Jazz - European and African influences?

[Banksia]

That xylophone is usually called a balo or balofon but I always forget.

[orasnon]

Whatever dude...

[bako]

Kevin,

I know that highlife music dates back to the 30's and possesses chords, meter, tonality
and uses guitar which I believe arrived via the Portuguese.

I am also familiar with the Malian kora/balfon sound that Banksia linked to.
I think that familial lineage and apprenticeship process keeps at least some aspects of older traditions active.
That music also works within a chord change environment, often something like Ebm---Db or F#---C#.

I am not quoting these examples to say that they are specifically relevant to this discussion.
I don't exactly know how to uncover those that are.
Since you made assertions based on comparable attributes I am simply seeking to know what sonic sources of the
African/African American piece of the molecule you are referencing your opinions on.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah youtube is hardly the final word, but can sometimes provide a great opening glimpse.
The range of observational windows to the world that can be opened in the confines of the computer room is truly amazing.

[ksjazzguitar]

Since you made assertions based on comparable attributes I am simply seeking to know what sonic sources of the African/African American piece of the molecule you are referencing your opinions on.

That's a fair question. Most of my observations are based on what I've learned from ethnomusicology classes, books and journal articles. These are things from people for whom the subject is an obsession and who have access to better sources than we could ever hope to get. And much of their work is based on historical sources so they are much closer to a "pure" state than we could ever hope to get. I've also attended a few lectures and performances by ethnomusicologists that have devoted their lives to trying to dissect what the tradition once was, before the modern influence.

Modern folk musicians are not necessarily worried about keeping things pure as much as they are keeping the perception of purity. My example of El Condor Pasa is an example. Modern influences are all around and they can creep in without people realizing it. I also once attended a "traditional" gamelan where they played an arrangement of "Ode to Joy."

I'm not saying that that is bad musically - pedantically rigorous historical purity is not what is import to them. Playing music that their people like and give them a sense of connection to their culture is what is important. That music is certainly worthy of study, but it must be remembered that more modern influences will be blended in and they reflect the state of the community now, not 200 years ago. It may have something to tell us on the subject, but it is a mistake to just assume that it is the same thing.

Yeah, I wish we had a time machine and an invisibility cloak so we could go back and see for ourselves what these people were doing. But for now we have to rely on historical writings, scholarship, and what we can hesitantly parse out from modern folk players. Yes, it's less than ideal, but it's the best way that we have.

Peace,
Kevin

[ejwhite09]

For me the basic flaw in the premise, is that its a generalization. Largely what I learned in my experience in academia, and why I found it very unfufilling, is that it is extrapolation by generalization, which I find to be a very sloppy way of analysis.

'Culture' and cultures do not exist, grow, generate in a vaccum. Humanity has been very mobile, and engaging in trade, warfare, tribal intermarriage since time immemorial. So for me the the problem is, how can one isolate and then analyze a 'culture.' Academia, gets over these problems, as it does in all fields of study, by simply assuming these facts away, for the purpose of analysis. Like Economics, my field of academia, rests on the premise that humans are rational actors, now we all know humans are not always rational actors, in fact sometimes they are irrational actors, but we could never analyze irrational behavior, so we simply assume away the fact.

Take Mexican Music, supposedly Mexican Music, which sounds very different, almost, 'unlatin' in comparasion to other music of Latin America, is the result of the settlement of Germans, who introduced the Spanish to accordian and polka. In Cuba the melding of African and European influences yielded different results than they did in Argentina and Brazil.
Which brings us to the terms European and African, which are generalizations. 'European' vis a vis the United States, Mexico, Argentina, Cuba, Brazil have different meanings, representing very diverse cultures with diverse musical backgrounds. In fact, as much of Latin America's 'European' influence is Spanish and Portuguese, do we even consider them European? Geographically they are on the continent of Europe, but culturally are they? As Napoleon said, 'Europe ends at the Pyrenees.' Which more accurately describes the 'cultural differences' between 'white Europe of the north, and Mediterrean Europe.' Some of these cultures in Spain, Portugal, Italy, had already had extensive contact with Africa and 'African's, long before the slave trade and the meeting in a new context in the 'New World.' 'African' does as well with different cultures being again, aggregated, to form an assumed culture for the purpose of academia.

So, basically, for me its a contrived question, and contrived questions only merit contrived answers. This is why I decided to stop post grad education and get a real job and enter the real world. You spend too much time in academia and you start asking questions like this. Which have no meaning or basis because they are fundamentally built upon premise of assumption.

I have to agree that in essence this is an academic question, and I'm mainly pointing that out, not trying to engage in debate, because without meaning any condecension, discussions of this nature really seem meaningless after I left undergrad. I have no issue with the discussion of it, but merely one must admit its contrived and therefore any conclusion is contrived. You can discuss it but you are never going to have anything approaching a real sense of what occured, which is more like an enteral mingling and mixing of experience, which is impossible to purify and separate in reality. Analysing, Urdu and Persian music is quite different than analysing jazz in America. Urdu and Persian, are two distinct though very, intermingled 'cultures' but also, more correctly, ethnic groups. But many concepts such as European and African merely existed in racial terms, culturally there is no such thing as European or African. These are too generic terms European and African are not operating in terms of culture, race, and heritage in the same way Urdu and Persian are.

So you can analyse it and say, well ok this was happening in this tribe in Africa, and it shows up here in America and we have African slaves so thats an African influence. But what African tribe did that come from, how did they learn it, through trade? then trade with whom, and who did that tribe learn it from. Science is great at analyzing events that occurred its very hard to use science to arrive a sources of events, and this discussion is an attempt to do that. And that's impossible. So its bound to fall into semantics and contrived defenses, much like those late night smoke session in college, because that's what happens when you attempt to apply logic and reason to something as etheral as the 10,000 years of human civilization on the planet Earth.

And so for me this debate, of what influences came from where is usually only done in the vein of Black musicians seeking to delegitimize white contributions to jazz, or white musicians seeking to say well 'you learned everything but beating a drum from us.'

I would say that the question is really unanswerable and unknowable, and far too broad for analysis. Maybe some subset of music could be analysed by 'culture' and find some connections, but still i think distilling the human experience is not so easy or even possible. If it was, we economists could predict the future, and we're seldom more accurate than the weatherman, and he's literally trying to predict which way the wind will blow(an extremely contrived attempt, almost laughable futile, if you think about it). If I can't find out why and pin point, isolate, and analyse a single cause for an event that occured three years ago, how can one reasonably expect to do so on events that began hundreds of years ago, over many peoples and many lands and culminated about 100 years ago in a the musical artform of Jazz?

[ksjazzguitar]

For me the basic flaw in the premise, is that its a generalization. Largely what I learned in my experience in academia, and why I found it very unfufilling, is that it is extrapolation by generalization, which I find to be a very sloppy way of analysis.

But that is the only way to understand something like this. I couldn't (even if I had the sources) examine the influences of every single musician involved and the influences of each of them, and the influences of each of them... There are two ways of looking at something in the soft sciences like this: by generalization or by case study. Both have their merits. Most soft sciences are made up almost entirely of generalization. That's fine, as long as you know its limitations. But without distinctions (even if a bit arbitrary) and generalization, none of this would be possible. Complaining that soft sciences have too much generalization in them is like complaining that math has too many numbers.

'Culture' and cultures do not exist, grow, generate in a vaccum.

But I thought that that was my point, that jazz did not generate in a vacuum. The standard definition is that jazz is music invented by African-Americans based on African music, with only lip-service to any affect that the "white" music might have had, usually just a line or two. I'm saying that it is more complex than that. By focusing on one overlooked aspect, I am trying to increase the understanding of the complexity of it.

Take Mexican Music, supposedly Mexican Music, which sounds very different, almost, 'unlatin' in comparasion to other music of Latin America, is the result of the settlement of Germans, who introduced the Spanish to accordian and polka. In Cuba the melding of African and European influences yielded different results than they did in Argentina and Brazil. ...

I guess I just don't understand why in this country we have to get so uptight whenever anyone starts talking about non-African influences on jazz. Apparently it's fine in other countries and their music.

And how is what I'm saying about jazz any more a generalization. You just made a bunch of generalizations. Which is fine, but you don't seem to want to allow anyone else to do it, at least not with respect to jazz.

