Jazz - European and African influences?

[ejwhite09]

I think the debate of European v African influence in Jazz misses the point. Rather Jazz is something that could not have happened without the meeting of the two traditions. Even the 'blues' which is called Americas folk music, which is why Jazz is called America's classical music because it is a cultured outgrowth of the folk medium. As classical music is from European folk music.
Even the Blues would be impossible without the meeting of the two traditions, they are mingled and create something completely different. European hymnal tradition introduced African slaves to european harmonies through hymnals...but I and IV as dominant chords! That's something that is uniquely American and uniquely blues. Jazz is an outgrowth of this folk style(influenced by classical european harmonies, introduction of major sixths instead of dominant I's). I would argue by the time the blues developes it has already outgrown 'African/European' influences and has become American. And by the time of Jazz it's silly to even ponder. This is, oddly, an uniquely American obsession. In Europe, they've simply called it American music, since Ragtime.
For me, it was giving young black musicians who probably otherwise would have been bluesmen or even less grand outcomes, conservatory educations that lead to the explosion of music known as jazz. I don't really think it matters how many white people versus how many black people were involved.
The history of American music, shows a side of America, that was not commiserate with the offical stance, that there was a lot of 'race mixing' among musicians long before it was ever permissible officially. So I think trying to pick apart who brought what, is not only missing the point but ahistorical. By the time of jazz and blues forming(and lets remember these are artforms barely 100 years old)these influences were American, people whether they were white or black were pulling from the same bucket of influences. And musical differences probably had more to do with geography than race at this time in American history. I think the division of musical genre by race is something that occurred in the 50s as popular music attempted to confine itself to the racial policies of the United States.
But as far as West End Blues, I just transcribed it the other night and its full of blue notes. It's in Eb and there are plenty of Gb's and Db's in the introduction. At one section he's just wailing on the b7 and root. The last of the first four notes is a Gb and, to me anyway, fundamentally effects the sound. Of course simply because something is named blah blah blues doesn't make it a blues. I think it would be hard to play something 'bluesy' and not atleast hit the minor third as a passing tone, atleast to my ear, it would sound more countrified.

[ejwhite09]

. Probably anyone under the age of 40 doesn't have any idea who Bernstein is.

Are you serious? REM had that song it's the end of the world as we know it.....and everybody waits for the break...Leonard Bernstein!! Though I guess, if you were listening to that song when it first came out you'd probbably be 40 or about, seeing as the song is as old as my little brother, who is 23, so i guess not so little no mo.

But on a serious note, Wynton Marsalis said on 60 minutes when Morley Safer asked him was he sad that kids today may not know who Charlie Parker or Duke Ellington is, and he said "not just kids people my own age, and not just Charlie Parker or Duke Ellington, but Walt Whitman! How can we ever come together as a people if we have no idea what binds us together as a people?" The most elegant way I've ever heard the sorry ass state of America put.

[orasnon]

Personally, when I think of jazz as an artform, I conceptualize it as an "emergent culture", which by definition possesses characteristics that cannot be simply reduced discursively into its elemental stylistic components (eg classical, 'african', etc). This conception explains why the OP's theory is doomed to shipwreck...

[ejwhite09]

Personally, when I think of jazz as an artform, I conceptualize it as an "emergent culture", which by definition possesses characteristics that cannot be simply reduced discursively into its elemental stylistic components (eg classical, 'african', etc). This conception explains why the OP's theory is doomed to shipwreck...

I wouldnt go that far, I would say its doomed because, given,that American culture had been well formed by the time blues and jazz come around and blacks and whites actually lived in closer proximity at this time than probably ever since, diverging who knew what is futile.
The jazz as emergent and developed is a debate that rages, I think its formation can be analyzed, jazz has emerged its disparate forms have been catalogued and turned,into for,all purposes common practice theory. Classical music is still composed, but,its time as an emergent culture is over. Id say the same for jazz.

[ksjazzguitar]

It's full of them, unless flattened thirds over major / dominant chords are no longer blue notes. They always were in my day, but I expect they aren't microtonal enough for you....

Can you point them out? Are you still really asserting that there are no classic jazz solos without blue notes? And you seem obsessed with this "microtonal" thing - it's just a word. It's just a way to distinguish blue note that are in the temperament and those that aren't.

I think the debate of European v African influence in Jazz misses the point. Rather Jazz is something that could not have happened without the meeting of the two traditions. ...
Even the Blues would be impossible without the meeting of the two traditions, they are mingled and create something completely different. European hymnal tradition introduced African slaves to european harmonies through hymnals...

I agree 100%.

but I and IV as dominant chords! That's something that is uniquely American and uniquely blues.

Yes. I agree that the blue note is one of the African theoretical concepts that clearly is not of white origin. Clearly the idea of the use of a tonic dominant 7th being used in otherwise tonal harmony is not of white origin (not without some ridiculous stretching anyway.)

The history of American music, shows a side of America, that was not commiserate with the offical stance, that there was a lot of 'race mixing' among musicians long before it was ever permissible officially.

Yeah, when I lived in New Orleans, most of the old timers I met said that the musicians mixed freely. They said it was mainly racist club owners that kept them from performing together.

So I think trying to pick apart who brought what, is not only missing the point but ahistorical. By the time of jazz and blues forming(and lets remember these are artforms barely 100 years old)these influences were American, people whether they were white or black were pulling from the same bucket of influences.

Yes. But you're just looking at the parents of jazz. I was asking who the grandparents were.

But as far as West End Blues, I just transcribed it the other night and its full of blue notes. It's in Eb and there are plenty of Gb's and Db's in the introduction....

