Definition of jazz
David Moss
why it ain't jazz, the question of how you
define jazz comes up. I already said in
this context that I don't believe it's possible
to define jazz - so it seems only logical
for me to try to provide a definition.
How's this:
Jazz (n) - style of music characterized by
heavy use of improvisation, harmonic
sophistication and rhythmic complexity,
derived from late 19th century Afro-American
popular music forms such as Blues and Ragtime
(although subsequently many other influences were
absorbed), and placing more emphasis on artistic
aspirations, musical virtuosity, experimentation and
emotional/intellectual appeal than on mere entertainment
value.
While not in itself targeted at mass appeal, Jazz was the
dominant force in 20th century popular music because it
gave rise to forms as diverse as 1930's dance band
music, 1950's rock n' roll and contemporary pop
music, and there is considerable gray area at
the border between jazz and these derived entertainment
forms. In addition, certain mass appeal music styles
have used the designation "jazz" for marketing
reasons because of the connotations of coolness
and sophistication that the word carries (e.g. "smooth
jazz" for soothing instrumental pop music).
chris berbaum
Currently there are some more cerebral branches, and yet a resurgence of
"swing" dance bands. If you think it important that real live people
dance, are you less "jazzy"? In some ways, the "smooth" designation
conjures to me a more "beat" orientation, i.e. dance, too. There's also
the "lag" issue: wasn't "Breezin" popular about 10 years before the
"smooth" radio tag came into use? Sort of like disco: everyone hated it,
but I, myself, could listen to Average White Band all day. (I actually
like the genuine examples of most genres.)
BTW, I am not wanting to seem disagreeable, only "still exploring"! :)
Tom Walls
>
This is a slippery slope. I do find a couple of problems here
>
>Jazz (n) - style of music characterized by
>heavy use of improvisation, harmonic
>sophistication and rhythmic complexity,
>derived from late 19th century Afro-American
>popular music forms such as Blues and Ragtime
1)I think you'll have trouble finding blues in the 19th century. *Maybe* one
reference just before the turn of the century.
2)In "Lost Chords" Richard Sudhalter makes a strong case that the single
greatest influence in the development of jazz was the pervasive presence of
"band" music. Nearly any town in America had at least on concert band which
employed the instruments that came to be associated with early jazz(brass,
woodwinds, percussion)with a repertoire of marches, light classical pieces,
and popular tunes.
3)Sudhalter goes on to cite numerous examples of early jazz that show no trace
of the influence of blues, in a refutation of the often made assertion that
jazz comes from the blues.
Disclaimer: The African American contribution to the origin of jazz was
indispensible and central, but I do think the connection between "band music"
and jazz is an obvious one.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Sam Smiley
tradition.
1) There absolutely has to be some improvisation to be considered jazz.
Whether it is embellishing a melody, playing a solo, or a total
improvistation doesn't matter. To me this means a group that plays music
that is totally improvised, but doesn't swing, is more of a 'jazz' band than
one that plays swing but doesn't do much improvising.
2) There is an argument for tradition though. Some people think that to be
called jazz music it has to have come out of the lineage of the early
jazz->bebop-> avant garde, etc.
I think both things are very improtant. I do think it is very difficult to
define jazz. In fact when I read "Notes and Tones" by Arthur Taylor, a lot
of people said they hated the word jazz. Now I'm finally starting to
understand why.
Thomas Stubbs
David Moss wrote:
> Each time we discuss "smooth jazz" and
> why it ain't jazz, the question of how you
I think sometimes people try to define something the way they would like
it to be,
but in fact, things are what they are. Smooth jazz might not be
"serious" jazz, but
I don't think anybody can say it's NOT jazz, just because they don't
like it or it doesn't
fit their idea of what they think jazz should be.
Dixieland, hot jazz, swing, and many other forms of jazz are pretty far
from what most
people would consider "serious" music, but they are jazz, despite what
anyone might
say.
Jazz is a very wide, encompassing term, somewhat like what rock and
classical have
become. If you want to qualify your discussion by using terms like
"straight-ahead",
"mainstream", etc., you could certainly say that smooth-jazz is not a
part of that.
I don't listen to smooth-jazz on the radio, by the way. I think there
were some good examples of this type of jazz-R&B fusion in the early
80's that were valid, listenable
and musical, but I think it's kind of a sham to base an entire genre of
jazz on these
few examples. But NO ONE PERSON is doing this, it's the market. People
like it,
so the market developed.
