-
This has been such an interesting thread that it has pulled me back in. Please excuse the jumbled order of these comments:
Well, I will reluctantly admit that this is because these things are written for European-cultured people who don't want the obvious explained, rather than serious investigators who would like to have everything specified, including the unquantifiable.
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
No, because jazz harmonies are banal harmonies, they don't require much explanation. Even the stuff which jazz people think is sophisticated is banal by classical musicians' standards (you know this at least as well as I do). Whereas blue notes are unique to jazz. And in meter, 2 / 2 or 4 / 4 is obvious, even the most musically ignorant can count to four, but polyrhythm is something else.Is harmony not as important of a characteristic as blue notes? Is regular meter not as important as polyrhythm?
You're a clever lad, Kevin, we all know that. But you are frequently bad-mannered, so much so that I feel entitled to remind you that politeness isn't just going through the courtesies, the pleases and thank-yous, it's consideration for other people, of which you often show precious little. And you invite mockery like a sixteen-year-old boy who is still in short trousers. For example, Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
is just provocative. You throw out your (as yet unattained (though I'm sure deserved)) MA at the slightest opportunity, it has become a kind of running joke here. Mark Twain would have had little boys in the street throwing mud at you. And let's face it, when some kid says 'this is what my teacher told me,' most of us put on our face of resigned encouragement, but when you say 'It was actually recommended by my professor.' we're supposed to accept that as some sort of substantial argument. But in fact it's just as weedy as the kid and his teacher. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
And if you don't like that sort of mockery, perhaps you should seriously consider the possibility that it isn't everyone else, it just might be you. But hey, I'm saying this because I like you, in spite of yourself.
I completely agree. Just to show my objectivity, here. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
No, it isn't. Or the standard definition I received thirty years or so ago wasn't. The 'standard definition' back then was that jazz was created precisely as a result of the assimilation of European music by African Americans. One pattern imposed over another. God knows where you have got any other idea from. I blame the education system, myself. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
02-08-2011 08:37 PM
-
The next time I go to Germany to explore the roots of jazz and they tell me to go to Africa, I'm going to SCREAM!
-
So, saying that the European influence is brushed aside is not is a "threat of colonization"? Do we really need this kind of hyperbolic language? Wanting to set the record straight is a threat to no one but the myth makers. Originally Posted by orasnon
Well, Wikipedia often explains the obvious. They mention it was invented in the US. Is that less obvious than it's harmonic roots? It mentions it was invented by African Americans. Is that not more obvious than the importance of the septatonic scale system? No, they list plenty of obvious things, but when they list cultural origins, European ones get barely a mention while African ones get itemized and hyperlinked. There was plenty of space to add in a few links to the concepts brought to the table by European influences - it just wasn't viewed as important. Originally Posted by JohnRoss
And if the origins of jazz are so "obvious" then there would be no need to explain it. No, this is part of a subtle but persistent pattern in popular media.
So, according to your premiss, if we check the Wikipedia entry for jazz written in the language of some Western African language, it will be the opposite bias? I guess we can't check. I'm not going to hold my breath anyway.
Well, I don't know if the dozen people who've bothered to respond here constitutes "most people." And history will show us many problems that were not noticed by the masses, too numerous to mention. It is the fact that they are not seen that allows them to survive. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
And you guys keep using the word "problem" as if it needs to rise to some high level of distress to merit discussing. Most of the things discussed on this forum do not meet the level being called a problem in that sense. And inaccuracy and distortion by omission are enough of a problem to merit comment.
When Ken Burns' documentary "The War" came out, there was some controversy because he seems to have forgot that Hispanics, Native-Americans, and women did anything in the war. (Perhaps he too felt that they were "obvious" so they didn't need to be mentioned, or that with only 14 hours there wasn't enough time to mention them.) Is it a problem? Maybe it's only not a problem if it involves white males. It's all relative.
I wouldn't go so far as to call jazz harmonies banal, but I do agree that they pale in comparison to what classical was doing. Originally Posted by JohnRoss
But what jazz does in polyrhythms is banal in comparison to African drummers, yet it is worth of mentioning.
