Jazz for aficionados

O-10, you did say that you were going on  vacation.  😁

Technically its  Rok's fault. He was left in charge,  during your absence 

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worst.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMruUubHP9Q

If the Germans go under, as far as real music is concerned, it's game, set, match.

Cheers

I haven’t been a member here for very long. Maybe 4 months. I remember finding this site and especially this forum and what a wonderful day it was. For all of this time there has been a raging discussion on this forum about what "is" jazz and what "is not" jazz.

Here are some random thoughts.

There are those that say jazz "is this," and others that say jazz "is also that." Both are correct. Get this; my daughter just returned home after spending a year in Chile teaching English. We played some of the music she brought with her and I thought it was modern Latin jazz. She told me that the band was considered a "rock band." By my definition it was jazz. The country where the band was famous called it rock.

Go figure. It was still very cool music.

Jazz is impossible to define, but when you hear it you know if it is jazz or not.

Really, is it so difficult?

I think most would agree that the roots of jazz came from the blues. And the roots of the blues came from the slaves in the United States. If you think about it, what we thought of as music changed. We had the blues, and then jazz took hold. Miles Davis’ album "All Blues" is exactly that; all blues. It’s all blues, but it’s also jazz and most anybody that listens to it would identify it as jazz.

So if it’s the blues, is it jazz?

Jazz is big.  It encompasses a lot of things. 

I’ve been listening and playing jazz for 40 years. I don’t like all of it. But even the stuff I don’t like still falls under the umbrella of jazz. I’m okay with that. I hope that jazz, and all other genres continue to evolve. It's kind of what makes new music new. And I love new music.

-- Bob.

Stanley Clarke.