I guess it depends on definitions. All those Abs just look like chromatic neighbors and passing tones - completely consistent with classical tradition. If we're just going to define any #9 that resolves to a 3 as a blue note, then Mozart was a master of blue notes. Those Dbs, well I don't really consider a note that is diatonic to the chord to be a blue note - not in the sense that I thought we meant. In this sense I thought that we meant a non-scale tone that is used against the chord as a stable dissonance. But perhaps we're using different definitions. If you are defining a b7 over a dominant chord as a blue note then all blues would automatically have it. I agree that the b7 blue note helped to cement the idea of the dominant chord as tonic. But once that dominant chord became tonic harmony, that b7 is now diatonic. I seem to remember some Ravel that used a tonic dominant 7th - is that a blue note?

But perhaps it's just a matter of definition. I just chose that because I had it handy in Norton and a quick perusal didn't find any notes that could not be explained by standard chromatic function of diatonicism. Do you guys still really maintain that a jazz solo without a blue note is impossible? Do I really need to look?

Personally, when I think of jazz as an artform, I conceptualize it as an "emergent culture", which by definition possesses characteristics that cannot be simply reduced discursively into its elemental stylistic components (eg classical, 'african', etc). This conception explains why the OP's theory is doomed to shipwreck...

But the problems that you mention are the same problems for any history or theory. All history is by definition imperfect, as is all theory. They are at best generalizations and approximations. (I'm sure I could make some Godel-ian argument here, but I'm too tired.) Jazz musicians like to make this argument of the "exceptionalism" of jazz - that the normal rules don't apply to it. But that is how everyone feels about their own art.

The jazz as emergent and developed is a debate that rages, I think its formation can be analyzed, jazz has emerged its disparate forms have been catalogued and turned,into for,all purposes common practice theory. Classical music is still composed, but,its time as an emergent culture is over. Id say the same for jazz.

American culture had been well formed by the time blues and jazz come around and blacks and whites actually lived in closer proximity at this time than probably ever since, diverging who knew what is futile.

Actually, just a nitpicky point. In researching a paper on coon song I was surprised to find out that actually blacks and whites had achieved their greatest level of "togetherness" after the civil war. For a brief time, things were going much better. As Reconstruction failed (largely and unfairly blamed on blacks, even today) and for other complex reasons too numerous to mention racism took a dramatic upswing. That's when you see a lot of segregation and Jim Crow laws popping up. That's when things start turning really nasty. Things didn't really start getting better until the 60s. It's a little OT, but I found it interesting. I'd always assumed that things had been gradually getting better - turns out I was wrong.

And again, my point isn't that early jazz musicians were consciously picking and choosing from the two traditions. When I chose the words "smart," "intelligent," or "erudite" I'm not consiously deciding to choose a word whose origin is from Old English, from French, or from Latin - I'm just choosing a word. But looking at the ultimate origins is of interest to linguists. In the same way, I'm looking back farther for the origins of the jazz language, rather than the easy answer of the people who invented it. What were their influences, and the people that influenced them? I really don't understand people's objections to this process.

Peace,
Kevin

[ejwhite09]

I guess it depends on definitions. All those Abs just look like chromatic neighbors and passing tones - completely consistent with classical tradition. If we're just going to define any #9 that resolves to a 3 as a blue note, then Mozart was a master of blue notes. Those Dbs, well I don't really consider a note that is diatonic to the chord to be a blue note - not in the sense that I thought we meant. In this sense I thought that we meant a non-scale tone that is used against the chord as a stable dissonance. But perhaps we're using different definitions. If you are defining a b7 over a dominant chord as a blue note then all blues would automatically have it. I agree that the b7 blue note helped to cement the idea of the dominant chord as tonic. But once that dominant chord became tonic harmony, that b7 is now diatonic. I seem to remember some Ravel that used a tonic dominant 7th - is that a blue note?

But perhaps it's just a matter of definition. I just chose that because I had it handy in Norton and a quick perusal didn't find any notes that could not be explained by standard chromatic function of diatonicism. Do you guys still really maintain that a jazz solo without a blue note is impossible? Do I really need to look?



Actually, just a nitpicky point. In researching a paper on coon song I was surprised to find out that actually blacks and whites had achieved their greatest level of "togetherness" after the civil war. For a brief time, things were going much better. As Reconstruction failed (largely and unfairly blamed on blacks, even today) and for other complex reasons too numerous to mention racism took a dramatic upswing. That's when you see a lot of segregation and Jim Crow laws popping up. That's when things start turning really nasty. Things didn't really start getting better until the 60s. It's a little OT, but I found it interesting. I'd always assumed that things had been gradually getting better - turns out I was wrong.

And again, my point isn't that early jazz musicians were consciously picking and choosing from the two traditions. When I chose the words "smart," "intelligent," or "erudite" I'm not consiously deciding to choose a word whose origin is from Old English, from French, or from Latin - I'm just choosing a word. But looking at the ultimate origins is of interest to linguists. In the same way, I'm looking back farther for the origins of the jazz language, rather than the easy answer of the people who invented it. What were their influences, and the people that influenced them? I really don't understand people's objections to this process.

Peace,
Kevin

Well to be nitpicky I didn't make a statement on 'togetherness' but rather physical proximity. Even through the nadir of Redemption and Plessy, whites and blacks, especially in the rural south, lived in close physical proximity, having near if not daily contact with each other, this allowed cross pollinization which creates the unique stew of Southern culture that produced the blues and jazz, it's also the reason I say the South is the only region of the United States with 'culture.' Boston has no culture, unless you consider culture, heaping upon the Irish culture nostalgia ad naseum culture. Segregation, as a fact of life, economic, social, and most important housing, is largely an urban and largely a northern development. My father who was born in 1953, in rural Alabama, went to segregated schools, and lived close enough to white people to deal with them everyday, though they did not go to the same school. The tragic irony in American race relations is that, when the official line race in this country was one of official superiority and inferiority we, atleast in the South, and I imagine, given the low number of blacks and their relative affluence in the North, there as well, a certain proximity between the races existed, even if it wasn't social. As race relations have supposedly improved, it seems blacks and whites have become even more physically segregated than before. In fact, I often say, it seems we did all this fighting to be Equal But Separate.

