-
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.Last edited by ejwhite09; 02-02-2011 at 06:03 PM.
-
02-02-2011 05:43 PM
-
Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
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.Last edited by ejwhite09; 02-02-2011 at 06:15 PM.
-
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...
-
Originally Posted by orasnon
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.
-
Originally Posted by JohnRoss
Originally Posted by ejwhite09
Originally Posted by ejwhite09
Originally Posted by ejwhite09
Originally Posted by ejwhite09
Originally Posted by ejwhite09
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?
Originally Posted by orasnon
Originally Posted by ejwhite09Originally Posted by ejwhite09
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,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-03-2011 at 05:00 AM.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
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.
-
Originally Posted by ejwhite09
Originally Posted by ejwhite09
Originally Posted by ejwhite09
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.
Originally Posted by ejwhite09
Originally Posted by ejwhite09
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.
Originally Posted by ejwhite09
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
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
But this is really a debate for another thread.
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitarLast edited by ejwhite09; 02-03-2011 at 02:53 PM.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Peace,
Kevin[/quote]Last edited by ejwhite09; 02-03-2011 at 03:36 PM.
-
Originally Posted by ejwhite09
-
Originally Posted by 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...
-
Originally Posted by ejwhite09
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.
Originally Posted by ejwhite09
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."
Originally Posted by orasnon
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,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-04-2011 at 01:38 AM.
-
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....
-
"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,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-04-2011 at 02:01 PM.
-
02-04-2011, 01:52 PM #66Baltar Hornbeek GuestOriginally Posted by ksjazzguitar
All thin and brittle. Maybe try a new amp.
I think you're a good player though. keep practicing.
-
Originally Posted by Baltar Hornbeek
People complain about my "authoritarian tone" and ignore people calling names and mocking. What a strange bunch of set of values.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-04-2011 at 01:59 PM.
-
02-04-2011, 02:03 PM #68Baltar Hornbeek Guest
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?
-
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....
-
"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
-
Originally Posted by orasnon
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.
Originally Posted by bako
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,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-04-2011 at 05:48 PM.
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by bako
Last edited by orasnon; 02-04-2011 at 09:35 PM.
-
Originally Posted by orasnon
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.
Originally Posted by bako
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,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-05-2011 at 02:53 AM.
16" 1920s/30s L5
Today, 08:44 PM in For Sale