How many play note-for-note versus on-the-spot improvised?

[ColinO]

So @ ColinO - those examples I posted wouldn't be jazz then in your estimation? Not saying that that's wrong necessarily, but maybe the idea of there being this thing that is (or isn't) jazz is pretty asinine anyway. Nicholas Payton's blog on the subject is worth a read.

Well based on that logic, everything is jazz and nothing is jazz. According to your reasoning why is this not jazz?

[mr. beaumont]

Good post ^^^^(going ti dutchbopper, i type too slow)

Not ti be the a-hole who comes in with a famous player's quote, but Bill Evans said something to the effect of "jazz isn't a what, it's a how." It's all about process.

I play a lot of solo guitar...and i debate whether or not i can actually call it jazz, even though i'm improvising almost constantly, because jazz seems to require a conversation as part of that "process." Doesn't make it "lesser" music. I just get bothered when i see folks try and debate points that are so obvious if you look at evidence.

[christianm77]

Well based on that logic, everything is jazz and nothing is jazz. According to your reasoning why is this not jazz?

No. That is not jazz by my logic.

Jazz is a term applied to some, but not all music of African American heritage (although it may be performed by non-African American people.) This is found in the characteristic rhythmic nature of the music.

[christianm77]

Good post ^^^^(going ti dutchbopper, i type too slow)

Not ti be the a-hole who comes in with a famous player's quote, but Bill Evans said something to the effect of "jazz isn't a what, it's a how." It's all about process.

I play a lot of solo guitar...and i debate whether or not i can actually call it jazz, even though i'm improvising almost constantly, because jazz seems to require a conversation as part of that "process." Doesn't make it "lesser" music. I just get bothered when i see folks try and debate points that are so obvious if you look at evidence.

I disagree with Bill Evans.

There, I said it. Now for my punishment >_<

[christianm77]

(Although I'll quickly say the how of jazz is primarily a rhythmic 'how.' if that makes any kind of sense...)

[ColinO]

So it's just the rhythmic quality that makes it jazz and that African Americans developed it? So if Bach was African American and he played the same thing with swing it would be jazz? I don't think you really believe that.

[targuit]

Dutch and anyone else, of course - I love Joe Pass and I've listened to him since before Virtuoso was released. What do you think of his last two albums or CDs - Songs for Ellen and the other one I cannot remember at the moment at work, in which he played a lot of nylon string guitar and 'arranged' or played in a rather more straightforward and lyrical way, eschewing some of his trademark single note runs and chordal flourishes which were trademarks of his long career.

Did him playing The Shadow Of Your Smile, My Romance, and other tunes in a relatively straight fashion diminish the artistry in your opinion?

Jay

[christianm77]

So it's just the rhythmic quality that makes it jazz and that African Americans developed it? So if Bach was African American and he played the same thing with swing it would be jazz? I don't think you really believe that.

Exactly that.

But then you kind of have this situation with Choro music in Brazil - rather Bachian in places, very written/composed but with a African influence in the rhythm. Is it jazz? Probably not, but is that just because it comes from Brazil and not New Orleans? What about Ragtime?

But it is certainly part of the related sphere of African diaspora music.

I don't expect everyone to agree. Jazz is a pretty crap name for it really. Which is probably why no great 'jazz' musician was truly comfortable with the label.

A lot of people point out 'jazz' like 'rag' was a verb early on - you jazz something, which fits in with Bill Evan's quote.

Evans was heavily influenced by the Lennie Tristano school which emphasises true - i.e. spontaneous - improvisation. Not every great jazz musician did/does this.

I prefer Ellington's take:

'it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.'

I suppose now we can spend hours disagreeing about what swing is (lets not haha)

[mr. beaumont]

Joe was so good he could just sit down and improvise like that on the fly. Joe could just play tunes. He wasn't spending hours on arrangements...that's what made joe so special.