I have to agree that in essence this is an academic question, and I'm mainly pointing that out, not trying to engage in debate, because without meaning any condecension, discussions of this nature really seem meaningless after I left undergrad.

No, I'm not offended. Your tone was always respectful and you made good points, even when I didn't disagree with them. I guess you just don't think that it's worth while to discuss these things, that's fine. But considering the amount of scholarship and popular cheering that goes into showing the African influences of jazz, then clearly people feel that tracing the roots of jazz is a worthwhile pursuit - but it is considered taboo to mention any "white" influence. (Not that I'm putting all of that onto your shoulders EJ.)

I have no issue with the discussion of it, but merely one must admit its contrived and therefore any conclusion is contrived. You can discuss it but you are never going to have anything approaching a real sense of what occured, which is more like an enteral mingling and mixing of experience, which is impossible to purify and separate in reality.

But you can say that of all anthropology, sociology, and cultural history.

Analysing, Urdu and Persian music is quite different than analysing jazz in America. Urdu and Persian, are two distinct though very, intermingled 'cultures' but also, more correctly, ethnic groups. But many concepts such as European and African merely existed in racial terms, culturally there is no such thing as European or African.

True, but it was clarified later that we were talking about the West African cultural group and the European musical culture was fairly homogeneous at that point - certainly the predominantly Anglo/Germanic/Protestant/Calvinist communities we're talking about. There were not big Russian, Italian, French, Gypsy, Slav, Jewish, etc. slave plantations. I assumed that when I phrased the question in terms of "African" and "European" influences, that it would be obvious that I was only referring to the cultures and sub-cultures directly involved - but I guess that that wasn't obvious.

If I can't find out why and pin point, isolate, and analyse a single cause for an event that occured three years ago, how can one reasonably expect to do so on events that began hundreds of years ago, over many peoples and many lands and culminated about 100 years ago in a the musical artform of Jazz?

I think that that is a flawed anology. The fact that I don't know why something happened three years ago does not diminish our knowledge of how the conquests of Alexander the Great help to hellenize parts of Asia, mixing with the local cultures to create new cultures. Or how China mingled with indigenous cultures to to produce the cultures of Korea and Japan and Mongolia. We can reconstruct how the Aztecs and Incas controlled an affected the cultures around them. All of these are generalizations. All of these stretch back hundreds and thousands of years. For some of these, we have much less source material than the jazz question. Are you protesting those too, or is it just jazz?

Peace,
Kevin

[ejwhite09]

But I thought that that was my point, that jazz did not generate in a vacuum. The standard definition is that jazz is music invented by African-Americans based on African music, with only lip-service to any affect that the "white" music might have had, usually just a line or two. I'm saying that it is more complex than that. By focusing on one overlooked aspect, I am trying to increase the understanding of the complexity of it.



I guess I just don't understand why in this country we have to get so uptight whenever anyone starts talking about non-African influences on jazz. Apparently it's fine in other countries and their music.

Peace,
Kevin

I guess that's the main point Kevin, I don't think anyone else feels this way. I've never heard that jazz was 'invented' by African Americans. It has syncopation which is generally associated with African music. But I don't think anyone overlooks what you're talking about. I've never heard anyone say Jazz is an invention of African Americans, but rather, I've always heard its stressed that Jazz is an invention of AMERICA, melding contributions from many sources. My main contention is by the time Jazz is coming together, those sources have become so intertwined and interbred as to become indistinguishable. As that I don't really believe that by the 1900s, there was anything whites in America were doing that blacks weren't and vice versa. By the coming jazz, everybody was essentially building from the ingredients, there was no way to distill influences. Even the orgin of the influence may not have anything to do with the orgin of the person who introduced the influence.
It's like Christmas Trees. We are a Anglo Saxon dominated culture, Christmas Trees are German in cultural orgin, mid 19 century Germans introduced them to America. By the 20th century, the German Tree and the American Tree and the traditions surrounding them had diverged greatly. This is what I mean about American culture and distilling it. Merely pointing out the point of orgin of something is meaningless, as its been sent through the cultural stew of America, and more than likely have diverged greatly from its orginal location and context.

When you say white or black, it denotes race, regardless of how you mean it. What I say is that there are things that were from Europe or from Africa, but by the time Jazz comes along, more than likely all musicians are aware of these things. black musicians are quite versed in the classical european tradition by now, and white musicians are well versed in the blues and field songs. I mean who is going to argue classical european music is from europe, or field songs are from africa? But when you say white or black or african american it denotes to me that you want an argument on the race of the individuals who were around at the conception of jazz. Perhaps you are having two different debates with those you are debating with. Perhaps you are debating the geographic location of orgin of certain aspects, whilst they are debating the race of the orginators of the art form.

If you have a bone to pick with people who focus on Afrocentrism, take it to them. It would be futile, as futile as me going to a meeting of the Aryan Brotherhood, and trying to change their perspective.

[ejwhite09]

I think that that is a flawed anology. The fact that I don't know why something happened three years ago does not diminish our knowledge of how the conquests of Alexander the Great help to hellenize parts of Asia, mixing with the local cultures to create new cultures. Or how China mingled with indigenous cultures to to produce the cultures of Korea and Japan and Mongolia. We can reconstruct how the Aztecs and Incas controlled an affected the cultures around them. All of these are generalizations. All of these stretch back hundreds and thousands of years. For some of these, we have much less source material than the jazz question. Are you protesting those too, or is it just jazz?

Peace,
Kevin

I was speaking of the Economic Crisis from 2007 until 2010, we are aware, but trying to divulge the factors of causation has proved near impossible, even in real time, with the most sophisticated means of data collection and analysis in the history man. Now many have simplified a model and then extrapolated upon that into complexity, which is why you can hear 30 different causes of the Great Recession. So my analogy is to say, I find it hard to believe if it is impossible to do this, I don't believe its easier to do it with events that have happened hundreds and thousands of years ago, with a deficit of sources, even primary sources in historical analyis are subject to extreme bias, the most extreme bias, the bias of human observation.

All academia is generalization, or simplification, for extrapolation back into complexity, which is cool, everyone does from barstools to state bars, but i find it extremely pointless and even dangerous when attempting to make those conclusions recognized as fact.


Being aware something occured and understanding it are very different concepts. We are all aware that we exist, the understand of the existence, still plauges humanity to this day. In fact there are several versions from the Big Bang to the Abrahamic myth, to the Greco-Roman myths, the philosophy of the East, and tribal myths galore.

Yes, I would protest, especially history. History is simply a reiteration. As a reformed academic, I know that the only way to understand something is to generalize, in my opinion generalize is an academic term for simplify, of course, academics would never suggest, they deal in the simple. Something must be simplified to be understood and then we extrapolate upon complexity from simplicity, which in my opinion is why academic pursuit is futile, unless you come at from a Sophocles standpoint, of humility. I've always thought when Sophocles said, "I am the wisest because I know nothing." He meant that when one attempts to ponder questions, one only finds more questions, and one quickly realizes 'knowing the answer to something' is impossible, at best, one can only arrive and more and more precise, or more and more varied questions.

Even saying that Chinese mingled with indienious people to produce Korean culture, would be extremely offensive in Korea, because their view is the Chinese imposed imperial rule upon them, robbed them of their native religion and languages. Same with many in Latin America, I have a Puerto Rican friend who hates Spanish people, a friend of mine said 'how can you hate spanish people aren't puerto ricans descended from spanish people?' and his answer was 'technically 'my people' were taino indians who were raped and enslaved by spanish people.' This is why simplicity, extrapolation and presentation as fact are dangerous because of context.

So I don't protest, scholarship or knowledge pursuit, I protest arriving at conclusions.

[ejwhite09]

But that is the only way to understand something like this. I couldn't (even if I had the sources) examine the influences of every single musician involved and the influences of each of them, and the influences of each of them... There are two ways of looking at something in the soft sciences like this: by generalization or by case study. Both have their merits. Most soft sciences are made up almost entirely of generalization. That's fine, as long as you know its limitations. But without distinctions (even if a bit arbitrary) and generalization, none of this would be possible. Complaining that soft sciences have too much generalization in them is like complaining that math has too many numbers.