Joe Finn
David Moss wrote:
>
>
> How's this:
>
> Jazz (n) - style of music characterized by
> heavy use of improvisation, harmonic
> sophistication and rhythmic complexity,
> derived from late 19th century Afro-American
> popular music forms such as Blues and Ragtime
Very good, David. The three-legged stool schema you
touch on is a good illustration.
1] improvisation
2] rhythmic complexity [swing?]
3] historic tradition
One of the three legs could be cut in half and the stool
would still stand [somewhat] and could still be called
a stool. You could even cut two of the legs in half and
still call it a stool. But....
If a musical style abandons the jazz tradition
altogether and adopts backbeat grooves rather
than swing then it is something other than jazz.
It is stool. Ha.Ha...
[Sorry , I couldn't resist that one..] joe
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Ugly
have so much influence in what is ---- yeah, tradition and improv (no
improv no jazz? -- big band scores that were written as played [melody and
lead written too, no?] were not jazz?)
was swing ever The Only beat of jazz? wasn't ragtime beat always
included in jazz once jazz was named?
maybe since the 40's fifties 60's? whatever, the improvised became more and
more of a concern in jazz "with hum a few bars and I'll be glad to play it"
being a normalcy of all bands, not just jazz bands. ???
Thomas F Brown
Sam Smiley <dolp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I personally think there are two aspects of jazz 1) improvisation 2)
>tradition.
>1) There absolutely has to be some improvisation to be considered jazz.
>Whether it is embellishing a melody, playing a solo, or a total
>improvistation doesn't matter. To me this means a group that plays music
>that is totally improvised, but doesn't swing, is more of a 'jazz' band than
>one that plays swing but doesn't do much improvising.
How can you tell when people are improvising? My contention is
that you are foolable. Any competent jazz player can compose
a solo and play it and you wouldn't know the difference between
that and an extemporaneous solo. Not "you" in particular, but
any listener, even an experienced jazz musician can be fooled.
A lot of great jazz soloists have had rather limited schticks.
Bubber Miley comes to mind...even Bird had a plan for his records,
and when you listen to multiple takes of the same tune you can hear
that Bird often played the same licks in the same place each time.
David Moss
"Thomas Stubbs" wrote...
> I think sometimes people try to define something
> the way they would like it to be, but in fact, things
> are what they are. Smooth jazz might not be
> "serious" jazz, but I don't think anybody can say
> it's NOT jazz, just because they don't like it or it doesn't
> fit their idea of what they think jazz should be.
Of course I can say it's not jazz, just as easily
as I can say Bach's cello sonatas or Free's
"All Right Now" aren't jazz. Great music, but not
jazz. Where's the problem?
I believe you're seeing this as follows: a bunch
of jazz musicians take jazz off in a new direction,
they consider what they're doing to still be jazz, but
guys like me are trying to have their music
expelled post facto from the jazz canon. You're
100% correct to say that wouldn't be right, in
fact I'd consider it stupid and arrogant - even
if the new direction in question is concerned
with greater accessibility and popular appeal.
But that's not what's happening here. I say "smooth
jazz" isn't jazz based on the following contentions:
a) The music isn't coming out of the jazz tradition
but rather out of the MOR pop tradition, they just added
the saxes and noodling.
b) The musicians involved don't consider what they're
doing to be jazz, the only people saying it IS jazz are
the marketing guys.
c) When a musician with respectable jazz credentials
makes an excursion into this area, he always makes
a clear distinction between his jazz output and his
popular, non-jazz output. Example, a quote from Wes
on whether or not his later output on Verve was jazz:
"I'm playing popular music and it should be regarded
as such" (and that's on something a hell of a lot jazzier
than Kenny G and co.).
The counter argument to (a) is that smooth grew out
of fusion, which IS part of the jazz tradition. My counter-
counter argument is, it's true that some of the original
smooth stuff came from ex-fusion guys like Metheny,
but that initiative was later brushed aside by music
coming out of the MOR pop tradition. Proof: Metheny
can't get his stuff played on smooth radio stations
any more.
Now, maybe those contentions are wrong, then I'd have
to rethink my attitude. But nobody refuted them so far.
Willie K. Yee, M.D.
Joe Finn wrote:
> One of the three legs could be cut in half and the stool
> would still stand [somewhat] and could still be called
> a stool. You could even cut two of the legs in half and
> still call it a stool. But....
>
... it would be a loose stool.
--
Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://www.bestweb.net/~wyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry
http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band
http://www.bigbluebigband.com
Remove "DONTSPAM" from return address to reply.
Willie K. Yee, M.D.