Right, but to the Wikipedia reader, it may not be obvious that the meter of jazz is closer to classical. If I read that article, I would come away with the impression that jazz was almost a direct descendant of African music. Originally Posted by JohnRoss
Is the entry on meter left blank because it is obvious? No, it is explained. But when it comes to itemizing the influences of jazz, only the African ones are worth listing.
The idea that the European ones are ignored because they are obvious just doesn't get anywhere with me. Again, that might make sense in the section of jazz in my "History of Western Music" textbook where certain pieces of knowledge are assumed. But I'm now aware that the general public is aware of things like meter and harmonic structure.
Right, but I'm making a distinction between what is taught by scholars and what is percieved by the general public, and what is put forth by non-scholars (sometimes pretending to be scholars.) There was a guy in an earlier thread who described traditional jazz as "African soul music" - and this was a musician. I've encountered lay people who seem to think that jazz is just Westernized African music. I've had others that have argued with me that I shouldn't apply Western harmonic terms to jazz because jazz harmony has nothing to do with Western music, which is of course ridiculous. Originally Posted by JohnRoss
Again, every example provided from popular culture to "counter" my point has in fact shown the bias, even if subtly. I don't think that there is a conspiracy in academia - they know too much about music to be fooled. But there is this strange misconception in popular culture. Perhaps this is as much a sociology question as it is musicological one, maybe more so. Maybe the question should be, "Why, even in the 21st century, does American popular culture feel the need to exaggerate the African cultural contributions to jazz and diminish (even if just by omission) the European contributions?" I think that that is an interesting question.
On the subject of race, perhaps I should explain why I may seem racially insensitive to many Americans. Having lived abroad for many years and being married of a Peruvian, I have found that most cultures are much less racially "touchy" as we are. On the cruise ship, I lived with people from all over the world and we freely discuss race and racial issues. I get together with my wife's family and discuss race in Peru (in our family alone, a mixture of Spanish, Italian, Quechua, and African descent) without anyone getting worried. But for some reason, American's get very nervous when people start to talk about race. I just think that that fear is irrational so I ignore it. I've gotten too used to being able to speak my mind and having people not misinterpret my intent. Maybe America isn't ready for a discussion like this. I'd hoped with a mixed race president that we'd be post-racial enough. But I guess with people like Stanley Crouch saying that Obama "isn't black enough" I guess we ain't there yet. Too bad.
I ran into a problem when I was writing a paper on the African-American writers of coon song. I had to quote a lot of offensive language and discuss a lot of racial issues. Eventually I realized that I just had to say the truth, and that would be it's own defense. So, I just wrote it as if it was not being addressed to an American audience and just spoke openly and without fear fostered by race guilt. I'm glad I did, it turned out to be a much better paper.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-08-2011 at 11:46 PM.
-
KS, the scholars mentioned by JEdgarWinter and myself are not myth-makers - I'm sure they would never admit to wielding that much power. If you wish to contest the views of such putative "myth-makers", then by all means make the effort. It may prove to be a herculean task, however, and the excessive hubris you overtly display here might just be your Achilles heel.
Much more interesting in my opinion is not harmonic genealogy, but discursive archeology: does jazz music elude intertextuality in its emergentism?Last edited by orasnon; 02-09-2011 at 01:27 AM.
-
Right, but I'm not contesting the scholarly view. Originally Posted by orasnon
Peace,
Kevin
-
Pointing out that history has revealed certain previously unseen truths does not prove you are right. History has also given many examples of people who argued passionately about beliefs and theories that simply turned out to be wrong. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
You stated the fact that we do not see the problem you allege is part of the problem. I argue that it cannot be part of the problem if there is no problem.
Again, you have not convinced me that there is a widespread problem with how jazz is generally defined beyond some ill informed people that you've argued with on chat forums and a personal bias that causes you to amplify and distort otherwise insignificant statements in order to try and prove that you are right.Last edited by Jazzpunk; 02-09-2011 at 02:02 AM.