Peace,
Kevin

It's really not a matter of hard/soft science division, which in my experience is merely an academic diversion, which disciplines that use math use to deride those who don't. Math is full of generalizations and assumptions, itself. The entire scientific method is based on the assumption that it is correct. Our understanding of the universe isn't based on reality, its based on the math. We have our model of the universe because the math works and based on the small portion of spacetime we have observed our experiments have always worked out. Humans need generalizations to understand complexity, because as much as we brag about our higher order reasoning skills, we really aren't much above the rest of the animal kingdom and still need things highly conceptualized and generalized in order to understand and apply them. (I think the when someone comes along who doesn't need this, we call them a genius).
So, even math is full of generalizations and assumptions, and the higher the order of math the more so. Once you depart lower level calculus, mathematics quickly becomes theoretical, and basically uses numbers no more. Even numbers are assumptions and generalizations in math, the numbers only exist to simplify, generalize and conceptualize mathematical logic. the numbers are only used to introduce you to the logic of mathematics in a way you can understand, and slowly, the numbers are replaced by symbols. By the time you get around to using numbers in higher order math, you've already done all the math, the numbers at that point are just a way of translating back into 'real world' logic.

[Claudi]

In fact, as much of Latin America's 'European' influence is Spanish and Portuguese, do we even consider them European? Geographically they are on the continent of Europe, but culturally are they? As Napoleon said, 'Europe ends at the Pyrenees.' Which more accurately describes the 'cultural differences' between 'white Europe of the north, and Mediterrean Europe.' Some of these cultures in Spain, Portugal, Italy, had already had extensive contact with Africa and 'African's, long before the slave trade and the meeting in a new context in the 'New World.' 'African' does as well with different cultures being again, aggregated, to form an assumed culture for the purpose of academia.

With all kindness, I don't know where you come from but I have to tell you that the french and the spaniards have always been historically rivals and I don't think that Napoleon was a culturist. In fact he only wanted Europe to be french by conquering as much land as he could. So from here you have to deduce that this sentence can't be true. Europe is full of different cultures. There are 3 big linguistic families: Latin, germanic and slavic, though there are some others like the celt and others that come from Asia or Africa but the average is lower than 8%, I'd say. Of these 3 big linguistic families, take one, latin to start with; Do you think that the portuguese consider themselves close to the italians or french? No, of course they're not, because you took that famous Napoleon sentence and yes, Portugal is below/beyond the Pyrenees. But do you think that the french feel close to the germans? They share a very long border, eh? Do you think that the germans feel they are something like the polish? They share a long border but the polish's language is slavic. Do you think that austrians feel they are something like the hungarians? The first ones speak german and the second ones speak hungarian which came from the Urals so both languages have nothing in common, but both countries had a common kingdom centuries ago.
As I told you, that Napoleon sentence is totally untrue. People tend to generalize and this sentence is very generic. Of course Portugal and Spain had contact with Africa from centuries and milleniums ago but this doesn't mean that we're not europeans. I feel much more european than morrocan. Really, we've nothing to do with them. Our culture is far more latin and christian than african and muslim. And I say muslim because morrocans are. You also have to consider how many cultures there are in just one country. Spain has 4 languages: Castillian (spanish for the foreigners), galician, catalan and vasque (the only one not latin). We all speak castillian but my mother language is catalan.
You're wrong in all this subject. About other subjects you might be right but not about what I said.

[ejwhite09]

With all kindness, I don't know where you come from but I have to tell you that the french and the spaniards have always been historically rivals and I don't think that Napoleon was a culturist. In fact he only wanted Europe to be french by conquering as much land as he could. So from here you have to deduce that this sentence can't be true. Europe is full of different cultures. There are 3 big linguistic families: Latin, germanic and slavic, though there are some others like the celt and others that come from Asia or Africa but the average is lower than 8%, I'd say. Of these 3 big linguistic families, take one, latin to start with; Do you think that the portuguese consider themselves close to the italians or french? No, of course they're not, because you took that famous Napoleon sentence and yes, Portugal is below/beyond the Pyrenees. But do you think that the french feel close to the germans? They share a very long border, eh? Do you think that the germans feel they are something like the polish? They share a long border but the polish's language is slavic. Do you think that austrians feel they are something like the hungarians? The first ones speak german and the second ones speak hungarian which came from the Urals and both languages have nothing in common, and both had a common kingdom centuries ago.
As I told you, that Napoleon sentence is totally untrue. People tend to generalize and this sentence is very generic. Of course Portugal and Spain had contact with Africa from centuries and milleniums ago but this doesn't mean that we're not europeans. I feel much more european than morrocan. Really, we've nothing to do with them. Our culture is far more latin and christian than african and muslim. And I say muslim because morrocans are. You also have to consider how many cultures there are in just one country. Spain has 4 languages: Castillian (spanish for the foreigners), galician, catalan and vasque (the only one not latin). We all speak castillian but my mother language is catalan.
You're wrong in all this subject. About other subjects you might be right but not about what I said.

I speak a little occitan myself, used to live in toulouse. You from barça?

I think you misurderstand. I am not speaking of perceptions now but hundreds of years ago, when the americas were settled and feeling then prevelent among northern europeans that spain especially, remember at this time portugal had not long regained its independence as a kingdom, that spain and portugals experience with african conquest had a different culture.

You live in 2011, and benefit from 60 years of unprecedented european unity and peaceful cooperation. You feel more european because you are now.

I wouldnt base current relations on an off the cuff remark napoleon made two hundred years ago. Do the french and germans like each other? In 2011? Yes to a degree unknown before. The thought of germany and france going to war is,laughable in 2011.

I think you are making the same point as me, that culture and its boundaries are relative to the observer, and therefore, near impossible to intellectually disect.

[Claudi]

I can understand aranès also, a dialect of occitan. Quite similar to catalan. And yes, I'm from Barcelona and my longlife team is Barça.

It's not that I misunderstood you. Maybe I didn't treat all the subject in every term. That would be a too long post.
Yes, we're in 2011 and nowadays almost nothing has to do with what was happening centuries and milleniums ago.
You say that " The thought of germany and france going to war is,laughable in 2011". Yes, people has internalized that another war in Europe ain't possible. I also have to say that I lived 3 years in Holland and believe me that most of the dutch that I met don't like the idea of comparing their language to the german.
Politically nothing has to do after 70 years but the mentallity stays the same for most people.

Yes, Europe is united...politically, but a swedish thinks of italian problems as their problems and not as swedish problems. The spanish economy is sh-t? Ok, it's their problem, they think, as we think that the greek and irish economic problems are their problem. Because we still don't have the perception of Europe as an ALL as it may happen in the USA.
Portugal and Spain were united for only 20 years. THAT is laughable.

Coming back to musical roots, andalusian music (it's not only flamenco) has nothing to do with catalan traditional music. The rhythms and the instruments are different and we are in the same country. Anyway, foreigners think of flamenco as the spanish music, and that's too generic. It just comes from the south of Spain but when talking about spanish music one shouldn't be so generic.

[ejwhite09]

I can understand aranès also, a dialect of occitan. Quite similar to catalan. And yes, I'm from Barcelona and my longlife team is Barça.

It's not that I misunderstood you. Maybe I didn't treat all the subject in every term. That would be a too long post.
Yes, we're in 2011 and nowadays almost nothing has to do with what was happening centuries and milleniums ago.
You say that " The thought of germany and france going to war is,laughable in 2011". Yes, people has internalized that another war in Europe ain't possible. I also have to say that I lived 3 years in Holland and believe me that most of the dutch that I met don't like the idea of comparing their language to the german.
Politically nothing has to do after 70 years but the mentallity stays the same for most people.

Yes, Europe is united...politically, but a swedish thinks of italian problems as their problems and not as swedish problems. The spanish economy is sh-t? Ok, it's their problem, they think, as we think that the greek and irish economic problems are their problem. Because we still don't have the perception of Europe as an ALL as it may happen in the USA.
Portugal and Spain were united for only 20 years. THAT is laughable.

Coming back to musical roots, andalusian music (it's not only flamenco) has nothing to do with catalan traditional music. The rhythm and the instruments are different and we are in the same country. Anyway, foreigners think of flamenco as the spanish music, and that's too generic. It just comes from the south of Spain but when talking about spanish music one shouldn't be so generic.