Thomas F Brown wrote:
>
> How can you tell when people are improvising? My contention is
> that you are foolable. Any competent jazz player can compose
> a solo and play it and you wouldn't know the difference between
> that and an extemporaneous solo. Not "you" in particular, but
> any listener, even an experienced jazz musician can be fooled.
>
Leonard Feather in his definition of jazz included "improvisation or
composition in the spirit of improvisation."
natio...@worldnet.att.net
>
> In article <8fc66d$gf1$1...@news.wmich.edu>,
> Sam Smiley <dolp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I personally think there are two aspects of jazz 1) improvisation 2)
> >tradition.
> >1) There absolutely has to be some improvisation to be considered jazz.
> >Whether it is embellishing a melody, playing a solo, or a total
> >improvistation doesn't matter. To me this means a group that plays music
> >that is totally improvised, but doesn't swing, is more of a 'jazz' band than
> >one that plays swing but doesn't do much improvising.
>
> that you are foolable. Any competent jazz player can compose
> a solo and play it and you wouldn't know the difference between
> that and an extemporaneous solo. Not "you" in particular, but
> any listener, even an experienced jazz musician can be fooled.
>
> Bubber Miley comes to mind...even Bird had a plan for his records,
> and when you listen to multiple takes of the same tune you can hear
> that Bird often played the same licks in the same place each time.
A lot of Jazz historians believe that early Jazz-Dixieland-was not
improvised at all. The musicians were playing pre-set lines, and the
solos were played the same way every time. Most of the articles I've
read about Louis Armstongs' Hot Five recordings agree that none of the
solos were improvised, with the possible exception of Armstrongs solo on
"Froggie Moore". Read James Colliers book, "Jazz, The American Theme
Song". The author also indicates the origin of the word "Jazz" as a
mis-hearing of the word "jizz" as in "jism", with a New Orleans accent.
The author claims that early practitioners would say, "Put a little jizz
on it" or "Give it some jizz", meaning, give it some masculine energy or
"balls". To someone from the North, this sounded like "Jazz" and the
word stuck.
It might be a good thing too. Can you imagine if they used the word
"balls" for the music? We'd be discussing whether "Smooth Balls" was
really "Balls"!
Bob
Thomas Stubbs
David Moss wrote:
> "Thomas Stubbs" wrote...
> > I think sometimes people try to define something
> > the way they would like it to be, but in fact, things
> > are what they are. Smooth jazz might not be
>
> But that's not what's happening here. I say "smooth
> jazz" isn't jazz based on the following contentions:
> Now, maybe those contentions are wrong, then I'd have
> to rethink my attitude. But nobody refuted them so far.
Ever hear of the old school swing guys saying "Bebop's not jazz!" ?
My point is that it's worthless for one man to try and make contentions.
Music--and history define themselves. Say what you like,
see if you can change history, or the path of the language in the
future.
When you talk about language, it becomes an issue of the majority.
One man might be right, but he can't change the tide.
David Moss
"Thomas Stubbs" wrote...
> Ever hear of the old school swing guys saying "Bebop's not jazz!" ?
Aaaargh! That's exactly the point I'm making, that saying
"smooth's not jazz" IS NOT THE SAME THING as saying
"bebop's not jazz" or "free jazz ain't jazz" or whatever.
In the latter case, those are guys coming out of the jazz
tradition and trying to point that tradition in a new direction,
which deserves respect even if you don't like the results.
But with "smooth jazz" it's completely different, those guys aren't
coming out of the jazz tradition and don't pretend to be, the
"jazz" tag was just dreamed up by the marketing men without
asking the musicians. Don't let marketing geeks tell you what
jazz is! Listen to it, listen to what the guys actually playing the
stuff call it, and then make up your own mind!
> My point is that it's worthless for one man to try and make contentions.
Why? I make contentions - refute them if you can,
then I'll rethink my conclusions. If nobody can refute the
contentions, then they're true and then YOU have to
rethink YOUR conclusions. How else can we work
towards general agreement on an issue?
Anyway it's not just one man, there's a hell of a lot of jazz
fans who see it just the same way. A lot of the arguments
were filched from an article in the London Sunday Times.
Who believes that "smooth jazz" IS jazz, anyway?
Not the marketing men, they know sure as hell the difference
between their own advertising copy and the truth. I think that
the only people who believe it are the "smooth jazz" fans who
get fooled.
> Music--and history define themselves. Say what you like,
> see if you can change history, or the path of the language in the
> future.
Music defines itself if it's allowed to. There were no marketing men
around to call Mozart "smooth baroque", thank God. In our day,
there are such people trying to warp the self-definition process
of music, so let's fight to defend it!