-
Well, last I checked Stanley Crouch was black. Yes, I am deeply concerned about the knee-jerk hatred that seems to fuel the over-the-top anti-Obama nonsense (you can disagree with the man if you want, but much of the rhetoric is beyond the pale) but what about all of the African-Americans who voted for him just because he was the "black" candidate. (If I'd voted for McCain because he was the "white" candidate, I'd have been labeled a racist.) I think that there is a lot of racism flying in a lot of directions in this country. True, historically white-on-black racism has done much more damage, and we are in the majority (for the time being Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
) so we need to be extra careful, but I find reverse racism to be just as repellent. Maybe it isn't as damaging or as important to fight, but judging anyone by the color of their skin is odious, period. That's how it should be anyway.
Granted, I would be much more disgusted if the popular media were trying to down play the African influences of jazz or trying to paint it as mostly a white product. That would be for more dangerous. But reverse racism is still a problem. I don't think that we have to march on Washington and start having sit-ins. But we should be able to see and discuss it.
No, but it does counter the idea that "truth" is up for vote. Whether or not a majority of people see it or not has nothing to do with it's veracity. That was the point. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
Again, other examples were provided. I find it ironic that every example from popular culture giving to "prove" me wrong actually showed the subtle bias I was describing. And no examples were given that didn't have it. Even just a simple statistical analysis of how much material is given in each of the examples showed the lean, without the subjective interpretation of the language. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
But if you guys don't see a bias, then I can't convince you. Just never mind the whole thing.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-09-2011 at 03:22 AM.
-
Can't believe I forgot to mention Amiri Baraka's (aka Leroi Jones) work (who, like Cornel West and Eric Michael Dyson, is fond of the the hyperbolic word "colonization"....)
Last edited by orasnon; 02-09-2011 at 04:44 AM.
-
I think that Europeans first got classical music from Atlantis, but I believe it was the Nubians (Africans) who first brought music to Atlantis. Brautendorff's Origin of Syntax surmises that perhaps a race of Egyptian centaurians and centaurs from middle earth gave it as a gift to the Nubians. So jazz is indirectly from middle earth.
Due to the lack of any scholarly consensus to support most of the other fairy tales in this thread, I thought I'd add another.
-
I notice that none of those people have any training in musicology, ethnomusicology, anthropology, sociology, or any other relevant field. (And I found Baraka's antisemetic and pro-rape statements especially "charming" - thanks for "brightening" my morning with that. Originally Posted by orasnon
)
To define my wanting to show a general public that jazz has roots in both traditions as "colonialism" is hyperbolic and hysterical victimism.
It's interesting. Half the time people are telling me that it is common knowledge that jazz has roots in the European tradition and that everyone knows this. And half the time, I am being called a racist or a colonialist or at least insensitive to point it out. I think that these two things are mutually exclusive.
Peace,
Kevin
-
It's pretty racist or foolish, to think, electing a black man is going to end racism, or signal some sort of shift in america, where all of a sudden people will put down their racial arms and sing kumbaya. Because to think that requires a very superficial understanding of what 'racism' is in America. Often people have very different views of racism. Superficial racism, or people using slurs in the street, objecting to interracial dating, or overt discrimination is on the wane and has been. But there is great institutional racism(and classism for that matter), in America, and varying degrees of reactions and opinions about this. But I don't expect the election of Barack Obama to alter the perception and relationship among the races any more fundamentally than the election of Bill Clinton did to alter the perception and relationship towards poor whites.
I don't think you're being imperialist or racist and pointing out european influences in jazz, merely redundant, and yes, your adamancy, about something so picayune, quickly passes from intellectual querry, to almost this strain of 'white culture' protection and advancement you hear creeping up. And I think most people, including the vast majority of white people, understand that 'white, anglo saxon, culture' is suffering no kind of neglect or destruction, in America. I mean it seems a bit petty to be ranting about 'lost legacy' over some wikipedia citations, when native americans are an endangered species, african americans built the capital stock of the nation and have no ownership in it, japanese were incarcerated in concetration camps, hispanics live under threat of being asked to show their papers. Who doesn't think or know or have an idea that classical music comes from europe? Anyone who doesn't, probably gives two damns, or maybe even just one, and more than likely none, about the evolution of jazz. In essence you aren't preaching to the choir, or the congregation but to the infidel.