Once again,youre arguing the same point as me. Europe is very united now, letting spain into the common market was a major issue, like the turks, almost. Even the american states have differences. Do I think as a virginian ill be fighting a war againts pennsylvania? youre only arguing my point that I made by the quote, and,you have equivocated a bit first you were european, now youre not. That 'european' is not a definite term. Napoleon meant spains refusal of the renaissance and the enlightenment, the huge role of the church and its divisions between its liberal modern and catholic medival groups, which erupted in war several times made it distinctly different from modern post enlightenment europe. A cultural distinction. Youre saying youre white and christian, so youre european. Napoleon was saying, you tan too well and are just a tad superstitious to be european. How does being 'latin and christian' have to do with being european? Are not bosniaks europeans? What of turks? What of mexicans. Are french latin? Most americans use latin to mean hispanic and would never consider the french latin.

Yes europe has differences but its over common ag policy and bank regulations, it doesnt matter how the dutch feel about comparisons to german, are the germans and french building forts on the border? The unity of europe is stronger and more inclusive, to a larger degree youre differences have become, like in america, matters of jokes among friends.

And portugal was just one of the many kingdoms on the iberian peninsula prior to reconquista, and portugese is similar to gallacian, so again drawing distinctions of people based on lines on maps that have varying reasons for existence, seldom to do with commonalities among individual in those lines, is very imprecise. To a large degree,the commonalties within nations are the result of imposing. The castillian domination of iberia, the parisian domination of france, norman in britain. Most southern french spoke french as a second language the midi was very culturally distinct from paris. Now occitanian is merely a dream of academics and culturephiles. Few kids today speak occitan, catalan fairs better but ive met people from barcelona who say they dont really know it as well as castilian.

Again I think your point of music only highlights the point im trying to make about the vagueness and massive amount of generalization which goes into using terms like 'african' or 'european culture.' And that they are mostly terms of racial identity. As evidenced your defense of your europeaness was your race and religion, not geography, shared literature, national heros, language, food, music, etc.

[Claudi]

Uff, man, these are too many things under discussion and I don't think this is the proper forum to do that. Anyway, I see you know a lot about Europe and its countries. I just wanted to point that Napoleon sentence that everytime I read it from a foreigner I tend to think that s/he doesn't know anything about. I see that with it I also tend to generalize.
Yeah, there are many catalans who hardly speak or don't speak this language but usually they understand it. Normally their parents are from other parts in Spain or foreigners or they're just newcomers. As I told you before, every spaniard speaks castillian. It's the common tongue.

[ksjazzguitar]

I guess that's the main point Kevin, I don't think anyone else feels this way. I've never heard that jazz was 'invented' by African Americans.

Well, I say it was invented by African-Americans - I'm not denying that they did the work. I also say it was a combination of European and African influences. My point is that the European influences are often given lip service. Just looking at the Wikipedia entry's first paragraph:

Jazz is a musical tradition and style of music that originated at the beginning of the 20th century in African American communities in the Southern United States from a confluence of African and European music traditions. From its early development until the present, jazz has incorporated music from 19th and 20th century American popular music. Its West African pedigree is evident in its use of blue notes, improvisation, polyrhythms, syncopation, and the swung note.

It is a subtle thing. Note that with the exception of the phrase, "and European music traditions" there is no mention. They seem fit to itemize it's West African influences ("blue notes, improvisation, polyrhythms, syncopation, and the swung note") and provide links, but the European influences are not worth noting. There is a European influence it seems, but just not worth discussing. The African influences? Oh yeah, we gotta list and hyperlink those! The European? Don't worry about it, those four words covered it. This is typical of most descriptions of jazz in the popular media. Is harmony not as important of a characteristic as blue notes? Is regular meter not as important as polyrhythm? Are nearly every instrument with which jazz associated not important? Is the pentatonic scale more important to jazz than the septatonic scale? (I could easily argue the opposite.)

John Ross' example of a blurb from the Kennedy center shows a similar bias by emphasis - 4 times as much space on African influences as on European. I'm not saying we should count lines to make them equal, but this is a consistent pattern, especially in non-scholarly media. It's less common in scholarly sources, but it shows up there a little sometimes too. If you don't think it is important, fine. But once you are aware of it, it starts popping out at you.

Also, the number of battles that I have had on this forum trying to apply European harmonic concepts to jazz reveals a misconception that that part of the tradition comes from somewhere else. (Where, I can't imagine.)

When you say white or black, it denotes race, regardless of how you mean it.

True, but it's easier than typing "African-American" and "American of Western European origin" over and over. Most people are comfortable with having those refer to culture. Ultimately it is a description of the actors involved. If people want to infer some racist connotation to that, then they can. I can't stop that and they'd probably find something in there no matter what I wrote. I have several black friends with whom I use the term to describe differences in culture. Perhaps it is ill-advised to use such easily misunderstood language in a public place like this, but I'm an optimist - I like to think that as long as I say what I honestly mean, from a kind and understanding place, that people will know what I mean.

I was speaking of the Economic Crisis from 2007 until 2010, we are aware, but trying to divulge the factors of causation has proved near impossible, ...

I still call it a flawed analogy (even ignoring the fact that several books and documentaries have recently come out on the subject.) You can pick small events over the course of history and say that we can't know them. There are also events for which we do have information and can infer things from them.

It seems by your analogy that we can never know anything because we can't know what happened in 2007 - a kind of historical nihilism that gets us nowhere. We don't know what Albert Einstein's last words were (his nurse didn't speak German), but that doesn't detract from what we do know about him. We don't know when Henry V was born, but that doesn't change the fact that we know when he fought the Battle of Agincourt. We don't know exactly what day gunpowder was invented, but we can trace its spread and learn how it affected the cultures with which in came in contact. We don't know exactly when and where Latin was "officially created" - but that doesn't mean that we can't trace it's influence and how it mingled with and affected other languages, often eventually creating new languages.

You seemed determined to conclude that nothing is knowable (at least when it serves your purpose.) I think that we have to keep track of our confidence in the info, our confidence in the conclusion, and where we are generalizing, but most scholarship in any kind of an historical field violates the high standards you've set here - most are based on a violation of your standards.

It's really not a matter of hard/soft science division, which in my experience is merely an academic diversion, which disciplines that use math use to deride those who don't. ...

First of all, I never really thought of "math" as being the divider. All sciences use math. There is a lot of math in music theory, that doesn't make it a hard science.

Without getting into the division between the two, I think that the alleged feud between hard and soft science is much overblown. I've started out as an engineering major, and I can remember no late night "Let's make fun of the anthropology majors" sessions. I have friends with PhDs in physics and math, and they have never snickered at any of my studies in musicology and ethnomusicolgy. Actually, they are quite interested in them and a lot of the soft sciences - a quick check of their bookshelf confirms this. I'm sure there are a few egg-head snobs who look down on anything that can't be proven with an equation, but they are just a minority of jerks - you get them in all fields. Sheldon Cooper is funny, but he is a fictional character. It is the fact that he is so over the top that makes him funny.

It's just a cliche. I hate how in movies they always show the FBI and the "local" cops at odds with each other, fighting over jurisdiction and getting in each other's way. I asked a cop friend about it. He said it was just a Hollywood cliche, they get along great.

I'm not sure I buy your "Math is abstract therefore it is a soft science" argument. You say, "Even numbers are assumptions and generalizations in math". Huh? The existence of the number "2" is an assumption? How else can I count my feet? At best it is an abstraction, but there is nothing wrong with abstractions (which are almost always required) or generalizations in hard sciences. I think that you can play pseudo-philosophical word games to talk yourself into any fanciful idea - I gave up on that when I stopped smoking weed in high school.

You seem to think that "soft science" is some kind of an insult. I just take it to mean that it uses a different epistemological standard and different research methods. (I will try to refrain from going into it.) I freely and unhesitatingly refer to musicology and ethnomusicology as "soft sciences" - it's not an insult. To me there is a very real distinction, but I don't want to get into that - I've hit my quota of digressions for the year already.

