Does it qualify as jazz?

[Vihar]

YouTube Video

I know it might be sacrilege for some, but I think it does. But hey, whatever it is, I love it!

[fep]

My vote goes that it is Jazz.

How about this, is this jazz?

YouTube Video

[Vihar]

Originally Posted by fep

My vote goes that it is Jazz.

How about this, is this jazz?

That's awesome Fep! Yes I think that one passes the jazz-test too.

[robertm2000]

Wasn't it Duke Ellington that said there are two kinds of music ... good and bad? In any case I'd certainly vote for "Good" on both of these.

[Jazzaluk]

What does this mean "qualify as Jazz"? Does it imply that other styles such as folk music and bluegrass cannot evolve to the same level as jazz and that it must be called jazz to be recognized as good? Very bizarre assertion.

Sorry, but jazz, like any style has its roots. The music on these vids is not rooted in jazz. It is good music but, to my ears, it is more bluegrass and folk based. If you like it, you should check out some good folk festivals and be amazed at what you see.

[fumblefingers]

i'm gonna say no. the style is not jazz by any stretch. especially the first tune.

regarding the second one, its a more compelling question but i would still say no. as nice as the solos were i don't believe that they were improvised. much too tidy. and even if they were improvised, its still not jazz. style wise, its not even trying to be.

one could likewise ask - is an extended instrumental rock jam jazz? or is it just an extended instrumental rock jam?

if its jazz then i guess that the Allman Brothers, Grateful Dead, and CSN&Y were jazz bands.

[mr. beaumont]

I think those solos were improvised in the Grisman cut...I've got the original record, completely different solos...

[brwnhornet59]

No Sir! Not Jazz. Good Roots based folk music / bluegrass is what that is. I really liked the Bass solo in the 1st song. And Mark O'Conner is one of the finest fiddle players/guitarist's around. That's what happens when you are a child prodigy. Is it Musical? You bet. Improv? A little, but following a well rehearsed regime. On the other hand, isn't that what we do when wood shedding, then coming onstage and playing?

Great tunes!

[mr. beaumont]

How different is that Grisman tune than Gypsy Swing, really?

[cubistguitar]

Bluegrass players use the word jazz to mean the bits that are made up on the spot. It can depend on the context, but the style "jazz" probably means something different than what is in these clips. "jazz" meant to signify a great jam with lots of melodic/rhythmic interplay, that probably works.

[fep]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

How different is that Grisman tune than Gypsy Swing, really?

+1

For you that say not Jazz let me try this one, Django's Minor Swing (and really how is this that different than the Grissman tune above):

YouTube Video

[keith]

Well I don't want to split hairs but one thing is for sure is that it's all pretty good stuff! That Grisman always amazes me whether he's playing at 240 bpm or slow ballads, the control that he has.... if only I had a tenth of it!

[fumblefingers]

Originally Posted by fep

+1

For you that say not Jazz let me try this one, Django's Minor Swing (and really how is this that different than the Grissman tune above):

nice point. i will now back pedal on my above statement where Grisman is concerned.

[Reg]

Hey that's cool those guys are all some of my local friends... played many jazz gigs with Matt the flutist... any way there could be jazz and jazz players playing tunes... Dave Grisman used to call his music... Dog music...
A better question it appears, would be what defines jazz... There is a very informative history to help anyone who needs more info before they make a decision. Or I guess you can simply call anything you choose because you feel like it... Reg

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by Reg

Or I guess you can simply call anything you choose because you feel like it... Reg

That's usually what happens.

I used to hang out at an excellent little "roots" club in Comox BC. There was amazing music every night. Tunes ranged from blues to old standards to originals and some straight up improv. I would have never dared call it jazz regardless of the tune's origin. These guys were serious folk and bluegrass musicians and proud of it. They were extending the music they loved into new areas.

[Reg]

Originally Posted by Jazzaluk

That's usually what happens.

I used to hang out at an excellent little "roots" club in Comox BC. There was amazing music every night. Tunes ranged from blues to old standards to originals and some straight up improv. I would have never dared call it jazz regardless of the tune's origin. These guys were serious folk and bluegrass musicians and proud of it. They were extending the music they loved into new areas.

Sound like great times... I love small gigs like that. Reg

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by Reg

Sound like great times... I love small gigs like that. Reg

It was a fantastic little bar in a town of about 700 people run by an amazing dobro player called Doug Cox. I don't know if it is still happening but Doug has become one of the household names in Canada when it comes to Roots music. You may have heard of him.

Any way, here is a link and a couple typical sounds that lived in the venue.

Doug Cox | Doug Cox - All Things Slide and Strings | Home

http://www.dougcox.org/audio/DOUG_CO...By_Th_hifi.m3u]

http://www.dougcox.org/audio/DOUG_CO...dland_hifi.m3u

[brwnhornet59]

Great stuff!!

[cosmic gumbo]

Yup, there was a time when jazz was played by untrained musicians who only depended on their ears, and people would jump around and have a good time. Now that they teach jazz at the university, you're supposed to sit and listen to it like classical music, but it's really just roots music too...