I consider a blue note to be the flat third the flat fifth and the flat seventh, the notes which denote the blues scale, in Eb the Gb, the A, and the Db, all of which are present in the introduction solo, and I think treated rythmically important enough to be classfied as a little grander than passing chromatics, and in the essence that the flat fifth is presented, especially, the the chromatic use is the blues scale Ab A Bb is the phrase Armstrong uses.

But, no, I think it is ridiculous to say a jazz solo cannot be played without a blue note. Though it might be hard to play a 'modern, hip' solo without a #2 or #4(which are blue notes). Perhaps thats a good exercise for students, especially guys who come out of years of rocking pentatonic licks.

I don't object to the research, I think some have taken exception to the framing of the question and the premise, which are valid. I for one, think trying to distill American culture to the point where African and European influences were distinct is pretty impossible, its a chicken and egg debate. I take the chicken approach, for me, without the cultural pollination which made something with totally new DNA called American culture, the blues and jazz would never have happened. So the dicussion is merely one of recipe, nothing more. And one can't possibly discuss blues or jazz without mention of ragtime, which is proto jazz, in many ways jazz without the improvisation factor. dixieland, etc. Jazz, is itself a mutt, like American culture. And I mean it in a good way. I think the diversity of influences in America, is why our music, has by and large become the popular music of the entire world.

[ksjazzguitar]

Well to be nitpicky I didn't make a statement on 'togetherness' but rather physical proximity.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I think that there was always cross-polination going on below the surface. Zinn goes into how rich whites actually tried to foster animosity between poor whites and blacks for fear that they might band together and revolt. A few times they tried.

...lived in close physical proximity, having near if not daily contact with each other, this allowed cross pollinization which creates the unique stew of Southern culture that produced the blues and jazz, it's also the reason I say the South is the only region of the United States with 'culture.'

Well, I think that that is a heated statement. I think that there are many Tex-Mex people that might disagree. The Southwest has a different culture, as does the Pacific Northwest, etc. If you start with the notion that it is only culture if it comes out of African-American influence, then what you say is true by definition. But if you look, most regions and even subregions have their own culture, even if it's not so obvious on the surface. Having lived in every corner of the US, I find that to be true.

Segregation, as a fact of life, economic, social, and most important housing, is largely an urban and largely a northern development.

Well, in all fairness, there was plenty of segregation in the South after the fall of Reconstruction. You are correct that in the beginning of the 20th century there was plenty of segregation in the North, especially in urban areas, as blacks migrated to Northern cities looking for jobs. But the North was a late comer to the segregation and also the first one to leave. (Even if they were an enthusiastic participant for a while.)


My father who was born in 1953, in rural Alabama, went to segregated schools, and lived close enough to white people to deal with them everyday, though they did not go to the same school. The tragic irony in American race relations is that, when the official line race in this country was one of official superiority and inferiority we, atleast in the South, and I imagine, given the low number of blacks and their relative affluence in the North, there as well, a certain proximity between the races existed, even if it wasn't social. As race relations have supposedly improved, it seems blacks and whites have become even more physically segregated than before. In fact, I often say, it seems we did all this fighting to be Equal But Separate.

I consider a blue note to be the flat third the flat fifth and the flat seventh, the notes which denote the blues scale, in Eb the Gb, the A, and the Db, all of which are present in the introduction solo, and I think treated rythmically important enough to be classfied as a little grander than passing chromatics, and in the essence that the flat fifth is presented, especially, the the chromatic use is the blues scale Ab A Bb is the phrase Armstrong uses.

Again, if you look through the Classical and Romantic literature, then you'll find many chromatic notes in rhythmically important spots. If this is what you are calling blue notes, then they were invented by Mozart, Beethoven, and Wagner. And again, simply defining a diatonic note over a tonic dominant chord as a blue note I think also renders the meaning less valuable. To me, the definition is only useful if we are talking about a dissonant note that is treated as a consonance. Someone once defined blues for me as, "Playing a minor scale over major chords." An oversimplification for sure, but it gets at this idea that the blue note a note that contrasts with the chord, and is part of the scale (not just a chromatic approach.)

But, no, I think it is ridiculous to say a jazz solo cannot be played without a blue note.

That was kind of the point that I was after. If good jazz solos can be made without blue notes, then clearly blue notes are not a requirement, by definition. That was my point - that they are not part of the structure of jazz, since the edifice can stand without them. True, they are an important stylistic element and are part of the flavor of jazz. (Once again, all of you please don't assume that "flavor" is an insult - flavor is important.)

I will say that I can see the blue note as (possibly) the only theoretical element contributed by the African tradition. The other elements (swing, HSI, imrpov, group dynamic) are more performance issues. (Very important indeed, but just not part of the "music theory.") I explore that a little in the other thread: The division between classical and jazz theory.... Perhaps that would have been the better (and less racially charged) way to approach the subject. I just hate having to pussyfoot around subjects for fear that people might misunderstand and overreact.

And one can't possibly discuss blues or jazz without mention of ragtime, which is proto jazz, in many ways jazz without the improvisation factor. dixieland, etc. Jazz, is itself a mutt, like American culture. And I mean it in a good way. I think the diversity of influences in America, is why our music, has by and large become the popular music of the entire world.