Peace,
Kevin

[ejwhite09]

Well, I say it was invented by African-Americans
It is a subtle thing. Note that with the exception of the phrase, "and European music traditions" there is no mention. They seem fit to itemize it's West African influences ("blue notes, improvisation, polyrhythms, syncopation, and the swung note") and provide links, but the European influences are not worth noting. There is a European influence it seems, but just not worth discussing. The African influences? Oh yeah, we gotta list and hyperlink those! The European? Don't worry about it, those four words covered it. This is typical of most descriptions of jazz in the popular media. Is harmony not as important of a characteristic as blue notes? Is regular meter not as important as polyrhythm? Are nearly every instrument with which jazz associated not important? Is the pentatonic scale more important to jazz than the septatonic scale? (I could easily argue the opposite.)

John Ross' example of a blurb from the Kennedy center shows a similar bias by emphasis - 4 times as much space on African influences as on European. I'm not saying we should count lines to make them equal, but this is a consistent pattern, especially in non-scholarly media. It's less common in scholarly sources, but it shows up there a little sometimes too. If you don't think it is important, fine. But once you are aware of it, it starts popping out at you.

Also, the number of battles that I have had on this forum trying to apply European harmonic concepts to jazz reveals a misconception that that part of the tradition comes from somewhere else. (Where, I can't imagine.)

True, but it's easier than typing "African-American" and "American of Western European origin" over and over. Most people are comfortable with having those refer to culture. Ultimately it is a description of the actors involved. If people want to infer some racist connotation to that, then they can. I can't stop that and they'd probably find something in there no matter what I wrote. I have several black friends with whom I use the term to describe differences in culture. Perhaps it is ill-advised to use such easily misunderstood language in a public place like this, but I'm an optimist - I like to think that as long as I say what I honestly mean, from a kind and understanding place, that people will know what I mean.

Right, exactly, it seems that you merely, are taking exception to the fact that 'white' contributions aren't given their propers in the dicussion of jazz. Your black friends probably tolerate your usage, as black people we are daily, brushing over rather insensitive language of whites, to the point where we are quite often offended and make no note of it.

But in the larger context of why the black american influence and connections to africa are stressed in jazz, is probably due to the fact that EVERYTHING else that is tied to American greatness is contributed to white americans or european influence. So I see it as more of an attempt to give black americans, something! Than to be an accurate depiction of history, and such is the formation of the myth. And history is mostly a retelling of myths. Simply having facts in the myth or starting from a point of departure that is factual doesn't make it less a myth(as the Daily Show tries to tell the media everynight). Perhaps the people who don't understand the harmonic concepts, are using different sources, or have misunderstood them, you several times state you're in a masters program. So holding people to the same standard as a someone who is myopically focused as a grad student, is a bit unrealistic. If I held the average person to my standards of statisically analysis, my head would explode everytime I heard someone quote a 'poll' or use a 'statistic.'
As I'm saying people generalize way too much, in order to understand, for things to be considered settled. At most, you could investigate this, and then continue to investigate. Even 'African' or 'European' is a generalization. Even 'African American' do you mean Southern Blacks, Northern Blacks, rural blacks, educated blacks, there's a difference among these groups and within them.
Sometimes when I hear people talk about formation of American music, they make it seem as if every black person in America was playing music.

It seems by your analogy that we can never know anything because we can't know what happened in 2007 - a kind of historical nihilism that gets us nowhere. We don't know what Albert Einstein's last words were (his nurse didn't speak German), but that doesn't detract from what we do know about him. We don't know when Henry V was born, but that doesn't change the fact that we know when he fought the Battle of Agincourt. We don't know exactly what day gunpowder was invented, but we can trace its spread and learn how it affected the cultures with which in came in contact. We don't know exactly when and where Latin was "officially created" - but that doesn't mean that we can't trace it's influence and how it mingled with and affected other languages, often eventually creating new languages.

It's not that we can't know what happened in 2007, I'm saying we do! That we have more data and more documentation and access to primary sources, and still figuring out 'what happened' let alone attributing it to a single source is proving impossible.
The several books all have several different reasons, reaching a consensus conclusion is impossible and probably fool hardy, individuals for a myriad of reasons stress different aspects of an event to themselves. Pick up five books about any historical event or person and you will have essentially five different books about it. Yes, certain indisupted facts will be shared, dates of birth, or dates of occurence, but the reasons for the importance of those dates and so on will be largely the inference of the author and therefore diverge from account to account. In high school, my history teacher said 'Don't believe something until you read it three places.' As I've gone further into the life of academia, I've found this even to be insufficient. I've read some guys or gals and thought they were really right on, then you go to a conference, and 5 people come up and say, 'oh, no, they're crap.'

We know the English won at Agincourt, but we don't knwo how many people died, and this is a bit of apples and organes, one event in history is different than the aggregation of culture occuring over centuries. Even 'Latin' its hard for me to say it 'evolved' into other languages. Rather, that vulgar latin, never really was the classical latin, I learned in school. Because language diverges from region to region, in a time before television and radio, and widespread education. Chances are classical latin was only spoken among an educated class, and vulgar latin had divergence from region to region which over time, and probably due to the low level of cross cultural communication gradually local variations on the same theme became different languages. I studied Latin(which is a generalization), and my interest in French and Spanish(which are generalizations) lead me to Occitan and Catalan(again generalizations) and I think linguistics puts too much emphasis on language evolution, which assumes that at one time everyone started from the same root, which is clearly not supported by the historical record. In many ways the 'evolution' of Latin into French, Spanish, Italian, is a supplanting of elite of roman, with a more local, less educated elite, who were more inclined to use the vulgar dialects of their regions. Than a slow creep from Latin to Castillian.

You seemed determined to conclude that nothing is knowable (at least when it serves your purpose.) I think that we have to keep track of our confidence in the info, our confidence in the conclusion, and where we are generalizing, but most scholarship in any kind of an historical field violates the high standards you've set here - most are based on a violation of your standards.

In the end, nothing is knowable, this what Socrates meant. In the end, one can only know more and more, that the pursuit of knowledge is a life long quest at which one never reaches a conclusion or achieves complete information. Therefore I am wise because I know this, because I don't pointificate upon incomplete information and make conclusions which are based in incomplete information. Again this is why I left university, because after geeting a masters, I'd had all the practical knowledge of economics I could acquire, and classes seemed more and more like those high school weed sessions than any practical learning.

Again, I said there is a reason I left, academia. I've not set the standards, Socrates set the standards. Of course scholarship doesn't meet these standards, because in scholarship, one must assume away important things which help in the understanding of a subject in order to simplify it. There is a reason why the understanding we have of 'history' is constantly changes. We have our theory on Agincourt, but we could do an archeological dig on the field of battle tomorrow and discover something which completely changes our view of what happened at the battle of agincourt.
So, I left academia, because living in the theoretical world no longer appealed to me, as these things are rarely able to be taken to the real world and have meaning. The real world has too much noise, too much of a remainder in its division to really be studied in this manner, to do so would require, standards so high, that no scholarship could occur, or a simplification of the world so total, as to render scholarship all but theoretical and unuseable in reality.

[ejwhite09]

You make a statement, I believe about context. Which is important and so having reached context, we see that, without context, words are meaningless. So definition of terms is paramount. So having been an academic my standards for academic research are very high, given how political and outright sloppy the process of academic research is. In many regards, funding and publishing goes to those who are upholding the dogmatic strain of the field. Those who challenge that understanding usually have to fight for funding and recognition. I've seen grant boards and peer review boards and diseration defenses that have made me think, 'this must be how Gallileo and Copernicus must have felt.'

First of all, I never really thought of "math" as being the divider. All sciences use math. There is a lot of math in music theory, that doesn't make it a hard science.

Without getting into the division between the two, I think that the alleged feud between hard and soft science is much overblown. I've started out as an engineering major, and I can remember no late night "Let's make fun of the anthropology majors" sessions. I have friends with PhDs in physics and math, and they have never snickered at any of my studies in musicology and ethnomusicolgy. Actually, they are quite interested in them and a lot of the soft sciences - a quick check of their bookshelf confirms this. I'm sure there are a few egg-head snobs who look down on anything that can't be proven with an equation, but they are just a minority of jerks - you get them in all fields. Sheldon Cooper is funny, but he is a fictional character. It is the fact that he is so over the top that makes him funny.