> When you talk about language, it becomes an issue of the majority.
> One man might be right, but he can't change the tide.
When the tide consists of advertising copy, I can sure
as hell try.
Tom Walls
>
>
>"Thomas Stubbs" wrote...
>> Ever hear of the old school swing guys saying "Bebop's not jazz!" ?
>
>Aaaargh! That's exactly the point I'm making, that saying
>"smooth's not jazz" IS NOT THE SAME THING as saying
>"bebop's not jazz" or "free jazz ain't jazz" or whatever.
>
>In the latter case, those are guys coming out of the jazz
>tradition and trying to point that tradition in a new direction,
>which deserves respect even if you don't like the results.
>But with "smooth jazz" it's completely different, those guys aren't
>coming out of the jazz tradition and don't pretend to be,
My impression is that most of these guys are credible musicians with some jazz
background.
the
>"jazz" tag was just dreamed up by the marketing men without
>asking the musicians.
This is true of "bebop", "fusion" "free" and "jazz" itself.
Thomas F Brown
Willie K. Yee, M.D. <DONTSP...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>Thomas F Brown wrote:
>>
>> How can you tell when people are improvising? My contention is
>> that you are foolable. Any competent jazz player can compose
>> a solo and play it and you wouldn't know the difference between
>> that and an extemporaneous solo. Not "you" in particular, but
>> any listener, even an experienced jazz musician can be fooled.
>>
>
>composition in the spirit of improvisation."
"In the spirit of improvisation" implies "in the spirit of *jazz*
improvisation", which just brings you back to tradition.
Joe Finn
Thomas F Brown wrote:
> In article <391A9B2C...@bestweb.net>,
> Willie K. Yee, M.D. <DONTSP...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> >Thomas F Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> How can you tell when people are improvising? My contention is
> >> that you are foolable. Any competent jazz player can compose
> >> a solo and play it and you wouldn't know the difference between
> >> that and an extemporaneous solo. Not "you" in particular, but
> >> any listener, even an experienced jazz musician can be fooled.
> >>
> >
> >Leonard Feather in his definition of jazz included "improvisation or
> >composition in the spirit of improvisation."
>
Allow me very quickly to quote Josef Zawinul. In the early days of
Weather Report his comment re: the group's improvisation was ,
" We always solo , and we never solo..." joe
Joe Finn
"Willie K. Yee, M.D." wrote:
> Joe Finn wrote:
> > One of the three legs could be cut in half and the stool
> > would still stand [somewhat] and could still be called
> > a stool. You could even cut two of the legs in half and
> > still call it a stool. But....
> >
>
> ... it would be a loose stool.
>
> Thanks Doc, I concur w/ your dx. Do you
> recommend Kaopectate or Immodium
> AD? joe
David Moss
Tom Walls wrote [referring to smooth jazz]...
> > the "jazz" tag was just dreamed up by the marketing men without
> >asking the musicians.
> This is true of "bebop", "fusion" "free" and "jazz" itself.
Really? You mean there really was some marketing guy
who invented the name "free jazz" to promote mass
record sales? I bet they sacked him pretty quick!
Whatever, on the wider point I think I said
about all I have to say - somebody on one
of these threads claimed, anyone saying "smooth jazz
ain't jazz" is automatically a stick-in-the-mud. I disagree,
and I tried to explain why I disagree. If you (you in
general, not Tom) aren't convinced, I don't have any
more arguments, so let's agree to differ and drop it.
I'm off to listen to the radio, there's a Derek Bailey
concert on Soothing Instrumental Pop FM.
Willie K. Yee, M.D.
>
> >
> > ... it would be a loose stool.
> >
> > Thanks Doc, I concur w/ your dx. Do you
>
> > recommend Kaopectate or Immodium
> > AD? joe
>
Don't bother. Sometimes there is so much sh!t around here that it won't
be noticed.
8-)
Thomas F Brown
Joe Finn <JoeFi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Allow me very quickly to quote Josef Zawinul. In the early days of
>Weather Report his comment re: the group's improvisation was ,
>" We always solo , and we never solo..." joe
Yeah, that was the problem.
RobinsonCHAZZ
Really? You mean there really was some marketing guy
who invented the name "free jazz" to promote mass
record sales? I bet they sacked him pretty quick! >>
In talking to Charlie Haden I found that the situation described above is
exactly what happened. Ornette dropped "Free Jazz" from his advertizing when
people began to expect no price of admission at his performances. CR