Yes, the road to blues and jazz certainly was a complicated one. You can even take it back to pre-rag coon song writers like Hogan, Cole, etc. Some of the first rags to appear in print were alternate accompaniments in the piano scores of their tunes. (I was also shocked to see how many of the racists elements and stereotypes in their lyrics perpetuated even into jazz lyrics - but that's a discussion for another time.)

Again, I wasn't trying to determine the parents of jazz. I wanted to know where their ancestors come from, and why people seem to place a greater importance and emphasis on one and not the other (at least in popular culture.)

Peace,
Kevin

[ejwhite09]

Sorry if I misunderstood. I think that there was always cross-polination going on below the surface. Zinn goes into how rich whites actually tried to foster animosity between poor whites and blacks for fear that they might band together and revolt. A few times they tried.

This is true, I live in Virginia, and there is great historical creedence to race as a function of class. In Virginia slaves and indentured servants(I think we'd call them rednecks today) lived together, intermarried, etc. It was Bacon's rebillion a union of poor whites and blacks that lead to the many of the racial laws by the time of Nat Turner and Prosser's Gabriel, poor revolts had become slave revolts.

Well, I think that that is a heated statement. I think that there are many Tex-Mex people that might disagree. The Southwest has a different culture, as does the Pacific Northwest, etc. If you start with the notion that it is only culture if it comes out of African-American influence, then what you say is true by definition. But if you look, most regions and even subregions have their own culture, even if it's not so obvious on the surface. Having lived in every corner of the US, I find that to be true.

Of course, its a heated statement, I've been to the entire US, and outside of the South, I'm sorry there is no culture. Tell what is uniquely cultural about LA, San Francisco, New York, Boston, or Chicago? If anything these regions merely, experience some sort of painfully trite nostalgia for an 'old country' they've never seen, or some watered down version of southern american culture. I'm sorry enormously cut pizza slices and deep dishes, aren't culture. And as famously said about Chicago, 'everything good there came from somewhere else' including its music which came from where? Culture comes from pain and suffereing, and on this the South has the only true claim. The tortured past of the South has melded a unique culture which doesn't merely consist of pining for Europe, in some form. South does not equate African American. In fact, I don't like this term, I perfer Black American, personally, I'm not African, I'm an American who is Black. My friend whose father immigrated from Nigeria is an African American, like my friend whose grandfather immigrated from Ireland is an Irish American, but theres no record port of entry for my ancestors and my family has been here longer than 90% of the people who ever told me to go back to Africa, so I perfer the term Black American, as it more closely identifies my identity. So when I say the South, I mean the whites, blacks, latinos, etc, that were here in this region, I'd say Tex Mex is pretty southern, after all what is it? Mexican dishes meeting Southern American cooking techniques. This occurs in the South because of the proximity of cultures, which simply does not exist and never did on any large scale, in the North or other regions of the nation. Sure, in San Francisco you can walk through town and hear three dialects of Chinese and get some great Suishi, that may be culture, but it ain't ours.

Well, in all fairness, there was plenty of segregation in the South after the fall of Reconstruction. You are correct that in the beginning of the 20th century there was plenty of segregation in the North, especially in urban areas, as blacks migrated to Northern cities looking for jobs. But the North was a late comer to the segregation and also the first one to leave. (Even if they were an enthusiastic participant for a while.)

There was no segregation in the South after Reconstruction except in urban areas, the South wasn't majority urban until maybe as late as the 50s or 60s of the last century, in rural areas this physical segregation did not exist. Which is why the the Redemption of the South is such a tragedy in America, because blacks were stripped of their citizenship with and efficiency that would not be matched until the Nazis with the Jewish citizenship laws in the 1930s. Yet it produced the same farce, people literally lived and sharecropped next to each other, segregation was more a product of town or city, in the rural areas the culture ruminated. You seem to think, I'm implying some sort of happy coexistence, what I'm saying is there was a physical closeness, which need not be peaceful coexistence which exposes others to others influences. (Take a look at punk and ska in England in the 80s. Where young English kids would listen to Carribbean influenced music and then go beat up recent Carribbean immigrants). This physical closeness did not exist in other regions of the US, in 2011 in NYC, white people still talk about 125th st as if its the gates of Dante's inferno. And black people talk about trips to 'downtown' as if they are excursions to another planet. Segregation is an urban event. You're also, confusing de jure with de facto. The south had a legal system of relations between the races in public discourse. But the idea of ethnic neighborhoods and enclaves didn't happen in the South until the urbanisation began in earnest, its no coincidence this occured with the Civil Rights movement. My mother's family is from Pittsburgh, I'd say the North still has more de facto segregation, even to the extreme in Northern cities, even different white ethnicities are ghettoized. There never was the physical proximity in great numbers in the north of different groups. Which is why you have such strong cultural preservation in the North, its why you can still walk through little Itlay and hear old timers going on in italian. Or Chinese people talking Mandarin or Catonese in Chinatown. Even in larger Southern cities, you don't have this kind of cultural perservation.

But this is really a debate for another thread.

Again, if you look through the Classical and Romantic literature, then you'll find many chromatic notes in rhythmically important spots. If this is what you are calling blue notes, then they were invented by Mozart, Beethoven, and Wagner. And again, simply defining a diatonic note over a tonic dominant chord as a blue note I think also renders the meaning less valuable. To me, the definition is only useful if we are talking about a dissonant note that is treated as a consonance. Someone once defined blues for me as, "Playing a minor scale over major chords." An oversimplification for sure, but it gets at this idea that the blue note a note that contrasts with the chord, and is part of the scale (not just a chromatic approach.)