It's not a 'lets make fun attitude' but when I studied I noticed a noticeable feeling of 'not taking seriously' the disciplines which 'play with math.' Even met some 'soft science' people who reject the use of math in their fields. A political science professor who said math in 'anthropology, political science, sociology, and psychology, simply doesn't work.' Friends are also usually much more tolerant of each other, I believe thats what makes one a friend. The toleration of things that would be untolerable in other context. There are 'theories' on economics I'm willing to entertain from my friends I would never tolerate from an airport stranger...such as ramblings on the Federal Reserve.

I'm not sure I buy your "Math is abstract therefore it is a soft science" argument. You say, "Even numbers are assumptions and generalizations in math". Huh? The existence of the number "2" is an assumption? How else can I count my feet? At best it is an abstraction, but there is nothing wrong with abstractions (which are almost always required) or generalizations in hard sciences. I think that you can play pseudo-philosophical word games to talk yourself into any fanciful idea - I gave up on that when I stopped smoking weed in high school.

In essence, thats all academia is, fancial word games. Then, they give you a degree, so people know that your fanciful word games are certified and you're not just a stoned teenager. Numbers are assumptions in math. Real math doesn't really use numbers, real math, is a logic of representing real world relationships. By the time I get to using numbers, I'm merely plugging data into, the mathematical equations that I've arrived at using theorems and accepted postulations to represent the relationships in my model. The numbers merely serve to translate that relationship into is translateable back into 'lay man' land. Math is built upon many theorems and postulations, all of which are assumptions, which we have no proof of, other than our own fanciful language, which convinces us it is true. Which is merely to say, that whether its the physics of the universe, the economics of recession, or the formation of jazz, we are ever only making our best guess, and the humility of that, should stop us from attempting to overide dogma with dogma. Honestly, your beef seems to be more political than musical or historical.

You seem to think that "soft science" is some kind of an insult. I just take it to mean that it uses a different epistemological standard and different research methods. (I will try to refrain from going into it.) I freely and unhesitatingly refer to musicology and ethnomusicology as "soft sciences" - it's not an insult. To me there is a very real distinction, but I don't want to get into that - I've hit my quota of digressions for the year already.

Peace,
Kevin

I don't think it is an insult, I know its a division, between those who use math in their fields to help understand and find real world relationships to give evidence to their theories( I would say they don't do math, they use math, as in they usually are just plugging data into already derived formulas). Whereas 'hard science' is actually having to derive formulas themselves. It's not that big of a difference, and its an important distinction.

But yeah, we can take it to PM, as we've digressed greatly, but then again you get a couple of academics talking and digressing will be the result.

[ksjazzguitar]

...Your black friends probably tolerate your usage, as black people we are daily, brushing over rather insensitive language of whites, to the point where we are quite often offended and make no note of it. ...

Frankly I'm a little offended that you think so little of my black friends - and my strong-willed brown wife for that matter. It seems that you make assumptions about how they feel based on the color if your skin. Maybe I just tend to surround myself with people who are willing to discuss things openly and without preconceived prejudices - often they lead the way. You seem to think that you know my friends and wife better than I do, but from where I sit, they seem to be freely engaging in these conversations and seem more than willing to tell me to eff off if they think I've gone too far. I'm offended that you've characterized them as "better just agree with whitey" just because of the color of their skin. Maybe that's how your friends behave, but please keep your 1950s race relation ideas away from my friends - you insult them too much. Not all black people think alike.

So I see it as more of an attempt to give black americans, something! Than to be an accurate depiction of history, and such is the formation of the myth.

We agree 100%. But I think that perpetuation of myth is not the job of history. When history perpetuates myth, bad things happen. Many native-Americans protest loudly against the myth of Columbus. I agree, I join them. Now, the "jazz" myth that we seem to agree too is certainly less dangerous. But the Columbus myth was once viewed that way - it kept people fired up in their christian crusade and rape of the New World, back when that was the European priority. Fortunately, priorities have changed. But I teach grade school chess classes and was thumbing through a history book and was shocked to see how much of the myth is still there. (Don't even get me started on the pilgrims.) After the civil war, the South pushed the myth that the freed slaves are the ones that ruined Reconstruction (as opposed to all the Southern racists who were terrorizing all the competent black politicians and burning down black schools.) They also perpetuate the myth that the Civil war had nothing to do with slavery (contrary to many quotes and writings from the time.) That myth continues today. Is that myth OK?

I don't think that we should pick and choose which myths should stand and fall based on race. They should all fall. The purpose of history should be to set the record straight.

And history is mostly a retelling of myths.

No. That is mythology masquerading as history. I agree that it happens in a lot of school text books. I recently read Lies My History Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong by James Loewen. He went through 12 American history textbooks and showed how they perpetuate old myths even though history scholarship had moved on, sometimes almost 100 years earlier. But that was the point! The problem wasn't the scholarship of history, but the high school textbook writers! Don't confuse the two. There is often a big disconnect between scholarship and popular culture - we should be fighting that, not supporting it.

We know the English won at Agincourt, but we don't knwo how many people died,

First of all, we have a pretty good idea. Secondly, that doesn't mean that we can't know the larger effects of the battle. You seem determined to pick at little facts that you deem unknowable and then extrapolate that the whole thing is unknowable. The fact is that exactly how many people died is not very relevant to understanding the big picture. If we suddenly learned that the English deaths were twice as many as we thought and the French half as many, would it change our understanding of the sweep of Anglo-Franco relations? No, not in the slightest. That is just a red herring.

In the end, nothing is knowable, this what Socrates meant.

Really, then why do you have an opinion on anything? That's all just philosophical masturbation. How do you get out of bed in the morning?

We have our theory on Agincourt, but we could do an archeological dig on the field of battle tomorrow and discover something which completely changes our view of what happened at the battle of agincourt.

But that doesn't mean that there is no value in trying to form opinions on what we know. The theory of gravity could change tomorrow, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't use our current understanding in physics equations. We can only work on what we know, and your suggested intellectual paralysis because things might change gets us no where.

In many regards, funding and publishing goes to those who are upholding the dogmatic strain of the field. Those who challenge that understanding usually have to fight for funding and recognition.

But that's how it should be. Everyone who comes forward with a strange theory should not have equal weight as the established belief. The burden of proof lies with the claimant, otherwise there would be chaos. This is a fundamental principle that has allowed our knowledge to grow to what it is. That's how we've landed on the moon and reconstructed languages that have been dead for hundreds of years. That's how we've cured a long list of diseases and figured out as much about the universe we have.

And I'm tired of that tire old line "scholars only care about confirming what they believe." No, they applaud people who challenge. Name one famous scientist from history who didn't change what people believed. The same can be said of any academic discipline. What scholars don't like are people who come in with personal theories and no support other than "because I say so." Like Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Einstein's theory of relativity encountered massive resistance. But he didn't just say, "because I say so," he provided extraordinary proof. That is why we remember him.

In my studies in musicology and ethnomusicology, I've encountered many papers that challenge the status quo, some slightly and some drastically. The ones that are well documented and supported get respect, the ones that don't, don't. And I've seen a few students who think (as you seem to) that their hairbrained and unsupported theories should have equal weight as hundreds of years of scholarship. They typically burn out and leave academia, grumbling about how it's all unfair and that they are all just against new theories. No, they love new theories - if they are supported with more than just "because I say so." The people who support their new theories - they're the ones that get universities named after them.

How do you think that knowledge keeps changing if all new theories are rejected? In my experience the scholars that challenge the status quo are the heroes of the academic world - those are the rock stars. But they do it right.

It's not a 'lets make fun attitude' but when I studied I noticed a noticeable feeling of 'not taking seriously' the disciplines which 'play with math.'

Sorry, I've had the exact opposite experience. And this is from both sides, studying a hard science and working in the high tech industry for 6 years, and working on the soft science side.

In essence, thats all academia is, fancial word games. Then, they give you a degree, so people know that your fanciful word games are certified and you're not just a stoned teenager.

Really? Because your anti-intellectual, nothing is knowable attitude is more what I would typify of a stoned teenager.

.

But there's really no point in continuing. If you belief that nothing is knowable, then you will automatically reject any idea that you don't like. If you believe that history just collects myths, then you will reject all of that. If you believe that academia is a big conspiracy to automatically reject new ideas, then you will automatically reject whatever it says.

I'm not sure how an intellectual discussion is possible.

