Jazz... to define or not to define

[keihan]

As some know, I'm a huge jazz fan... from Armstrong and Coltrane to George Benson and Nora Jones. I'm not big Sinatra fan or big band jazz fan but just about anything else goes.

With that said, there is always the question as to "what is jazz"?

You'll always find arguments and discussions here or on various Jazz related sites about the elusive definition of jazz.

From my perspective, I think there is no defining it, it is something that is deeper than that.

I found this on the web and I think it describes precisely what I have tried to say in the past. Some of the quotes are from big names in Jazz and they reiterate what I have learned over the years.

How do you define America's unique contribution to world art?

Clevelander Mark Gridley, the author of the nation's leading introduction-to-jazz college textbook, devotes several pages of his book, Jazz Styles, History and Analysis, to a discussion of the problems of defining jazz. Essentially he says it is difficult to define.

Historian and critic Barry Ulanov agreed, saying, "There is no common definition of jazz; it resists dictionary definition."

Some of the biggest names in jazz have said basically the same thing in different words. Benny Goodman, one of the most important figures in the history of the art form, admitted he could not define jazz. Louis Armstrong, the man who propelled the art form, had a simple definition: "Jazz is my idea of how a tune should go." Duke Ellington, usually pretty articulate with words (as well as music), once defined jazz as "freedom of expression." But he admitted that really wasn't a very serviceable definition. Later, Ellington said, "I don't think I have a definition anymore, unless it is that jazz is a music with an African foundation which came out of an American environment." Singer Ella Fitzgerald found it impossible to define jazz. She said, "I don't know. You just swing!" Big band drummer Chick Webb, who discovered Ella in the 1930s, tried to define jazz in personal terms. He said, "It's like lovin' a gal, and havin' a fight, and then seein' her again." Saxophonist Charlie Parker once defined jazz as "a happiness blues."

Textbook author Gridley attempted to get through this maze of inability by the art form's major practioners to articulate the nature of the music. The Shaker Heights resident wrote there are two essential elements: First, "each jazz performance must represent an original and spontaneous creation --- improvisation. Jazz requires its performers to create their parts as they play them."

Critic Leonard Feather wrote that "Improvisation is the governing factor of almost every performance generally classified as jazz." However, Gridley rejects the idea that improvisation is the only element that distinguishes jazz. He points out that other forms of music also have improvisation.

American classical music composer Aaron Copland wrote in 1952 that solo improvisation was common during the Baroque Period. He said the unique thing about jazz is group improvisation. "When you improvise, it is axiomatic that you take risks and can't foretell results. When five or six musicians improvise simultaneously, the result is even more fortuitious. That is its charm. Something has been developed here that has no duplication."

Jazz artists create --- or even compose --- as they play, within the limits of the style they select for themselves. It may be 95% improvisation of variations of the head tune or it may be only an individual solo within a written arrangement.

The Glenn Miller Orchestra, a band noted mainly for tightly-performed arrangements and not considered "a jazz band" by many, proved that jazz improvisation does exist in solos played within carefully written and performed arrangements. Miller, who started out as a jazz trombonist, defined jazz as "something you have to feel, a sensation that can be conveyed to others."

In addition to improvisation, feeling and sensation, Gridley says that to qualify as jazz, the music must project what he calls "jazz swing feeling."

Drummer Gene Krupa, perhaps the all-time king of "jazz swing feeling," defined it as "complete and inspired freedom of rhythmic interpretation." Pianist Jess Stacy, who also played with Goodman's swing band, called it "syncopated syncopation." Trumpeter Wingy Manone put it in these words: "Feeling an increase in tempo, though you're still playing at the same tempo."

One of the best descriptions of jazz I have ever heard was articulated on a radio broadcast in the 1950s by Stan Kenton, the exponent of what he called "Progressive" big band jazz. Kenton said, "Jazz is a distinct music that depends and thrives on individuality and yet the individual is not oblivious to others nor is he immune to their feelings. Jazz is free. Through spontaneous improvisation, a musician expresses his personality consciously and subconsciously. His music, with its variation of melodic lines and rhythmic patterns, can establish a changing flow of attitudes just as those revealed by a facial expression or a gesture even without words.