Secondly, Kevin, I don't understand why you're so militant about getting 'the truth' and I would again say 'the truth as you see it,' as the truth can only be, into pop culture, good luck! In fact, isn't jazz all about accepting that the 'squares' will never 'get it.' I always thought jazz culture was a rejection of pop culture and its emphasis on shallow and nonanalytical living. So I don't hold much hope for the average guy out there one day knowing the true evolution of jazz or history. Look at Sarah Palin who shows clearly and unapologetically, everyday, that she does not understand fundamental portions of the history of the united states and world, and not even going back as far as jazz, but simply since WWII(Sputnik bankrupted the USSR, excuse me?!), and there's enough people likewise ignorant in America for her to be considered a serious candidate for the republican nomination!
So maybe, you'd understand my position more, if I used the world quixotic, to describe your desire. Holding mainstream society to the standards of the small population of people who undertake postgraduate education, simply to increase their own understanding, is going to cause you a life time of consternation.
Lastly, can't you just go on Wikipedia and link the sites to European influence, and make it all peachy keen?Last edited by ejwhite09; 02-09-2011 at 02:08 PM.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
I notice that none of those people have any training in musicology, ethnomusicology, anthropology, sociology, or any other relevant field. (And I found Baraka's antisemetic and pro-rape statements especially "charming" - thanks for "brightening" my morning with that.)
To define my wanting to show a general public that jazz has roots in both traditions as "colonialism" is hyperbolic and hysterical victimism.
It's interesting. Half the time people are telling me that it is common knowledge that jazz has roots in the European tradition and that everyone knows this. And half the time, I am being called a racist or a colonialist or at least insensitive to point it out. I think that these two things are mutually exclusive.
Do you think some of the brightest minds of our nation's intelligentsia are not well read in ALL the major literature of the topics and controversies they engage in, regardless of academic discipline? You obviously have not read many of these authors. A perfunctory glance at bibliographies would reveal their transdisciplinary approach. To be sure, some are not musicians (though quite a number are trained musicians). Yet this, and the fact of not having their doctorate in (ethno)musicology, does not preclude the possibility of significant contribution to the discourse. Personally, I'm confident that I could sit in a 1st year grad seminar in musicology without problems - or in sociology, anthropology, etc...And to set the record straight: "colonization" is a polyvalent term; don't take it too literally. And I use the word advisedly not in your original premise, but in your latter disquisitions when met with opposing points of view. Read Baraka's "Jazz and the White Critic" and be enlightened!Last edited by orasnon; 02-09-2011 at 02:37 PM.
-
02-09-2011, 02:55 PM #113Baltar Hornbeek Guest
did the 12 bar thing come from the euros or afros? or what, it grew out of the south? how many bars did the euro common folk use in their music? how did the afros measure their time? how come there were 12 monkeys?
-
No, being a poet does not make you an expert on everything. Being a social comentator who has written some reviews on rap albums does not make you an expert on cultural anthropology or ethnomusicology. Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Are they also experts in quantum mechanics? Or yoga? Or South American native languages? Or is it just "fuzzy" things like anthropology? No, they are experts in the fields that they've studied. I see no evidence that any of those people studied anything that even tangentially intersects the subjects being discussed. You are confusing celebrity with expertise. Originally Posted by orasnon
That is a good question. My understanding of the Western African tradition is that they don't use form the same way that the European tradition did. Blues form is closer to European tradition than anything in the African tradition. Originally Posted by Baltar Hornbeek
We can define the form of 12-bar folk blues as AA'B, where each section is based around the tonic, subdominant, and dominant, respectively. The Second A is usually just a repeat of the first A section (perhaps with harmonic adjustment) and then the B section answers. Forms like this do exist in European music, being a 3 section phrase sentence. This shows up from time to time in European but was probably best codified in the German "bar form" - a 12-bar AAB form.