Peace,
Kevin

[ejwhite09]

What I'm saying is intellectual exploration is for certain areas and fields in which its limited capacity to generate generalized models upon which to extrapolate into complexity is valid.

Your attempt to intellectualize something like 'jazz-european or african influences' is not intellectual, its conjecture. It is a late night dorm room bull session. It is McLaughlin Group, its not a real intellectual debate, in which evidence can be produced to acheieve a model of use. Which is why I said its a futile attempt.

As you were rejecting everyone who had an opinion who did not conform to your opinon, I was stating ITS all opinion, because this is not a scientific question. Therefore, scientific, intellectual means of exploring are futile. And your attempt to throw your graduate student weight around, really amounts to internet bullying, as the question you asked, rises to little more than a writing prompt exercise.

So, it is to say, if you ask an opinion question, you should allow people to present their opinions. When dealing with a question such as the one you asked, its futile and anti intellectual(in the real sense, not the cable news sense you use it in, as obviously my interests are varied and researched, as for instance when you were smoking weed in high school, i was spending my weekend in the library reading and taking notes on 5 or 6 books, reading 5 or 6 books a month, on topics as varied as the Meiji Restoration in Japan to Evolution of Feminism to the Works of James Baldwin, suffice to say, learning isn't something I went to college to figure out)to attempt to derive some sort of conclusions, in fact its what is called pretension, the use intellectual surroundings to dress up opinion, what I believe, Socrates called sophistry.

When I say nothing is knowable, it's a statement on the primacy of opinion over fact, in the world, there are very few facts with which to operate. And in the Socratic fashion, you being an intellectual grad student, are aware of what the Socratic Method is, that intellectual pursuit is never ending, that arriving a conclusion is more often than not merely a statement of ending the pursuit not of having reached a destination. What I'm saying is that as much as I read about history, economics, politics, music, I remain humble enough to know there isn't enough time in life, to know everything, let alone enough to, without being arrogant, present what I know as more than opinion, more than my own, incomplete aggregation of facts, opinion and hypothesis.

Quickly, the dead at Agincourt(something I've been reading about since high school, as the English monarchy and evolution of European states, espcially France, England, Germany and Spain were and are of particular interest to me, the Valois dynasty being supplanted by the Bourbons was of interest to me as well, having learned of Henri IV in school), is a raging debate in historical circles, one need not look far to know this, you say we have a 'pretty good idea' which means nobody really knows! but we have some educated and informed best guesses, which you must admit, could still be completely wrong if they are based on one mismeasured variable. this is where Socrates and intellectual humility come in.

Now, Kevin, throughtout this you have flirted with language that I would consider racially offensive and I have resorted from confronting you on it, but this 'whitey' crap is a bridge too far. I did not say 'agree with whitey' I said often blacks let offensive, insenstive language used by whites go by without retort because we are so used to it, and that friends are often more tolerant of controversial ideas from other friends than others. Yes among my white friends there is a degree of comfort that allows us to cast off racial politics, as well, I never suggested this wasn't the case between you and your friends.

History is a myth. If you want to have religious faith in history, go ahead, but I studied history quite a bit, and history is merely a reinteration, at best you can come out with some facts, as somethings did or did not happen. But trying to conflate that with an accurate depiction of events, is fool hardy, if it were true, historians would have no debates, and historians have some of the most divise disciplinary arguments, I have witnessed, including what history even is, social science? humanity? History is one of the most unconcensused disciplines in all academia.
The myth of the Civil War(being a Virginian and living in Richmond, something I also know a little about) having nothing to do with slavery is as wrong as the Civil War having everything to do with slavery, or that Father Abraham and the North fought the war to liberate the slaves, again like I said history is a myth and a reinteration. Better men than you have attempted to correct this to no avail. If you think you have the moxy to change this, by all means, we welcome your struggle. But the Jazz Guitar Forum, is a very bad forum to begin your crusade.
And, yes understanding the correct number of dead in the Battle would change our understanding of the Anglo French relationship and the course of the Hundred Years war, it might even change the significance of the Battle, and therefore the myth of Henry V and Henry VI might be changed, perhaps given that the war waged another 40 years, other more significant factors than the battle and longbowmen maybe found, and yes this would fundamentally alter our understanding of European history.
Much as the removal of Pluto from the list of Planets will forever cause those who come after me to have a fundamentally different view of the Solar System, than I have.
I don't suggest intellectual paralysis but humility, you preach intellectual arrogance. I've noticed over the course of debates, the moment someone questions you, you throw out your Masters Degree. Which is fine. But essentially you post a vague topic, people post opinions and then you attempt to 'school' them, which is quite juvenile, regardless of what drugs you consume whilst at it.
The theory of gravity could change tomorrow, and frankly has changed greatly since Newton, but wouldn't change anything but our understanding because gravity exists independent of our generealized concepts used to understand by everything is held together by attractional forces. How and why attractional forces hold everything together is really only of import to scientists, and intellectuals who seek to understand things, suffice to say, its relatively unimportant in practicality how one believes this happens because it happens. Same with Jazz, a complete understanding of the formation of jazz, is never going to occur, if a bunch of people in a unversity want to undertake the crusade, go for it, needless to say its practically unimportant to anyone but academics as Jazz exists and is what it is regardless of why people think it exists or what it is. My main argument in this vein is that my opinion is that by the time the music which coalesces into 'jazz' comes along, a unique american culture has formed and so distilling these influences is going to be a pretty difficult task. Then you said well you want to know the 'grandparents' of the influences, whatever that means. To which I countered, human civilization has been one of constant migration and constant influence, so even trying to distill the purity of the 'grandparents' is pretty futile. Then you moved on to the degree of documentation of black musicians versus white musicians. Which to me seems you real bone to pick, which is why I said from the jump, this debate is always, really a mask for statements of racial pride. In essence I have used the Socratic Method upon you, by continuing to ask you questions, and under this method as long as I can pose a question you have not answered it. Finally the line of questioning allowed you to reveal that in reality your question is a matter of concern for the 'historical record' and the 'lack of documentation' of european influences. Like most academics, you tire of the questioning, you become rude. I'm not taken aback by it, remember I used to be an academic, I know the personality type.
So basically what I'm saying to you is, if you want to prompt discussion with dorm room topics, expect opinions, and never think because you have got a masters degree, that others can't go to the library and read what you're reading. Practice some humility. The Jazz Guitar forum is a place for opinions, if you want to lead a crusade to change human understanding you should find a new venue.

PS...I get up, usually, slowly dragging one leg over the edge of the bed and then the other...or rip myself from a dream and run to the shower, depending on how much I've overslept my alarm. Then to quote George Carlin: "I j*ck off, wipe my chest, and go to work."

[ksjazzguitar]

Your attempt to intellectualize something like 'jazz-european or african influences' is not intellectual, its conjecture.

Ethnomusicological research and documentation spanning over a century is not conjecture. True, I have no direct knowledge of it. But I also have no direct knowledge of the moons of Mars, but that does not mean that I can't know certain things about them.

As you were rejecting everyone who had an opinion who did not conform to your opinon, I was stating ITS all opinion,

First off all, I'm allowed to disagree with someone. You assume that because others opinions fail to sway me, that it is because of some intractability of my position. First of all, I have modified my position a little, and sometimes ideas fail to sway simply because they are not well formed.

because this is not a scientific question. Therefore, scientific, intellectual means of exploring are futile.

I never claimed it was scientific - it's historical

Quickly, the dead at Agincourt, is a raging debate in historical circles, one need not look for to know this, you say we have a 'pretty good idea' which means nobody really knows! but we have some educated and informed best guesses, which you must admit, could still be completely wrong if they are based on one mismeasured variable. this is where Socrates and intellectual humility come in.

No, my point is that it won't change our understanding of the effect of the battle. It is just a diversion. It is the kind of things that give historians wet dreams but does not change the big picture.

The "all knowledge is subjective" has it's limitation and can create intellectual paralysis if it is allowed to spread too far.

But ultimately you seem comfortable that your facts are knowable, but like to cloak everyone else's information with "unknowability."

I did not say 'agree with whitey' I said often blacks let offensive, insenstive language used by whites go by without retort because we are so used to it, and that friends are often more tolerant of controversial ideas from other friends than others.