[fep]

Just because it's not improvised and many might not consider something jazz, that doesn't mean it's not great or admirable. There are other elements to admire; the composition, the interpretation, the technique etc.

Saying something is not jazz is not necessarily derogatory.

[targuit]

Joe Pass often practiced five to six hours a day as a kid under his father's watch, before and after school. Obviously talented as well. Btw, in my opinion Joe was taught a classical style approach, as his fingering and style to me is very much out of the classical tradition, with the exception that he did not adopt a "perfect" classical right hand arch to his wrist. But let's remember he grew up among Italian immigrant families in PA, so very likely his guitar influences were from the classical school.

Jeff, I understand what you are saying about Joe's creativity and facility with making (jazz) music, but the way you put it almost implies a kind of straw man "either or" type dynamic which I don't think is true. Just an opinion, mind you.
When you say Joe never spent time "arranging" his music, remember that Joe's admonition to aspiring guitarists was "to learn tunes!" Maybe it is a matter of semantics, but to me that is in part what arranging is. Voicing, the melody, harmonies. That does not imply that he played the same tune the same way twice. I don't either.

Jay

[christianm77]

Is, say, Gil Evans, Neil Hefti or Fletcher Henderson's arrangements not jazz? Or are they only jazz when played by jazz musicians and perhaps improvised on?

Not sure about the answer to this one myself, but great arrangers are very much part of jazz history.

[christianm77]

Saying something is not jazz is not necessarily derogatory.

Sure. Quite a lot of contemporary jazz - such as Aaron Park's or perhaps Wayne Krantz's music, I don't really hear as jazz at all, but rather instrumental prog rock of some kind. I still like it, and I don't even see the value in thinking 'well they can play bebop so therefore that makes them OK.'

In this case, I reckon it's bad marketing. People who like say Can or King Crimson, might love Wayne Krantz, but someone into Mulgrew Miller might not go for it (or they might do.) Terming his music contemporary jazz and programming his music at jazz clubs seems a bit silly to me.

But then, what do I know? I am 'inside jazz' so maybe my ears are a bit messed up, and people 'outside' of our weird little sect might think that it's all far too jazzy for them.

[mr. beaumont]

For someone "inside jazz" you have a pretty strict concept of what it is and isn't.

[targuit]

I liked that segment of the interview with Metheny where he says essentially, "It's all music." I feel that way when I hear Lucia Micarelli (sp), violinist and now actress, playing with Chris Botti and the Boston Pops orchestra (2008) along with Billy Child and Mark Whitfield. (Btw, Lucia started playing at three and had here first concert recital at six!)

To me the labels fall away - Botti is the number one selling jazz artist today and he was inspired by Miles Davis, attended Indiana University and hangs with some very heavy hitters with grace and aplomb. And he can play with a unique tone. I think the guy is fantastic.

As you guys often say, musicians are the ones who can play, while the critics who wish to define them are usually the 'wanna-bes'. It is all music at some level. But maybe that is too generic. I don't really care.

Jay

[eh6794]

NSJ, great story about Joe. Hes my favorite, but watching him teach was hilarious. At first I thought he was dumbing down his style for the students, but I think it may have been real.

I also agree that at times it does sound like noodling. Hes still my favorite

[jazz.fred]

Although his chops are impressive and his technique flawless, there is no mistaking the fact that he is a classical musician playing jazz, rather than a jazz musician playing jazz. I think if we were to juxtapose his playing against that of Charlie Byrd, who famously brought "classical technique" on nylon strings to jazz guitar, the difference would become immediately apparent. Byrd was unmistakably a jazz musician. This observation in no way detracts from the gentleman's brilliant performance.

[PMB]

Good post ^^^^(going ti dutchbopper, i type too slow)

Not ti be the a-hole who comes in with a famous player's quote, but Bill Evans said something to the effect of "jazz isn't a what, it's a how." It's all about process.

Not too far removed from Pat Metheny's remark that "... jazz is a verb - it’s more like a process than it is a thing."

