Jazz - European and African influences?

[ksjazzguitar]

... Let's approach the chair of the musicology dept of UCLA or USC and get their opinions regarding the intellectual legitimacy of Baraka or George. The most groundbreaking scholarship is stuff that reaches beyond the purview of arbitrary disciplinary strictures.

Interdisciplinary studies are great. But that is not the same thing as someone who is an expert in one field declaring themselves an expert in another. Interdiscininary work requires a knowledge of both fields. I don't really care what some poet says about cultural anthropology, any more than I care what Stephen Hawking says about Shakespeare. Just being an expert in one field does not make you an expert in every field - unless legitimate study has been done there. By your theory, since Stephen Hawking is one of the smartest people on the planet, he should be the expert of every subject known to man.

This is ludicrious! The cultures of West Africa, are very different....

From an anthropological standpoint, they are part of the same family. That is not saying that they are the same - they are just closely related. In the same respect, the culture of New-England (where I grew up) and the culture of the Pacific Northwest (where I moved) were "different" but are close enough to be put under the umbrella of "American" - they have far more in common than they have in difference.

No one is bringing up, and I don't think anyone has brought up Eritera or Tanzania, until you just did, again, we're all aware where the majority of Africans were taken from in the Slave Trade.

No, a few people said that I had to consider all of the music of Africa.

I don't think this is about race, but YOU started it off about 'european contributions' what are people supposed to surmise from this, again when DON'T DEFINE YOUR TERMS. When I read that it seems to say contributions of white people.

Repeated use of the word "European tradition" and similar things should have made it clear. I re-read my original post and still think that it would take a creative reader to assume that I was saying that white people invented jazz. At no point did I refer to the contributions of Americans or Europeans.

The continent of Africa DOES have many cultures, West Africa, does have many cultures as well, and much more before Western European colonialism, aggregated many of those differences for the purpose of colonial rule, occurring sometime AFTER the departure of the majority of the victims of the Atlantic Slave Trade, in fact, according the source I listed above, the most homogeneous of among them were the Bantus of the Congo, so according to this piece of scholarship its Central Africans, not Western Africans who, due to their homogeneity played the largest role in shaping Black American culture.

Perhaps, but that differs with what I was taught in my ethnomusicology class. Even if it is so, you fail to explain what affect that has on our analysis of the music. Just pointing out a nitpick is not the same as showing its relevance.

In the end, due to factors, you frankly want to assume away or ignore, the answer is largely unknowable(I only introduced this language to point out my fault with 'scholarship' because it assumes away or 'ignores' issues which would make further investigation hindered, in order to reach some sort of contrived conclusion, which really remains as theoretical, due to the assumptions, as the orginial question was.

But by that definition, everything not in the present experience is unknowable. That is a worthless definition. You seem to have a hatred for academia - fine. But don't blame me. I'm not going to get into a large debate about accepted epistemological techniques. Just nitpicking that some little piece of information is unknowable, that everything on the subject is unknowable - that is not wisdom, it is just epistemological nihilism.

I would just like to have a brief pause to take in the moment, if I may. Because I have a feeling that [KS saying his position has evolved] is as close as any of us are ever going to get to hearing Kevin say, "I was wrong."

Well, enjoy it while you can. I don't often admit mistakes because I check my facts. This thread was purposely pushing the boundaries because I wanted to see where it would lead.

Yes, I agree: setting up the problem in terms of a binary opposition not only serves to essentialize both sides with putatively immutable and timeless qualities;

They are simply two different cultures (or family of cultures) that came together and made something new.

The myth of the 'objective eye' of WEstern anthropology has long been swept into the dustbin of history - an epiphenomenon left over from the expansion of Europe and its concomitant systems of "knowledge/power."

I know that it's fun to play the "big bad European colonialist" just doesn't understand other cultures game. This was certainly true at one time. Western anthropologists have gotten much more sympathetic to understanding other cultures through their own eyes and a lot of the scholarship is being done in collaboration or even by people from those cultures. Most anthropologists work from the field now, often devoting much or their lives to living in the target cultures.

But this just amounts to attacking the entire field instead of the conclusions of it. It is really just an ad hominem attack against anthropology.

Peace,
Kevin

[ejwhite09]

From an anthropological standpoint, they are part of the same family. That is not saying that they are the same - they are just closely related. In the same respect, the culture of New-England (where I grew up) and the culture of the Pacific Northwest (where I moved) were "different" but are close enough to be put under the umbrella of "American" - they have far more in common than they have in difference.