Perhaps. But you implied that my friends merely tolerate my language as opposed to engage in lively debate with me. That is a ridiculous assumption. And I just use appropriate language and if people want to misinterpret me, that is up to them. I cannot affect how my words are misinterpreted and I'm not going to avoid subjects or paralyze discussions of them simply because everyone is terrified of anything that intersects race. We need to get past that. People should be listening to what people are really saying instead of just looking for excuses to pain them as racially insensitive. If my black friends can use this language, then so can I. I refuse to make racial distinctions about who can say what. If people are looking for an excuse to be offended, then that is their problem, not mine.

History is a myth. If you want to have religious faith in history, go ahead, but I studied history quite a bit, and history is merely a reinteration, at best you can come out with some facts, as somethings did or did not happen.

Sorry, but that is ridiculous. History is a raging debate. Only in high school is history or recitation of facts. Even my undergrad college music history classes were basically a recitation of facts. But when you get into grad work, you see that that is not what real history is - that was just what they taught the kiddies. Real history is raging debates and people constantly trying to reevaluate and challenge. Many of the papers that I read (and even a few that I wrote) were challenges. If they were well supported, they were well accepted. This "academia doesn't like challenges" is utter ridiculous to anyone who has actually been in the culture. Just go to a musicology conference and see how many debates are going on. They usually don't even bother allowing papers that regurgitate - that would be boring.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone could have really been involved in academia can come away with this opinion. I tend to find it more in people who never got there or burned out because they could stand that they were expected to defend their theories. Maybe you got in with a little pocket of bad scholarship. But my experience has been the exact opposite.

But these debates do not mean that nothing is knowable. Some things are very knowable. Some things are we can take a pretty good assumption. Some things have to be infered. Historians know all of this.

You seem to contradict yourself with "history is merely a reinteration" and "historians have some of the most divise disciplinary arguments." You seem to pick and choose which ever suits your mood.

The myth of the Civil War...

But this is my problem. You are confusing popular opinion and scholarship. And that is exactly the premise of my original question.

I don't suggest intellectual paralysis but humility, you preach intellectual arrogance.

But it is not inhumble to say that certain elements of jazz can be traced back to West African musical tradition and certain elements can be traced to the European/classical tradition.

I've noticed over the course of debates, the moment someone questions you, you throw out your Masters Degree. Which is fine. But essentially you post a vague topic, people post opinions and then you attempt to 'school' them, which is quite juvenile, regardless of what drugs you consume whilst at it.

No, I reluctantly throw out my MA when people challenge things that are well known and accepted without any evidence. Too many people quote some anonymous blog entry as evidence and think that trumps some book written by a musicologist who's devoted his life to the field. There are people that disagree with me "successfully" with me on this forum and even a few that have changed my mind - but it takes more than "because I read the first two and a half paragraphs on Wikipedia so I'm now an expert" argument.

So basically what I'm saying to you is, if you want to prompt discussion with dorm room topics, expect opinions, and never think because you have got a masters degree, that others can't go to the library and read what you're reading.

Dorm room topic? It was actually recommended by my professor as a potential dissertation topic to suggest on my doctoral applications. Your trivialization of the topic as "a dorm room topic" is silly. Tracing the cultural origins of jazz is no less scholarly than tracing the cultural origins Noh theater, or bhangra, or zarzuella, or the sarabande, or mazurka, or anything else. Are those "dorm room" topics. It is just the intersection of race that gets people all hot under the collar. I prefer to look past petty prejudices.

You seem to just not like the topic so you want to paint it with your "unknowable" or "dorm room" brush to try and quell discussion. But I'm deaf to anti-intellectual arguments like that. If you don't want to participate, then don't. The thread was dead before you brought it back to life.

Peace,
Kevin

[ejwhite09]

Haha, ok, I dont know how many times I've stated my knowledge is incomplete, and it goes without saying. Our understanding of the Moon and Mars has changed, and literally, almost changes with each new undertaking of research. I would caution making any statments about 'knowing' anything about Mars or the Moon. In fact, what can you know about the moon? You can know that it has an effect on the tides, you can know what it looks like, you can know its distance, in essence, you can know what is measurable and observable today. Everything else about the Moon is frankly unknown, merely theory. I just read two very good books about the Moon: Whence the Moon and Origin of the Moon. No theory is complete, the most accepted one of impact with a near earth body, leaves open questions so basic, as to make it just as plausible or unplausible as the others. So what do you know about the moon, that lunar scientists don't know? Seeing as my first comment came less than hour after another's in discussing West End Blues, I'd hardly say the thread was dead, before I entered, so I'd say you're obviously having a hard time even knowing what is happening in this thread. I'd try to get a grip on that before you go on to knowing about the Moon and Mars.
No I don't mind the topic, my opinion is it's a futile quest, as I doubt more can be added to topic, I really don't find european classical music being from europe to be a revelation. Yes, it is a dorm room discussion, would you perfer graduate student office discussion, it has no import on,the other side of the door. I don't even think anyone's attempted to sway you, people have made their own opinions and stated them. I attended a great program, had great professors and colleagues, I just no longer desired to live in the bubble of university. Once again, you assume and you care not if, you're misunderstood, which I was taught is very bad. Being understood, defining terms, was a major portion, of undergrad research methods. But I look forward to reading your groundbreaking scholarahip, in future.

[Jazzpunk]

I have read nothing in this thread so far that substantiates the allegations that there is an African American agenda to de-emphasize European contributions to jazz or that the generally accepted definition of jazz is a clear indication of reverse racism.

So far all I can tell is that the OP believes this to be true. Perhaps the final paper will have something that constitutes actual proof. As of now, all attempts to prove this thesis sound more like tinfoil hat ramblings than proof of an actual 'problem'.

[ksjazzguitar]

I have read nothing in this thread so far that substantiates the allegations that there is an African American agenda to de-emphasize European contributions to jazz or that the generally accepted definition of jazz is a clear indication of reverse racism.

I never said it was an "African-American agenda." I think that it is an American thing and it is not really a an "agenda" more of an unconscious tendency. I also pointed out that this is more in popular culture than it is in academia. I'm just looking to have more balance in the popular opinion, and hopefully to understand the unbalance.

I think that a simple examination of how jazz is usually defined in popular culture bears this out - African influences are always emphasized and either implied or explicitly stated to be the more important influence. Examples were given. This ignore that importance of several structural elements that come from the European/white-American tradition without which jazz wouldn't exist. But that is usually downplayed.

I'm not saying that this is a "problem" in the sense that Darfur or AIDS is a problem. But history is about examining the small questions.

It's interesting - I remember reading an essay by Dvorak where he encouraged American composers to use Native-American and African-American influences in their music. That is fine, but the tone of the article was that these were part of the natural heritage of white America and that they should just claim it as their own. Rightly, there was a lot of blow back to this cultural imperialism. (I have nothing against using exotic influences in composing, but to claim it was part of the white heritage was a bit too much. It was like, "Hey, we've abducted you, enslaved you, raped your women, beaten you, separated your families - and now we need to appropriate your culture as our own without giving proper credit.")

I think that this is almost the opposite. True, racism in this direction does less damage. But it is still wrong. History should not be about protecting myths. History should not be about perpetuating myths out of racial guilt or sympathy. It should be about seeking the truth as best we can. Personally, I find the syncretic explanation of the cultural origins of jazz to be much more inspiring and interesting. That is the irony - often the truth is much more interesting than the myth.

Bu if you guys don't see it, that's fine. Most people don't - that's the problem.

Peace,
Kevin

[orasnon]

I, too, wait with bated breath for this scholarship. (Never mind that Nelson George, Brian Ward, Stanley Crouch, Robin DG Kelley, et all, have already made notable contributions)

EJWhite and especially JEdgarwinter's single post hit the nail on the head. It makes me nauseous that AFrican American cultural production can't seem to escape the threat of colonization even in 2011...And as a pro-theory academic (PhD in history) and professor I must say the Kevin's pedantry is at once off-putting and amusing (and I'm surrounded by insecure would-be intellectuals every day at work, so I think I can detect the symptoms...)

[Jazzpunk]

Bu if you guys don't see it, that's fine. Most people don't - that's the problem.

Peace,
Kevin

If most people aren't seeing a problem that doesn't really exist than I'd say that's a good thing.