[christianm77]

For someone "inside jazz" you have a pretty strict concept of what it is and isn't.

Yes.

A narrow definition is more useful than a hazy, ill defined one. Why bother with a definition at all otherwise?

(You can probably tell my training is in science :-) Not everyone thinks that way.)

I didn't invent any of the stuff I've been saying BTW - like most on this forum, my understanding of (the) music has come from reading interviews, attending masterclasses and seminars by musicians I admire, and taking away from all the various conflicting viewpoints an understanding that seems persuasive and useful to me.

In essence, I consider jazz a dead art form, which might alienate or seem patently untrue a lot of people here, but using my narrow definition, I don't see that as depressing at all.

The music has in the past 40 years failed to produce anyone of the cultural importance of Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker or Miles Davis.

Why do I say this? Why do I think this has happened? The older systems that kept jazz going are dead - the apprenticeships, the touring bands, the old informal system of education. The link to the past is severed. One excellent young musician I spoke to described the current scene as a 'pyramid selling scheme.' For musicians creating new music that seems a bit depressing, but there's also a sense of safety there.

This is understood well by the older generation of musicians in particular, it seems.

(BTW it's an interesting cultural phenomenon that a lot of dead forms are being stylistically resurrected - such as Early Music, or the Swing music that pays my bills, which perhaps the sign of an essentially decadent culture?)

Creative music, influenced by jazz and other forms, is alive and well. Some music is played by people with a background in jazz, some with backgrounds in other forms. It's all there for our enjoyment.

I think killing the term 'jazz' completely would actually do music a lot of good, so I agree with Nicholas Payton, I guess. It's revealing that people talk about 'the music' rather than 'music.'

I understand that what I'm saying might be emotive or alienating to people - but bear in mind, I'm not having a go at anyone. I'm not denigrating any musicians, I'm not saying playing new music is bad, or playing bebop is stupid.

All I'm saying this that this term jazz should either be as narrowly defined as something like the Classical Era, because I can't see any advantages in labelling your own, new, music that way.

TL;DR Jazz is dead, long live Music

[ronjazz]

I think that the Italian guitarist playing Choro de Saudade is a jazz musician, since he can clearly play jazz, with both the improvisational and rhythmic requirements intact. If he is also a classical musician, so be it, and he enters the realm of Musician, period. Jazz is attitude and process, or, as Whitney Bailliet put it, the "sound of surprise". John Williams is a classical musician, much to his disappointment; he just cannot get the swing and the flow down. I tried to teach him, but he clearly didn't have the cultural underpinnings. In the past 3 or 4 decades, we have all had easy access to music from every place and time, and putting ourselves in a little box called jazz or rock or anything else is only creating limitations, especially in the jazz world, where so many styles and approaches co-exist. And as far as solo guitar goes, what could one call Joe pass's solo exploits besides jazz? While jazz is mostly a social and interactive art form, the great soloists, like Tatum, Jarret, Pass and Breau, among many others, are certainly playing jazz.

[christianm77]

I think that the Italian guitarist playing Choro de Saudade is a jazz musician, since he can clearly play jazz, with both the improvisational and rhythmic requirements intact.

I think he sounds great. Why care about anything else?

[Paultergeist]

You should be banned from this page forever. You give it a bad name. And as far as your skills are concerned, I am not holding my breath. Give me a clip of your take on Donna Lee or STFU. Ain't gonna happen huh? Mark, get rid of this guy.
DB

Wow.....stumbled upon an interesting-looking thread......decided to shoot for a couple of posts right in the middle and get a sense of the thread......and voila! Rather funny, really.......just stop and feel the *love*......

[mr. beaumont]

Yes.

A narrow definition is more useful than a hazy, ill defined one. Why bother with a definition at all otherwise?

(You can probably tell my training is in science :-) Not everyone thinks that way.)

