It's just a word used to describe several types of music. |
I believe it was Duke who said : There are only two types of music - good and bad....... |
I don't like jazz either, but love fusion, bop, acid, avangard, jazz-rock and jazz-punk.
To me jazz is mainstream such as Ben Webster, Chet Atkins, etc... |
-I should know the answer to that question; but I don't, because the answer is too complex.-
This statement shows that you DO know the answer!;)
Orph (may I call you orph!?;), I've always felt Jazz to be such a vast genre. If you factor in group sizes, styles, acoustic, electric, etc., and THEN factor in nationalities, and THEN factor the traditional musics of these nationalities that often get incorporated into the mix. The combinations/possibilities are practically endless. Jazz, originally an American artform, has truly evolved into a 'World' music (A world music, NOT 'World' music, which to me, is something else altogether). Just this morning, I got hipped to this band; 'Banda Pequi' from Brazil. Amazing music from a Brazilian Big Band (Chk 'em out on Youtube, I've had ZERO luck finding a CD, probably have to download, sux!). I feel Jazz is a music that 'accomodates' the listener due to it's range of accessibility. From very easy to very complex. For me, Jazz is ever-evolving, the ultimate Soul music!!
Unfortunately, the reality is Jazz is percieved as an 'old' music that's best days happened decades ago. Not only here, I've even found this mindset on jazzsites! I've always felt this is an 'age' thing. Buncha ol' geezers (schweinhunds(!), clinging to what they know!;) What can I say, at 58, I've grown old, but not up!
I wouldn't be surprised (I kinda expect) to see this thread devolve into another snoozefest praising the grandfathers of Jazz. |
Frogman, I really enjoyed your supplied Louis's quotes, and fully agree!
Jazz is learning all the music rules and structure, very, very well.. and then being able to take it to a level of interpretation as "I feel this right now!"
That is MY definition of true art. |
"Classical Jazz"? ..similar to "Classical Gas" by Mason Williams 68'? |
Love those Louis Armstrong quotes but labelling someone the greatest jazz musician is like declaring a particular woman(your choice) the most beautiful 'ever'.Duke,Monk,Bird,Miles etc. So many great ones, I love them all. |
"If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know."- Louis Armstrong
"You blows who you is" - Louis Armstrong
"Hot can be cool & cool can be hot & each can be both. But hot or cool man, Jazz is Jazz." - Louis Armstrong
One of the many reasons Louis was the greatest jazz musician that ever lived. |
The inverse of Classical music. Classical music, for the most part, celebrates the ensemble, symphony, quartet, playing together and in harmony. Jazz celebrates the individual playing around a theme each individual having the opportunity to express themselves while maintaining a unified whole, again in general. There are exceptions to both. |
Ok, I performed mostly "Jazz" for about 15 years. I still have an incredibly hard time defining the genre. I guess I think of it as an umbrella that covers a bunch of other sub-genres. |
Well most jazz in it's live context is improvised so I will say "Jazz is when a musician takes the internal sound his soul is creating and emits it externaly whether by instrument or voice" |
What is not jazz? Classical, rock, country, techno, flamenco, Japanese traditional music etc. are not jazz. What remains could be called jazz. Perhaps any kind of music heavily based on improvisation can be called jazz. Is Indian music jazz too? Well, I wouldn't call it that but someone could call it Indian jazz. No objection from me. Persian music can be very impovisational too but not at all always so.
Yes, I don't like "classical jazz", with some exceptions. |
I am not sure it can be defined in a definitive sense.
A musicologist would talk about the historical roots. Southern black music... spirituals, blues, gospel etc... And that would be very informative and very true. The great French Jazz violinist Stephane Grappelli once said, 'I never forget, it's a black art form'. He played it well, and made his contributions via his performances, but he never tried to define it or re-define it. This is the heart of the problem. Not so much, WHAT is Jazz, but, WHO should define Jazz. This problem exists in many genres of music.
The best answer for me is, to paraphrase the Supreme Court Justice's views about obscenity, I can't define Jazz, but I know it when I hear it. So we all live in different musical universes, and in my universe, the definition of Jazz is stored on that hard drive between my ears. Put there bit by bit during the years of my musical experiences.
One contributing factor in all this confusion concerning genre, is the idea, prevalent in this country, that a person can reach any goal, with hard work. This is a good positive idea in a general sense, but not absolutely true. When it comes to the arts, talent is the deciding factor. Talent trumps everything else. Desire and hard work are helpful, but talent is vital element. Some refuse to let a lack of talent stop them from reaching their goals.
The result is, we have guys from London calling themselves bluesmen. People from europe playing 'euro' Jazz. They make a lot of money and some of it sounds ok, but it ain't the real deal. Stephane never called his music 'euro Jazz'. hmmmmmm. I think the low point in my musical experience was listening to a German Country and Western band in Franfurt. I still cringe!!
Orpheus10: great question |