I think its as ridiculous to say that a jazz solo cannot be played without blue notes as it is to say that blue notes were invented by Mozart. I think its how they were thought off. Mozart may have thought of them as passing chromatics, with little melodic or harmonic information. b3 b5 b7 are what, everybody I've ever encountered in my life have refered to as blue notes. they are the notes which define the blues scale. every blue note in the Armstrong solo is not followed chormatically, simply to say he uses blue notes in the solo. I mean if you want to get technical and apply theoretical concepts that did not exist at the time, I could easily say Armstrong is clearly playing a bebop scale, in this solo. That would be ridiculous, as bebop still had 20 years to wait to develop and the bebop scale longer still. I don't think you can say one person started using 'blue notes' unless you complied all music ever made and analyzed it, an impossible task. I would say what makes the blues the blues is the degree to which blue notes are used on their own. Playing minor over major is a very simplisitc way, in my view, to advocate the blues scale. Which is minor has a flat seventh, and a flat 5th, so do eastern europen folk songs(which are heavily minor). Db is NOT diatonic to Eb major. If the I chord is dominant, then it is modal and to think of it as Eb major would obviously lead one to see Db is not diatonic to Eb, except in a minor/modal, manner. I think of the blues as modal music. I hear these motions as dissonant. When he plays the b7 root riff, it sounds dissonant to me, I can hear that b7 is just a bit off from where the key center is.

[ejwhite09]

That was kind of the point that I was after. If good jazz solos can be made without blue notes, then clearly blue notes are not a requirement, by definition. That was my point - that they are not part of the structure of jazz, since the edifice can stand without them. True, they are an important stylistic element and are part of the flavor of jazz. (Once again, all of you please don't assume that "flavor" is an insult - flavor is important.)

I will say that I can see the blue note as (possibly) the only theoretical element contributed by the African tradition. The other elements (swing, HSI, imrpov, group dynamic) are more performance issues. (Very important indeed, but just not part of the "music theory.") I explore that a little in the other thread: The division between classical and jazz theory.... Perhaps that would have been the better (and less racially charged) way to approach the subject. I just hate having to pussyfoot around subjects for fear that people might misunderstand and overreact.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are not requirement, I feel, you could do it, but I feel you'd have a real hard time making a hip solo without blue notes, as I've defined them, to be honest. The emphasis and pentatonic nature of most African melodies may have something to do with it, but many English ballads are pentatonic. I think being understood is as important as not being misunderstood.

Yes, the road to blues and jazz certainly was a complicated one. You can even take it back to pre-rag coon song writers like Hogan, Cole, etc. Some of the first rags to appear in print were alternate accompaniments in the piano scores of their tunes. (I was also shocked to see how many of the racists elements and stereotypes in their lyrics perpetuated even into jazz lyrics - but that's a discussion for another time.)

Again, I wasn't trying to determine the parents of jazz. I wanted to know where their ancestors come from, and why people seem to place a greater importance and emphasis on one and not the other (at least in popular culture.)

I think this African v European thing is a purely American way to look at things, which is through a racially obsessed looking glass. For me this debate is always about, who did more white people or black people. Had the culture not melded into something unique, not only would there be no rock and roll, r&b, jazz, blues, but there'd be no country, no country western, no bluegrass. So I honestly think its a false debate that really hides, pussyfoots, if you will around what people are actually debating. Which is some backhanded, roundabout argument of racial pride.
Peace,
Kevin[/quote]

[orasnon]

I wouldnt go that far, I would say its doomed because, given,that American culture had been well formed by the time blues and jazz come around and blacks and whites actually lived in closer proximity at this time than probably ever since, diverging who knew what is futile.
The jazz as emergent and developed is a debate that rages, I think its formation can be analyzed, jazz has emerged its disparate forms have been catalogued and turned,into for,all purposes common practice theory. Classical music is still composed, but,its time as an emergent culture is over. Id say the same for jazz.

Actually my argument of "emergent culture" takes on a qualified meaning as advanced by scholars of cultural studies. Of course, harmonic lineages can be traced to preexisting cultures - this much is irrefutable. yet the historical task in breaking it down to its elemental beginnings is futile according to emergentism. New properties emerge that cannot be reducible to its constituents "parts." To use a scientific analogy: consider water -- 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen. Combined they yield a property - "wetness" - that is not found in its constituent parts....

[ejwhite09]

Actually my argument of "emergent culture" takes on a qualified meaning as advanced by scholars of cultural studies. Of course, harmonic lineages can be traced to preexisting cultures - this much is irrefutable. yet the historical task in breaking it down to its elemental beginnings is futile according to emergentism. New properties emerge that cannot be reducible to its constituents "parts." To use a scientific analogy: consider water -- 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen. Combined they yield a property - "wetness" - that is not found in its constituent parts....

That's one thing I miss about university, academic coinage, someday I might go finish that PhD. But essentially yes that is what I'm saying, and I agree, to attempt to deconstruct jazz into african and european influences would be fundamentally flawed.

[orasnon]

[quote=ksjazzguitar;121369] If this is what you are calling blue notes, then they were invented by Mozart, Beethoven, and Wagner. And again, simply defining a diatonic note over a tonic dominant chord as a blue note I think also renders the meaning less valuable."

Blue notes - the flatted 3rd, tritone, flatted 7th - I feel, is a relational concept: theyre "blue" by virtue of other notes that typically constellate around these notes, which yields a particular aesthetic "structure of feeling" not found if these same notes are to be found in, say, Wagner. Just because increasing chromaticism characterized ppl like Wagner, Strauss and Mahler, this has no correlation to American jazz aesthetic due to the latters "emergent properties". These kinds of misconceptions is the danger one is faced when theory is not treated ex post facto to the music...