I didn't invent any of the stuff I've been saying BTW - like most on this forum, my understanding of (the) music has come from reading interviews, attending masterclasses and seminars by musicians I admire, and taking away from all the various conflicting viewpoints an understanding that seems persuasive and useful to me.

In essence, I consider jazz a dead art form, which might alienate or seem patently untrue a lot of people here, but using my narrow definition, I don't see that as depressing at all.

The music has in the past 40 years failed to produce anyone of the cultural importance of Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker or Miles Davis.

Why do I say this? Why do I think this has happened? The older systems that kept jazz going are dead - the apprenticeships, the touring bands, the old informal system of education. The link to the past is severed. One excellent young musician I spoke to described the current scene as a 'pyramid selling scheme.' For musicians creating new music that seems a bit depressing, but there's also a sense of safety there.

This is understood well by the older generation of musicians in particular, it seems.

(BTW it's an interesting cultural phenomenon that a lot of dead forms are being stylistically resurrected - such as Early Music, or the Swing music that pays my bills, which perhaps the sign of an essentially decadent culture?)

Creative music, influenced by jazz and other forms, is alive and well. Some music is played by people with a background in jazz, some with backgrounds in other forms. It's all there for our enjoyment.

I think killing the term 'jazz' completely would actually do music a lot of good, so I agree with Nicholas Payton, I guess. It's revealing that people talk about 'the music' rather than 'music.'

I understand that what I'm saying might be emotive or alienating to people - but bear in mind, I'm not having a go at anyone. I'm not denigrating any musicians, I'm not saying playing new music is bad, or playing bebop is stupid.

All I'm saying this that this term jazz should either be as narrowly defined as something like the Classical Era, because I can't see any advantages in labelling your own, new, music that way.

TL;DR Jazz is dead, long live Music

It's sad how wrong you are. It's your attitude that's killing jazz, if anything. There's HUNDREDS of great jazz players out there today, making vital, fresh, challenging music. You're stuck on this 1950's bebop ideal. A shame really, you're missing out.

I'm gonna go put on some Francisco Mela now.

[Paultergeist]

For my own edification on the "Sounds nice, but is it jazz?" debate:

There seems to be a pretty substantial thrust present within this thread that a requirement for music to be considered jazz is that it must be somewhat improvised......or so I am at least gleaning from this thread.

An interesting hypothetical scenario pops into my mind:

I go and hear a musician playing a familar song (i.e. standard), but it is a version of the song which I have never heard before. This version has -- to my ears -- complex chord substitutions and also minor variations of the (traditional) melody. I therefore deduce that this is an improvision of the original tune and therefore qualifies as being jazz.

Then, a friend joins me while listening to this musician and states: "I recognize that arrnagement....it is Famous Musician X's version.....played note-for-note." Now.....since I have now become aware that this is a note-for-note playing of a pre-existing arrangement, I thus deduce that it is not jazz.

Later, I go and hear Famous Musician X in concert, playing the same tune I had heard earlier, only now in an entirely new way, and I conclude "Wow.....totally different...totally new improvised version...that is really jazz."

At the end of the concert, I go to an autograph, and I compliment Famous Musician X and the totally cool new jazz version of the song he played earlier in concert, to which Famous Musician X replies: "That was just a different arrangement....one created some time ago which I had memorized and regurgitated tonight note-for-note....so it was not jazz."

Along these lines of thought, do we as listeners need to know what is going on within the mind of the performer in order to really deduce whether or not something qualifies as being "jazz?"

[Dutchbopper]

Along these lines of thought, do we as listeners need to know what is going on within the mind of the performer in order to really deduce whether or not something qualifies as being "jazz?"

We do not as a listener. But we do as an artist.

What if the artist is not really playing but playing back? And that nobody noticed it and everybody liked it. That ok too?

The process does matter. Eric Dolphy once stated even:

• When you hear music, after it’s over, it’s gone, in the air, you can never capture it again.

DB