But that does not mean that is where African-American's got the idea. It seems logical that they were just thinking call and response. A 4-bar call, a repeat of the 4 bar call (over different harmony) and then a 4 bar answer. But this is also how a European might think of a 12 bar form too - call and response (or antecedent/consequent or question answer) were common ideas in European music. But they clearly got this idea of regular, symmetrical form from the European tradition. They are simply mixing it with their call and response ideas.
That's how I see it anyway. I'd be interested if anyone has anything better. Are there antecedents for this form in West African music? I was always taught that they didn't think of form in that way.
Peace,
Kevin
-
02-09-2011, 04:01 PM #115Baltar Hornbeek Guest
and don't forget, it was da Germans done invented the harmonica.
-
You're obstinacy, brashness, naivete, and brusque dismissal of such brilliant minds is astonishing. (Baraka was good friends with many of the great jazz figures, and I'm sure Miles and Trane would have gotten a good laugh at the "Kevin contra Amiri" debate). Let's approach the chair of the musicology dept of UCLA or USC and get their opinions regarding the intellectual legitimacy of Baraka or George. The most groundbreaking scholarship is stuff that reaches beyond the purview of arbitrary disciplinary strictures. You will find this as you mature in your intellectual pursuits.
-
I know he is black. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
I found the fact that you singled him out to use as your sole example of where we are at as a nation in regards to race relations to be quite revealing, hence my response.
Just trying to balance out the obvious bias and slanting that has permeated this thread from the beginning.
This is a really complex subject. There are all kinds of reasons that people identify with a political candidate and yes, skin color is one of them. To say otherwise would be to deny the very symptoms that kept America from electing a black (or 'mixed race') individual as our president until now. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
I am certain that, on some level, many of the people who voted for McCain partly identified with him because of his skin color. Labeling these people as racists based on this alone would be an ignorant failure to understand the complexities of human nature. Labeling black Americans as racists because they partially identified with Obama because he was the 'black candidate' would be a similar failing.
Agreed. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
I think that there is a lot of racism flying in a lot of directions in this country. True, historically white-on-black racism has done much more damage, and we are in the majority (for the time being) so we need to be extra careful, but I find reverse racism to be just as repellent. Maybe it isn't as damaging or as important to fight, but judging anyone by the color of their skin is odious, period. That's how it should be anyway.
If there is clear evidence of reverse racism, than I agree. However, in regards to your allegations that this is evident in how jazz is popularly defined, I respectfully disagree. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
My point was not that your 'truth' has no merit due to lack of popular consensus, it was that I do not see your 'truth' to be true at all. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Stating that my comment was further proof of the alleged problem is not really proof at all though it is a good arguing tactic on your end!
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
I found your dissection of my wiki example to be a stretch at best and a clear indication of your determination to find hidden bias no matter what the statement.
You argued that the popular consensus among most people is that jazz is considered to be African music. In rebuttal, I offered up the most general source I could find and it clearly states that jazz is a mixture of African and European influence.
Apparently the Wiki definition does not satisfy your criteria for properly crediting white people for the invention of jazz but it does show a specific example in popular culture in which jazz is defined as a result of both African and European influences and not solely an African invention as you allege.
I have repeatedly asked you for definitive proof that majority of people are unaware that jazz is a mixture of European and African American influences. I cannot argue against vague references and statements like 'Well everybody thinks it' or 'People on the internet argue with me'!
Who thinks it? What people? What arguments? You started this thread so show me actual proof that this problem exists on a wide scale as you allege.
Yeah, right! Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Last edited by Jazzpunk; 02-09-2011 at 06:04 PM.