"A session in jazz," said Kenton, "is comparable to an open forum where theories and opinions are discussed openly and freely. Without inhibition or the fear of being reprimanded, a soloist rises and speaks without the aid of notes or previous preparation. Speeches with words of various inflections and insinuations are replaced with a flow of melodic, rhythmic music. One soloist will speak for himself on a chosen topic and then retire to hear the feelings of another on the same subject. On occasions, they will speak of happy things, then those of a more serious nature, sometimes somber and even tragic. All phases of life's emotions are felt and experienced in jazz.

"Some of the music is complex and reaches far below the surface while other forms dwell lightly. There are speakers in improvised jazz who are eloquent in their ability. Musical words flow freely. Others tend to speak in short sentences with a simple vocabulary. However, if sincerity prevails, everyone is felt, understood and appreciated."

Despite this excellent description of jazz by Kenton, we are still left without an adequate working definition of jazz. Perhaps Ellington was right when he said, "It's in the ear of the listener. If a man has some very hungry ears for what he considers jazz, or for a pleasant noise that makes him feel he wants to swing, that's jazz."

Jazz is what you or I say it is. Or, as Satchmo said, "My idea of how a tune should go."

[VB]

Some great ideas there.... Jazz is probably the most argued form of music there is. I love Jazz in any form... because its boundaries are always so edgy. It never fits in the same box twice. Theres a great jazz show here on the local radion station on saturday nites... it starts about 9 pm and runs to 1 am. All kinds of styles from both well known and locals alike. Its broadcasted on air KMOX AM 1120 in the STL are. and on the web at Kmox.com by host Don Woolf . ( attorney turned Jazz enthusiast)

[cormack]

I've always thought of jazz as being the opposite of metal in a way. I think you can argue that both types of music have many stylistic ranges and therefore it is hard to achieve a single defintion, but at the same time they seem to be on opposite sides of a spectrum.

[keihan]

Originally Posted by cormack

I've always thought of jazz as being the opposite of metal in a way. I think you can argue that both types of music have many stylistic ranges and therefore it is hard to achieve a single defintion, but at the same time they seem to be on opposite sides of a spectrum.

Hey, if you want a to read a very good thesis on the "History Of Metal", go here:

http://www.anus.com/metal/about/history.html

It is a long but very interesting read.

[keihan]

I get to run sound for Boots Randolph tonite. Just got through soundcheck with the band and now we're takin a break for dinner. Should be a good show. The band will not be playing most of the time since the primary focus is Boots himself and he will be lecturing most of that time.

[DJ Snoo]

It's been a longtime theory that all the best musicians end up playing jazz or some variation therein. If you think about it on an artistic level, it is the most intellectually stimilating type of music. It is so HEAVILY improvisationally based that the music itself must reside, not in years of practice, but in the soul of the player. When a song is written, it can be under, or over-thought...however, when music is simply played, right then and there, it is at it's most pure state and represents pure artistic expression and musical freedom. In it's purest form, talent is relative, and skill is helpful at best...but when the music comes from that deep down place, it becomes something entirely different altogether.

Having said that, I can honestly say that I used to HATE jazz. I mean HATE!!! But ever since I learned how to listen to jazz and learned what jazz music is all about, I cannot help but love listening to it. My family was blow away a couple years ago when my list of cd's I wanted for Christmas went from Incubus, Seether, MudVayne, Audioslave, Tool and bands like that, suddenly was top to bottom with Sonny Rollins, John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Miles Davis, Louis Armstrong and many others. Needless to say...I was even kinda surprised at myself haha

[keihan]

Originally Posted by DJ Snoo

It's been a longtime theory that all the best musicians end up playing jazz or some variation therein. If you think about it on an artistic level, it is the most intellectually stimilating type of music. It is so HEAVILY improvisationally based that the music itself must reside, not in years of practice, but in the soul of the player. When a song is written, it can be under, or over-thought...however, when music is simply played, right then and there, it is at it's most pure state and represents pure artistic expression and musical freedom. In it's purest form, talent is relative, and skill is helpful at best...but when the music comes from that deep down place, it becomes something entirely different altogether.