[ksjazzguitar]

...I think this African v European thing is a purely American way to look at things, which is through a racially obsessed looking glass....

For me, it is a cultural discussion, not a racial one. All to often we conflate the two. For me, race (the biological differences) is truly irrelevant. The issue is culture. True, sometimes we use terms like "white" and "black" as place holders for cultural groups, but we have to remind ourselves what we really mean. They can also of course be meaning racial distinctions, but you have to tell from context. I was talking about culture, not DNA.

I don't think that "this African v European thing is a purely American way to look at things." I attended a lecture on Afghani music where the guy (an Afghani) spent a lot of time tracing which elements could be traced to Hindustani culture, which to Persian, and which to indigenous cultures. I attended a lecture on Japanese mythology where the lady (Japanese) traced elements back to China, Korea, and India, as well as indigenous ones. The idea of seeing how cultures intermingle and affect each other throughout history is a very common question. I really don't understand that wall of resistance I encountered in this specific case.

For me this debate is always about, who did more white people or black people.

No, for me that question is clear. Black people did almost all of the work, especially in the beginning. I'm not talking about who invented jazz, I'm talking about where the ultimate influences can be traced.

I feel like I came to dinner at your (not just you EJ) house, I like the soup and I ask, "Where is this from?" You say, "From a cookbook." I reply, "No, I mean before that, does it from some countries cuisine?" You reply, "It is a fusion of a couple of different national traditions." I reply, "Cool. What are they? I dig learning about different cooking traditions and how they meld." You reply, "That is irrelevant, it comes from the cookbook. That is all you need to know. Any other attempt to trace it's origin before that is fundamentally flawed. It comes from the cookbook. It's life began with that author. Any other question on the subject has no purpose. It is what it is and that has nothing to do with the influences that went into it's creation."

... New properties emerge that cannot be reducible to its constituents "parts." To use a scientific analogy: consider water -- 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen. Combined they yield a property - "wetness" - that is not found in its constituent parts....

Yes, I know it as the fallacy of composition. But you are assuming that "What is wetness?" is the only interesting question to ask about a water molecule. Another question might very well be, "What are the constituent parts of the water molecule?", "How do they bond?", "How does that relate to other molecules?", "Why does it have the chemical properties that it does?", etc. Those questions require you to look deeper than just the whole molecule.

And I think that it is a bit of a flawed analogy to begin with. It's been a while since I took a chemistry course, but to the best of my knowledge, the qualities of "hydrogen-ness" and "oxygen-ness" don't really transfer to the water molecule - it won't burn and we can't breathe it. But in cultural diffusion, clear elements do transfer.

No one questions when someone asks, "How did the Greek tradition affect Medieval musicians?" or "How did Chinese culture affect the evolution of Japanese culture?", or "How did the Greek culture that Alexander the Great affect Persian culture?", or "How did the French and Germanic languages affect modern English?" All of those are valid questions that go back much farther. But for some reason in the US, if you start talking about anything that even looks like it might be racial, people start freaking out.

And if you dare to suggest that maybe things have been exaggerated by people, they freak out. I once got shouted down in a class for correcting someone who said that George Washington Carver had invented peanut butter. I was declared a race bater by the class before I could point out that the Aztecs had peanut butter, it had been patented decades before Carver started his legendary peanut research, and Carver never even claimed to have invented it. But in this country, we seem to hold on to this mythology out of race-guilt. I'd rather seek out the truth. (For the record, I do think that Carver was a truly amazing man - and a personal hero, which is how I found out.)

We should be able to discuss these things openly or honestly without knee-jerk reactions (which in all fairness have mostly died down in this thread.) Perhaps my statement in the beginning did not pussyfoot around the issue very politically, but I just don't think that I should have to. I can find nothing offensive in it, except for what a race-conscious mind might superimpose upon it. (OK, the line "This is part of my larger thesis that jazz (contrary to how many of the public see it) is really an extension of the European tradition." was not phrased as well as it should have been. I was referring mainly to structural theoretical elements, and didn't make that clear - my phasing of my theory was still in the formative stages.)

But perhaps I shouldn't dig it up again, we'd pretty much left it behind. I'll have to trust that people understand it in the spirit in which it was intended.

Peace,
Kevin

[orasnon]

KS - its readily apparent that you don't understand what "the fallacy of composition" means, since you've misapplied a very basic fallacy toward a theory that goes far more deeper than anything on a Logic 101 exam...

If such a theory is truly flawed (hey, I didn't make it up; some brilliant thinker did), then feel free to write a thesis explaining why, and your rebuttal (which would serve as a refutation to the ideas of some leading thinkers in the critical theory field), would probably lead a publishing deal, as well as offerings for tenure track positions....You would rise out of the shadows of anonymity...and the internet....

[ksjazzguitar]

"Fallacy of composition" - the fallacy that the properties of the parts transfer to the whole. True, on reflection, based on your example, I should have said "fallacy of division" - that the properties of the whole transfer onto the parts. That is what your water molecule examples could be restated as an example of. But I was thinking more in your application of it to my cultural example, where "fallacy of composition" is a more appropriate application. Yes, emergentism is more complicate than that, but your example wasn't. I was addressing your example, not emergentism. But you chose to whine about the language and ignore the substance of what I was saying.