-
My point was that it was an example of racism by African-Americans. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
Uh, that's pretty much the definition of racism. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
It's simple math. If it were reversed (the African cultural contributions go 3 words while the "white" contributions were itemized and hyperlinked and further elaborated in the text) then there would be a hue and cry reverberating through the land. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
Not "white people" - jeez, you guys can't seem to keep track of this. I am not trying to argue that African-Americans did not to the vast majority of the work in the invention of jazz, especially in the beginning. This is not a "white people" versus "black people" thing as you guys keep trying to hysterically frame it so you can label it as racist. It is tracing the ultimate cultural origins of certain key features of the music. Maybe this is all pointless if you guys don't understand the difference. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
Peace,
Kevin
-
Seriously, though, besides a wikipedia article and vague references to other texts. The point is you're not establishing the fact that this deficiency exists. That there is in fact a gap in people's knowledge. Further, the 'gap' in knowledge you seem most worried about is among people in 'popular culture.' Because people in 'popular culture' aren't aware of the 'structural' contributions of european culture. Again its your vague terms and refusal to define them, which is causing the confusion. I've been trying to point this out to you from the beginning. When you say european and contrast it with 'african american' your terms are causing people to respond in racial terms, because your terms conotate a statement on contributions of races. If you define european, and when I attempted to tell you 'european' means nothing, because it means many things to different people, you responded you 'assumed people would know the relevant cultures.'
Bottom line, and my original point, when 'jazz' comes along, American culture has fundamentally formed. American culture is dominantly european(predominantly anglo saxon), the cultural contributions and legacy of africa, largely stamped out, by one the 'assumption' that 'african culture' was uniform, when it was not. Who knows how many tribes were melanged into 'african americans.' Two, the aggregation and forceful antics used to stamp out cultural remanants in the slaves(this of course to varying degrees, but done most effectively by the english, less so by the spanish and french).
So basically, one, I don't, and I feel others don't feel that you've identified a problem. Due to, one, the population you've identified as ignorant, would be ignorant by definition. They are people who aren't interested in jazz, to the point of investigation. It would be like forensic scientists lamenting that not everybody could tell the difference between post mortem and ante mortem trauma, or economists lamenting that not everybody understands the effect of interest rates on the price level in an economy(though, I can assure you, they do). And two, it seems, obvious that european influences are going to be dominant and prevalent in ANY cultural undertaking in the United States, because european influence has been protected and expanding and replaced, by force of state action, most remanants of any other culture. So, in my view, the perhaps heavy focus on African aspects, is because it's a given that european influences will be there.
I doubt anyone who knows what meter or more technical aspects of music are, is unwares of their cultural origins. The population you've identified probably doesn't even know what a meter or a bar is, let alone, have any concern for their cultural origins.
So basically, to put it in your words, this issue is something that gives ethnomusicologists wet dreams, but fails to change the overall understanding.Last edited by ejwhite09; 02-10-2011 at 12:40 PM.
-
But that is representative of nearly every pop-culture reference to the origins of jazz that you will find. I've given more than one example. Sadly, it's not just the general public but many jazz musicians that fall into this category. Originally Posted by ejwhite09
I'm always willing to define any term. Some claim that I define too much. Many people have extrapolated my definitions into realms that they were not intended and that gets blown back on me for some reason. Originally Posted by ejwhite09
And what I am saying has evolved over the course of discussion. That is healthy.
I can't control how people misinterpret. I have bent have backwards making it clear that I'm talking about culture and not DNA. If people are incapable of having this discussion without interjecting their racial chauvinism, then I can't control that. Time after time people have tried to drag this into a racial, white people and black people discussion. I have been the one fighting against that. Originally Posted by ejwhite09
I think that it was clear from context. And even if I wasn't clear, that doesn't give people free license to superimpose whatever understanding they think will cause the most problems. That is when a sincere person would have asked for clarification. Originally Posted by ejwhite09
Again, the vast, vast, majority of slaves, who made up the vast, vast majority of African Americans, came from the West African area. This is an area with lots of interrelations that has a relatively homogeneous culture. This is how antropologists look at is, so so do I. The fact that there are startlingly different cultures in Eritrea or Tanzania is irrelevant to this discussion. It is just another red herring that people keep throwing in to try an derail the conversation. Originally Posted by ejwhite09
But academia doesn't always deal with big problems. Some are small. I read a great paper that hypothosized that Bach's famous Toccatta and Fugue in Dm and the famous Chaconne may have been written on the lute. Is there a problem there? No. Will it change the course of music history? No, it will be lucky if it is a footnote. He didn't even really prove his case but just built a compelling argument. A quick glance through a musicology journal will show you what I mean. I think that you guys have a warped idea of what scholarship is. Usually it is answering the small questions - the big ones have already been answered. Originally Posted by ejwhite09
.