Having said that, I can honestly say that I used to HATE jazz. I mean HATE!!! But ever since I learned how to listen to jazz and learned what jazz music is all about, I cannot help but love listening to it. My family was blow away a couple years ago when my list of cd's I wanted for Christmas went from Incubus, Seether, MudVayne, Audioslave, Tool and bands like that, suddenly was top to bottom with Sonny Rollins, John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Miles Davis, Louis Armstrong and many others. Needless to say...I was even kinda surprised at myself haha

Amen! I hear ya bro. I used to be a big metal head and still am, but once I began listening to Jazz it just seemed more mature in it's approach and outcome. You are very right about it being intellectually stimulating.

[Stiglar]

The thing with that article is ,

most of those artists were interviewed or asked that question some 30-40 years ago !

"In addition to improvisation, feeling and sensation, Gridley says that to qualify as jazz, the music must project what he calls "jazz swing feeling."

Drummer Gene Krupa, perhaps the all-time king of "jazz swing feeling," defined it as "complete and inspired freedom of rhythmic interpretation." Pianist Jess Stacy, who also played with Goodman's swing band, called it "syncopated syncopation." Trumpeter Wingy Manone put it in these words: "Feeling an increase in tempo, though you're still playing at the same tempo." "

That to me is the essence of jazz , and the big difference between a jazz artist and say any other kind . even the fusion artists still have that swing/traditional jazz upbringing. You can hear/feel it in frank gambales playing even though he's sweep picking 1000 notes a second .

Yes jazz is a broad genre , but not THAT broad . theres still stylistic qualitys that do define it even if you can't put your finger on them . just like any other genre of music .

I think the more you study jazz the more you realise what is jazz and what isn't . might be a cold and calculating way of thinking about it .. but just the way i think of it.
Playing over the changes , using various compositional techniques , even the tone can greatly change but still just have that jazz sound to it .

[Rythameen]

I think like a lot of music, jazz is different things to different people from KennyG (yep some folks consider him jazz), to Sonny Rollins and John Coltrane at their most inventive. This is probably one of those things that will never be settled.

[keihan]

Originally Posted by Rythameen

I think like a lot of music, jazz is different things to different people from KennyG (yep some folks consider him jazz), to Sonny Rollins and John Coltrane at their most inventive. This is probably one of those things that will never be settled.

Well, said Rythameen.

That is very true and has been said by the masters as well as newer Jazz enthusiasts.

[DJ Snoo]

Most musicians that I know always listen to the type of music that they play when they are trying to write something on their own. I find this twice as defeating as I do inspiring. It always makes me end up trying to copy whatever it is that I have been listening to. However, I have found that if I listen to Jazz a lot while I'm trying to write...it conjures up all sorts of creativity in my own brain, and it's NEVER jazzy! Thats the wierd part! My music is fairly Incubus/Seether/Tool type sound, but I always find that Jazz inspires my writing process much more than any other type of music. Kinda weird how listening to Lady Day can spark this idea for a MudVayne sounding riff, but thats what works for me! Anybody else crazy like me? haha

[Rythameen]

Originally Posted by DJ Snoo

Most musicians that I know always listen to the type of music that they play when they are trying to write something on their own. I find this twice as defeating as I do inspiring. It always makes me end up trying to copy whatever it is that I have been listening to. However, I have found that if I listen to Jazz a lot while I'm trying to write...it conjures up all sorts of creativity in my own brain, and it's NEVER jazzy! Thats the wierd part! My music is fairly Incubus/Seether/Tool type sound, but I always find that Jazz inspires my writing process much more than any other type of music. Kinda weird how listening to Lady Day can spark this idea for a MudVayne sounding riff, but thats what works for me! Anybody else crazy like me? haha

I find that works for me too, another thing is to listen to anything but guitar music, it really puts some different ideas in your head.

[keihan]

Originally Posted by DJ Snoo

Most musicians that I know always listen to the type of music that they play when they are trying to write something on their own. I find this twice as defeating as I do inspiring. It always makes me end up trying to copy whatever it is that I have been listening to. However, I have found that if I listen to Jazz a lot while I'm trying to write...it conjures up all sorts of creativity in my own brain, and it's NEVER jazzy! Thats the wierd part! My music is fairly Incubus/Seether/Tool type sound, but I always find that Jazz inspires my writing process much more than any other type of music. Kinda weird how listening to Lady Day can spark this idea for a MudVayne sounding riff, but thats what works for me! Anybody else crazy like me? haha

Not weird at all. It comes to me in musch the same way.