And calm down dude. I didn't "rebut" the theory of "emergent cultures," just your application as a means to say that discussion of cultural influences is "futile." Tracing how cultures interact to form new cultures is a long and respected practice. Emergence is just one theory and is not meant to cover all intellectual endeavors. I'm not aware that it has become an immutable law and has replaced all others. I'm not aware that someone can just say "emergent" and all other discussion is required to cease. You also fail to mention that there is a difference between "strong" and "weak" emergence. It is merely meant to express one possible aspect of how new things are created, not wipe out all other theories. If I remember correctly, even the proponents of the theory don't think that there is anything that is 100% emergent, a necessity for you to declare any other approach "futile." Can you cite a source that says that the theory of emergence is the only principle allowed to be discussed in cultural studies? Without it, your declaration that our discussions are "futile" is just misinformed.

You've taken one theory and tried to use to shut down a lot of scholarship to label it as "futile." It's "futile" to notice that "swing" ultimately came from African influences? It's "futile" to notice that "harmony" ultimately came from European influences? It's "futile" to notice that English ultimately came from German, French, Latin, Greek, and as far back as PIE? It's "futile" to notice that Peruvian culture is a mixture of Spanish, indigenous, and African influences? No, you are simply misapplying the theory in an effort to shut down anyone who disagrees with you.

I can't help but notice that you entirely ignore my points, but simply pick apart a piece in my language and then descend into mockery. It's a little cowardly, if you ask me. (Careful, your getting into guerrilla territory here - refusing to engage straight conflict, but ignoring it and choosing to snipe from the sides with distracting irrelevance.) Shall I assume that you ran scared from my ideas because they are unassailable?

Someone, remind me again - Why is me disagreeing with someone is considered rude, but distortion and mockery isn't?

Peace,
Kevin

[Baltar Hornbeek]

Someone, remind me again - Why is me disagreeing with someone is considered rude, but distortion and mockery isn't?

It's your tone, it sucks.
All thin and brittle. Maybe try a new amp.
I think you're a good player though. keep practicing.

[ksjazzguitar]

It's your tone, it sucks.
...

Perhaps. But if my tone is insulting (which is very subjective), why is it not worse when someone's content is insulting (which is much less subjective and much more direct)?

People complain about my "authoritarian tone" and ignore people calling names and mocking. What a strange bunch of set of values.

Peace,
Kevin

[Baltar Hornbeek]

As long as you're getting good results and you're happy with them, that's all that matters. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

How long have you been feeling this way?

[orasnon]

I'm not an internet a$$hole - just thought I'd conduct an "experiment". I was deliberately an a$$ to see if you would take offense. And sure enough you did: "Calm down, dude...." This is precisely the sentiment other ppl feel about your posts. Yet your inexplicable obstinacy persists. Vainglory on the internet. Strange....

[bako]

"Yes, I know it as the fallacy of composition. But you are assuming that "What is wetness?" is the only interesting question to ask about a water molecule. Another question might very well be, "What are the constituent parts of the water molecule?", "How do they bond?", "How does that relate to other molecules?", "Why does it have the chemical properties that it does?", etc. Those questions require you to look deeper than just the whole molecule."

Kevin,

Can you suggest to us what audio source material you are using to represent the African and early African American influence to evaluate similarities and differences with your European Classical music model. These are an essential constituent part of understanding the jazz molecule. Without sounds it all seems very abstract to me.

Thanks,
Bako

[ksjazzguitar]

I'm not an internet a$$hole - just thought I'd conduct an "experiment". I was deliberately an a$$ to see if you would take offense. ....

So, let me get this straight. By your own words, you admit to lying to make your point. But, that's OK, because you just wanted to see if would call you a liar. Somehow in this equation, I'm the jerk. So, you were a really big jerk, which (in your interpretation) caused me to be a little bit of a jerk, and you view that as some kind of a vindication?

Wow. This is the problem with forum culture. In reality, I think that you just were using words that you didn't really understand because you didn't want the hassle of building an honest argument. You were hoping that no one would notice and that everyone would just assume that you were too smart to argue with (a clear insult to the group.) But I'm the elitist jerk, because I dared to point out that you were just lying. You're trying to cover it up by acting like it was on purpose, like the guy who slips on the banana peel, falls down, and then quickly adds, "I meant to do that!" - thinking that we are too stupid to see through it. You guys think that I'm rude because I don't respect orasnon's words. But I submit that he is the one that is disrespecting the words that come out of his mouth. I was actually showing respect for the speaker for taking them at face value, even if I chose not to respect the content because it was fallacious.

But I'm sure that once again, I will come out as the bad guy. The pompous jerk. The great insulter. Fine, I'd rather be that than a troll.

...Can you suggest to us what audio source material you are using to represent the African and early African American influence to evaluate similarities and differences with your European Classical music model...

OK, that is a worthy point. Ideally it would be nice, if I ever work this into a full essay on my web site to have some audio examples. That would be a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, most of the recordings I would imagine are copyrighted, so I would have to rely on illegal copies in Youtube (not the most "scholarly" thing to do.) I guess I could apply for a grant to go to Africa and record my own, but ethnomusicology isn't my focus, so I don't see that forthcoming.

Most of my understanding of African music is from what I've heard in ehtnomusicology classes and a few lectures and presentations by traditional African musicians. It's kind of hard to share that.

But you're right, that would make my case better, especially to a lay crowd who may not have been exposed to this music. It would certainly make it more accessible. I'll have to see if I can at least find some stuff on Youtube - it would be better than nothing. But it will take a while to put together something like that.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Peace,
Kevin

[orasnon]

Nope, KS, again you misconstrue what I've written. It was only my LAST RESPONSE to your your post that was deliberately, um, "harsh" and "condescending", adejectives used to describe your posts on here. The actual theory of emergent cultures is of course legit, and is how I personally conceptualize cultures of modernity.

