock bands (U2 springs to mind) make a mint by re-recording previously released songs, for the most part this doesn’t do it for me. And though I love the novelty value of covers, it is rare for a cover to become a ‘classic’(the notable exceptions would be covers which are supremely though subjectively ‘better’ than the original; like ‘Superman’ by REM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rem). But jazz is different. In jazz a cover band is often superior to the original composer. In jazz the sugary sweet show-tune can become multi-faceted and sophisticated expedition (Rodgers and Hammerstein versus John Coltrane and their Favorite Things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Favorite_Things_%28song%29). In jazz the art of creating is frenetically and frantically immediate.

At least I think so.

Which is why I enjoy jazz.

Classical purists be damned!