So, this has been a pointless discussion. I have gotten 5% sincere discussion and 95% red herring. Let's list these crimson fish:- this is about race, about white people and black people
- the continent of Africa has many cultures
- cultural origins can't be traced, ever, it is futile
- African-Americans had no exposure to European music
- European music and American music are completely different
- people who have no standing in the field stress the African cultural origins
- no one stresses the African cultural origins
- no one sees bias in examples that even on a purely mathematical level disproportionately show a bias, and an objective text reading confirms (Again, if it were the other way around, people would be rioting in the streets.)
- you're trying to build an argument of reverse-racism, which this isn't
- this is clearly reverse-racism, but it should be so it's OK
- things are unknowable so the questions is unanswerable
- it is irrelevant that the general public misunderstands something
- this is not a big enough issue to discuss
But this has gotten boring. If all you guys want to do is snipe at the question and ignore the examples and accuse me of racism, then there is no point. Unless anyone has anything relevant to add on the subject of the question, I'm outta here.
Peace,
Kevin
-
"Pointless" because you couldn't control the parameters of the discussion? LOL
-
This is ludicrious! The cultures of West Africa, are very different. Just taking Nigeria for instance there are atleast three types of folk music which have different instrumentations and functions in their societies. To say Western Africa is a 'homogeneous' culture is absurd. Most of the homogeneity came with European colonalisation and the slave trade, which caused this cultural integration of West Africa, and imposition of European ideas of political association. Most slaves, that would become Black Americans, had long departed Africa by the time the, largely British, influence in what was known as the Bight of Benin, confluenced many vastly different cultures into larger associations for the purposes of British colonial rule(the study of Race and Class in America, being one of my favorite topics, it's not a topic on which I speak, uninformed). Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tmz...page&q&f=false
No one is bringing up, and I don't think anyone has brought up Eritera or Tanzania, until you just did, again, we're all aware where the majority of Africans were taken from in the Slave Trade.
This is why you can't escape race in this discussion, because it's not a simple case of two groups meeting up and having cultural exchange. You're failing to give due regard to the shaping of those cultures.
I did ask you for clarification, and your answer was 'I assumed the cultures would be obvious'!
I think most of those items you listed are either not presented as people presented or plain wrong. I don't think this is about race, but YOU started it off about 'european contributions' what are people supposed to surmise from this, again when DON'T DEFINE YOUR TERMS. When I read that it seems to say contributions of white people. Furthermore, as you 'don't care' and 'can't control' if people misunderstand you, then you can't really be upset that people are, in fact, misunderstanding you.
The continent of Africa DOES have many cultures, West Africa, does have many cultures as well, and much more before Western European colonialism, aggregated many of those differences for the purpose of colonial rule, occurring sometime AFTER the departure of the majority of the victims of the Atlantic Slave Trade, in fact, according the source I listed above, the most homogeneous of among them were the Bantus of the Congo, so according to this piece of scholarship its Central Africans, not Western Africans who, due to their homogeneity played the largest role in shaping Black American culture.
Due to the large degree of inconsideration for African culture of Europeans in the Slave Trade, tracing these cultural influences to the POINT OF SOURCE is largely futile.
African Americans had no exposure to European music, I don't think anyone has said that, African Americans had been exposed to European music, as soon as we were forced to cast off our native religions for christianity.
European music dominates American music because European culture dominates American culture. Even Black American culture is largely European.