Just wanted to see how you would respond to a post that was uncool. If you felt somewhat slighted, then surely you must understand how others feel about you, and should perhaps consider conforming to proper decorum. Though it might not be apparent to you, not a few ppl on here think your posts are uncool. Try, man, try....

Peace, homey

[bako]

Kevin,

I have played and listened to music of the African continent for 30 years and I feel ill prepared to make any broad assumptions about anything. The Americas were not the only place where Africans and Europeans came together and unfortunately the interactions were never about creating new and beautiful collaborative cultural forms. You are asking a very complicated question that is beyond my understanding of how to unravel. I do know that listening to music is where I would begin.

A suggested partial listening list would be a great contribution.
Youtube links are a great format for the forum when the relevant info is available.
I'm not sure that it is. Flip video cameras arrived far to late in the game.

[orasnon]

Kevin,

I have played and listened to music of the African continent for 30 years and I feel ill prepared to make any broad assumptions about anything. The Americas were not the only place where Africans and Europeans came together and unfortunately the interactions were never about creating new and beautiful collaborative cultural forms. You are asking a very complicated question that is beyond my understanding of how to unravel. I do know that listening to music is where I would begin.

A suggested partial listening list would be a great contribution.
Youtube links are a great format for the forum when the relevant info is available.
I'm not sure that it is. Flip video cameras arrived far to late in the game.

Bako, I agree about studies making "broad assumptions." Actually, when reflecting about today's "postmodern" cultures, it shows that performing genealogical studies presupposing unilinear ideas of development are increasingly problematic. Consider more contemporary African artists who became influenced by African American music, such as the great Fela Kuti. How do you theorize and historicize his music, which is infused with equal parts James Brown as with indigenous African? Is not simply an 'admixutre' or 'amalgamation', is it? The salient question pertaining to this forum topic is, how can one make the claim that Kuti's music has vestiges of european music, if cultural transfer is uni-directional?

[ksjazzguitar]

Nope, KS, again you misconstrue what I've written. It was only my LAST RESPONSE to your your post that was deliberately,

Whatever man. You can twist yourself around an find some proud justification for being a jerk. But really it's just a dodge because you got caught talking about things you don't understand. The application of "emergentism" to declare all discussion of antecedent influence is ridiculous. Emergence is worth noting, but it is misguided to use it as a gag to try and silence people discussing cultural influence. It is just one theory of how new cultures develop and even it's own proponents don't think that anything is 100% emergent, and the theory itself is still debated - not the slam dunk that you deceptively portray it as. You're just throwing around big words.

You're just and anti-theory troll, looking for an excuse to be a jerk. It's not hard to notice that your little "jerkiness" detour was also away to discussing any of the points that I'd made - nice guerrilla tactic.

I know it's becomes fun sport to harass me lately, but come, give it a rest man.

...I do know that listening to music is where I would begin....

There are a few problems with this approach of course. We need to find examples that have not been corrupted by modern influence - most folk traditions are no longer "pure." Even folk musicians that purport to be authentic may be using modern influences without realizing it. For example, in Peru, I heard some folk musician trying to explain that "El Condor Pasa" was a pre-Columbian folk tune. It was of course actually composed in the 20th century for a Peruvian zarzuela (like a Spanish opera.) Now, the composer (Robles) was an ethnomusicologist and tried to capture the flavor of Andean folk music, but contrary to common belief, it is not some ancient folk tune. (The presence of chords should have been a give-away. )

Even if, with work, we can find "pure" examples of traditional music. The other problem is that simply showing that a found characteristic is the true source of that characteristic in the new form - correlation does not prove causation. In order to build an argument for that, you would need to do a large scale study (or several studies) showing that that is a unique feature of one of the contributing cultures and not the others. That would be a massive undertaking. Just finding a few clips on Youtube (of dubious origin and/or purity) is not really research.

Fortunately, there are a large group of people that have done this work. They are ethnomusicologists. They have traveled to the deepest jungles of Western Africa, analyzing what they have heard. They have read through the writings of musicians of these times who have come into contact with these cultures. Since ethnomusicology began in the second half of the 19th century (then called comparative musicology I think) they were much closer to authentic sources than we could ever hope to be. Their work, and the work derived from it, is readily available in books and journal articles.

I'm not saying that your idea doesn't have value for explanatory purposes, but I think that people should be careful not to think that we can do some groundbreaking research by combing through Youtube to find some 21st century recordings that purport to be authentic. Especially if that work has already been done by hundreds of ethnomusicologists for whom this is there specialty and who were working from much better sources than we could ever find.

But it does have explanatory value.

I've been thinking more on the whole "blue note" thing. I'm even more convinced that we cannot define the b7 of a tonic dominant as a blue note. The whole point of a blue note is that it is a scale tones that is dissonant to the chord but is treated as consonant. But a b7 is not dissonant to a dominant chord. True, the b7 is typically called a blue note, but that was because it sounded (especially when not in equal temperament) to be a dissonance to what the white musicologists were expecting to hear. But it is that dissonance that makes it blue. But since blues eventually superimposed itself on top of Western harmony, that b7 ceased to be a dissonance.

Another example would be the b3. Do we still consider it a blue note when we are playing a minor blues? No, it is only a blue note if it is superimposed over a dominant chord. But the b7 is not being superimposed over anything - it is part of the chord. There are instances of jazz players using a b7 over a Maj7 - that is clearly a blue note.

I also reiterate my objection to classifying every chromatic note as a blue note. Again, classical music is full of #9s, b5s, and b7s over major chords, often in accented positions. The difference is that they are just chromatic neighbors (even if unprepared) or passing notes. The difference with a blue note is that it is treated as a stable melody note that does not necessarily need to be resolved.

Peace,
Kevin