So basically, you didn't read the book link. From what anthropological standpoint. I just posted a book written by an anthropologist, challenging that very notion and quite well. Again, 'American' I've lived my life in the South East, I would never say my culture here is close enough to be considered the same as the Bay Area, or New England. Again the term American, merely applies to European ideas of political organization, not an overreaching culture. The 'blending/blanding' of 'American culture' has largely happened over the last 50 years and is pretty much agreed is the result of the mass difussion of television, not some metaphysical link. What Anthropology? Cultural? Obviously, not. Biological? Linguistic? Certainly a shared biological and even linguistic heritage can still exist with great cultural differences(I submit, Western Europe as a case study).

Repeated use of the word "European tradition" and similar things should have made it clear. I re-read my original post and still think that it would take a creative reader to assume that I was saying that white people invented jazz. At no point did I refer to the contributions of Americans or Europeans.

That's the thing about communication its for the benefit of others, not yourself.

Perhaps, but that differs with what I was taught in my ethnomusicology class. Even if it is so, you fail to explain what affect that has on our analysis of the music. Just pointing out a nitpick is not the same as showing its relevance.

I'm starting to see a pattern here, introduction of evidence contrary to your classroom teachings. Is nitpicking. How does it affect, our analysis, because it changes the 'culture' we're talking about. And wasn't this all bout cultural influences? So it becomes important to decipher what culture means. Nevermind, its not nitpicking to point out you're flat wrong, isn't that what you've been doing to everyone else? You're the one who defined the culture you're talking about as Western AFrican, and further made the statement with no evidence that anthropologists consider Western African culture to be homogeneous, did you not?

But by that definition, everything not in the present experience is unknowable. That is a worthless definition. You seem to have a hatred for academia - fine. But don't blame me. I'm not going to get into a large debate about accepted epistemological techniques. Just nitpicking that some little piece of information is unknowable, that everything on the subject is unknowable - that is not wisdom, it is just epistemological nihilism.

I don't have a hatred for academia, I have problem with people presenting academia sans its short comings, and its limited ability to really decipher the natural world, let alone something so existenial as the history of human civilization. If this was a discussion on atoms or data that'd be one thing. Everying in the present experience is not unknowable, but what is truely knowable is obviously only that which can be experienced. What arrogance says that they can decipher the complexity of human relations and experience that occurred 500 years ago?!

[ejwhite09]

"The characteristics of this entire area include short iterative phrases, reverting relationships, shouts before, during, and after singing, anhematonic pentatonic scales, simple rhythms and meter and, according to Nettl, antiphonal or responsorial techniques including "rudimentary imitative polyphony". Melodic movement tends to be gradually descending throughout the area and vocals include a moderate amount of tension and pulsation"

I see a lot in here which is usually credited towards Black Americans introducing via African culture, but this passage speaks of the Native peoples of the Southeastern United States.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Stanley Crouch is always stimulating, fearless, and when he is not obsessing about Whitey's place in jazz (and jazz criticism) one of the wisest social critics. Maybe there should be a thread on Crouch?

[anothereye]

I found this forum when Googling for discussions just like this. So far I've only read the first page (1/5th) of the thread but I commit to read the rest when time permits.
Thanks for starting the discussion Kevin.
Firstly, it is unfortunate that the issue has not been resolved after a century of jazz; so much history is not documented.
I suggest that jazz has more than one uncle, more has been documented about the European uncle and far less is known about the African side of the family. I don't see the need to take sides; the need is to recognise all the contributions so the truth can be known and all the cultures that have contributed can be appreciated.

In case Gerhard Kubik hasn't yet been mentioned; I'm posting to bring him to everyones attention. Kubik does not deny the contribution that European music has made to jazz however he concerns himself with African contribution, I suggest the link below is essential reading (he has also written elsewhere about the roots of the blues).

The African Matrix in Jazz Harmonic Practices:


Gerry

[anothereye]

Hey Kevin have you read Randy Sandke's book on this subject?

Eddy, what is the book called, I cannot find it on amazon.

[eddy b.]

The book is called "where the light and dark folks meet". It was interesting to me to read.In it he tries to dispel some common beliefs and myths of jazz music.Also his "harmony for a new millennium " is helpful for getting a new outlook on harmony(at least new to me)!