[kamlapati]

I like it all, but it makes me reconsider my definition of jazz... I vote no for the jerry Douglas but yes for the David Grisman Dawg Music

IMO, to be jazz, it should be informed or based on the tradition of jazz. That's what separates Phish or the Allman Brotehr or The Gypsy Kings. Just improvising isn't enough.

[morroben]

Does it qualify as jazz?

I ask myself this same question about some of my favorites, including Douglas and Grisman, all the time. I've never come to a good conclusion.
I spent my college years and following decade in an area with a heavy bluegrass scene. I learned a ton from playing that music. I'm a jazz newbie but I find a lot of similarities between bluegrass and jazz. It's a game of improvisation over a song and chord progression, more often than not, written before the performing musician was born. "Here's my take on ____." I think that's what I like about both.
I wonder the same thing about certain artists that I like that are generally classified as blues. Kelly Joe Phelps, Derek Trucks etc. Blues based I suppose, but certainly taking it to a different level.
Whatever it is, I like all of it.

[jster]

There are a lot of different theories about how to answer the question: what is art? Some of the most promising of these can be easily adapted to the question: what is jazz? One prominent theory is the so called institutional theory of art which holds that x is art if and only if the leading experts believe x is art. So an institutional theory of jazz would hold that x is jazz if and only if the jazz experts (i.e. the guys at jazzguitar.be, Berklee, etc.) believe that x is jazz. I'm rather more fond of an alternative theory, which we can call the intentional theory of art according to which x is art if and only if the creator of x was self-consciously trying to make art. And, I'm inclined to a similar intentional theory of jazz according to which x is jazz if and only if the musician was self-consciously trying to play jazz. So I think you would need to ask the musicians what they were trying to play. This analysis tracks borderline cases well. So if they said they were trying to play "sorta folk, sorta jazz" then on this definition, it wouldn't be jazz. It would be sorta folk, sorta jazz.

[fumblefingers]

Originally Posted by jster

There are a lot of different theories about how to answer the question: what is art? Some of the most promising of these can be easily adapted to the question: what is jazz? One prominent theory is the so called institutional theory of art which holds that x is art if and only if the leading experts believe x is art. So an institutional theory of jazz would hold that x is jazz if and only if the jazz experts (i.e. the guys at jazzguitar.be, Berklee, etc.) believe that x is jazz. I'm rather more fond of an alternative theory, which we can call the intentional theory of art according to which x is art if and only if the creator of x was self-consciously trying to make art. And, I'm inclined to a similar intentional theory of jazz according to which x is jazz if and only if the musician was self-consciously trying to play jazz. So I think you would need to ask the musicians what they were trying to play. This analysis tracks borderline cases well. So if they said they were trying to play "sorta folk, sorta jazz" then on this definition, it wouldn't be jazz. It would be sorta folk, sorta jazz.

i'm almost with you here, but not all the way. that is, what they were trying to play? really? that gets it done? nope, i dont think so.

you see, in the rest of adult life "trying" isn't enough. you do, you don't just try.

bottom line? effort is nice, but results count.

i dont think that the players in the above referenced examples were "trying to play jazz" as such. but i think that they achieved what they intended. they played well, especially the second band.

[jster]

Originally Posted by fumblefingers

i'm almost with you here, but not all the way. that is, what they were trying to play? really? that gets it done? nope, i dont think so.

you see, in the rest of adult life "trying" isn't enough. you do, you don't just try.

bottom line? effort is nice, but results count.

i dont think that the players in the above referenced examples were "trying to play jazz" as such. but i think that they achieved what they intended. they played well, especially the second band.

Of course results matter. But I don't think that would affect the analysis. The question posed was whether it was jazz, not whether it was good jazz. Just as it is possible to produce bad art, it is possible to produce bad jazz. 95% is bad according to Metheny. I definitely wouldn't hold an intentional theory for good jazz! There I might be persuaded by an institutional theory.

[Soco]

It is very clear that this music is not jazz, it doesn't sound like jazz.
These musicians are amazing and can improvise really well. I know Edgar Myers is a classically trained bassist, he also does play jazz from time to time. He does have amazing skills on the bass and can improvise well.
Is it jazz-no.
Is it music played by great musicians that also includes improvisation-yes.

[Vihar]

Originally Posted by Soco

It is very clear that this music is not jazz, it doesn't sound like jazz.
These musicians are amazing and can improvise really well. I know Edgar Myers is a classically trained bassist, he also does play jazz from time to time. He does have amazing skills on the bass and can improvise well.
Is it jazz-no.
Is it music played by great musicians that also includes improvisation-yes.

Tell that to these guys:

YouTube Video

YouTube Video

[cubistguitar]

Michael Brecker is just too friggin cool!

[Soco]

Originally Posted by Vihar

Tell that to these guys:

Tell what?

[Vihar]

lol.

[Vihar]

This ain't no jazz either:

YouTube Video