No, I don't see bias because there are more cites of sources, on a wikipedia article. And again with your 'riots in the streets' statements, you make it racial once more, and once again you're using language I would consider near inflammatory( I know you've stated countless times, you don't give a damn if people misunderstand you). Further, who are these 'black friends' you have, if you seriously, think black people are going riot because we're not getting our propers in the formation of jazz, you obviously aren't being exposed to real black thought and emotions, or the fact that jazz plays the same role in the black american community as it does in the white american community, ie, its listened to by older people or kids who have a geniuine interest, in the larger black american community, jazz has no significance, just as in the larger white american community. I didn't really know anything about Jazz, until about 2 years ago, until then, like most americans in their 20s, my main musical outlets were hip hop r&b and rock and roll. Jazz is easily number 241 on our list of things to riot about.
In the end, due to factors, you frankly want to assume away or ignore, the answer is largely unknowable(I only introduced this language to point out my fault with 'scholarship' because it assumes away or 'ignores' issues which would make further investigation hindered, in order to reach some sort of contrived conclusion, which really remains as theoretical, due to the assumptions, as the orginial question was. It's fine if you believe the powers of scholarship are limitless, I frankly do not, and have spent quite a bit of my life in reserach and experimentation and theoretical design.
It is frankly irrelevant that the general public misunderstands THIS. If I had to compile a list of things the general public needs to get right, this would be number 1,041.
And, no I understand what scholarship is, and most work is destined to be merely a work cited, or an incomplete idea that rests on the shelves for years until someone comes along and takes it somewhere. Seriously, I'd find knowing those compositions were composed on a lute to be interesting questions. But, I don't think you've quite made the case that there is anything interesting or new in the question of european or african influences in jazz, at best, you've fallen on maintaining a lack of 'statistically representative documentation of sources.'
You just threw a hissy fit, because people took objection to your premise and didn't want to get to discussing flatted 7ths and polyrythms. I'm sorry I had real issue with your premise..that's not sniping thats what intellectual discussion is about. I'm not about to submit to a false a premise. Now I've submitted a pretty thorough and respected work, which challenges your premise of 'West African' culture even existing, let alone being some uniform homogeneous thing which tied together the African slaves allowing them to remain in tact and transport these influences as a single entity cross the Atlantic. So I don't know what 'anthropologists' consider 'West AFrican culture' a homogeneous entity, but suffice to say not ALL of them do. So, its not sniping, its a relevant challege to your question. That its a false premise and poorly constructed. Now being an academic you can assume away the differences and construct a homogeneous 'West African' culture for the purpose of analysis. My point is this would be a construct, without supporting evidence, which you've yet to provide, except to say 'anthropologists say so.' So I don't think it's asking too much for you to defend your premise, and prove it even is valid, before you ask people to put their time and thought into the subject. If challenged, that a 'West African' culture did not exist, then frankly the whole train of this debate is derailed because its built upon your assumption that that culture exists as a single entity.Last edited by ejwhite09; 02-10-2011 at 06:15 PM.
-
I would just like to have a brief pause to take in the moment, if I may. Because I have a feeling that
is as close as any of us are ever going to get to hearing Kevin say, "I was wrong." Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
Yes, I agree: setting up the problem in terms of a binary opposition not only serves to essentialize both sides with putatively immutable and timeless qualities; it furthermore smacks of Orientalist discourse, which, as postcolonial theory remind us, invariably involves relations of power. Let's leave behind the Cartesianism and view this from the optic of discursivity. The myth of the 'objective eye' of WEstern anthropology has long been swept into the dustbin of history - an epiphenomenon left over from the expansion of Europe and its concomitant systems of "knowledge/power." Let's instead examine it through the decolonized subaltern eye of critics to whom this culture belong to....
Last edited by orasnon; 02-10-2011 at 05:15 PM.
-
Originally Posted by orasnon
couldn't agree more.
Reply With Quote
anyone selling an ibanez pm120?
Today, 01:33 PM in For Sale