What is jazz?

[Jazzaluk]

As far as jazz instruction goes, it's probably appropriate to look back over the history of jazz and classify the different periods and styles. I have no problem with that. What does bother me is that many devoted students of jazz seem to *only* look backward.

I'm more interested in the *future* of jazz, which is why I ask "what is jazz"?

Jazz is a living thing. It is impossible to understand its future without looking at its past. As Derek pointed out, the essence of jazz was developed on the bandstands. It evolved through trial and eror, cultural influence and even drugs. Academia tries to put all this evolution into a bottle and serve it up to who ever wants a taste. Unfortunately, too much of this potion will make you halucinate and believe that everything is Jazz.

I think the best chance of seeing the future of jazz is to draw a line through its past and see where it points.

[TieDyedDevil]

I think the best chance of seeing the future of jazz is to draw a line through its past and see where it points.

Sure, you can look back and trace the ancestors of a particular form of jazz and understand - in retrospect - how it came to be...

I don't understand how examining the history of jazz gives on the ability to extrapolate the future of jazz. The jazz "style" does not, as far as I can discern, follow anything resembling a linear progression. There are all sorts of twists and turns. Could anyone in the 1950s, for example, have predicted Mahavishnu Orchestra or Return to Forever?

I'm beginning to get the impression that jazz - like many other genres - is defined by its practitioners who self-identify with the genre by citing influences (regardless of how much the player does (or does not) pay homage to his/her predecessors.)

[Jazzaluk]

Sure, you can look back and trace the ancestors of a particular form of jazz and understand - in retrospect - how it came to be...

I don't understand how examining the history of jazz gives on the ability to extrapolate the future of jazz. The jazz "style" does not, as far as I can discern, follow anything resembling a linear progression. There are all sorts of twists and turns. Could anyone in the 1950s, for example, have predicted Mahavishnu Orchestra or Return to Forever?

I'm beginning to get the impression that jazz - like many other genres - is defined by its practitioners who self-identify with the genre by citing influences (regardless of how much the player does (or does not) pay homage to his/her predecessors.)

No living entity will grow linearly. It always evolves to a point where it cannot extend any further. At that point it requires some outside influence to evolve further. A node is created and a new branch grows. This was the case with the Mahavishnu Orchestra or Return to Forever. The outside inluences were drawn from what existed in other music forms at the time, but it was still connected to the roots. Whether this style produces another node depends on how much it is nourished from the roots.

In this sense, I think Jazz grows like a tree with many branches but the number of branches is finte. Other styles of music also grow like trees and in many cases new branches emerge that draw upon Jazz as an outside influence.. but if you trace the music to its roots you will know from what tradition it is connected.

As far as "self-identifying", I think you are absolutely correct. This is everyone's personal way of connecting to music. You can play jazz with a rock influence or you can play rock with a jazz influence but it is usually pretty obvious where the roots lie when you hear the music. Of course there are some who simply transcend all genres, which is a differnt subject.

[bojan]

The very interrogative form (what is jazz?) is based upon an assumption that there must be an essence, a single immutable and transcendent quality about the perceived phenomenon, that is to say, about jazz, love, nation, war, arts, life, or ... the universe in general. Of course, there is (yet) another legitimate way of asking for knowledge: what is jazz consisting of? Here, the basic premise is built around the beliefs that everything is in motion and that the historical description stands as the only valid approach in aligning all the transformations into a consistent (developing?) tradition of forms, techniques, methods, aspirations ...
In brief, the answers would be, respectively, as follows: jazz aesthetics (the essence) or jazz history (the contents).
Actually, at first all I wanted was to recall from the not too distant past the outrage (and the ensuing debate) provoked by Bill Frisell's Nashville - the Best Jazz Album of the Year according to the Down Beat magazine poll (in those times even the title of the album sounded as mockery). Then again, I am old enough to remember the outbursts of that same outrage when Jimi Hendrix and Frank Zappa became the Hall-of-Famers in that same jazz rag. Things are truly changing ...

[hubert54]

hi there

why do You waste so much time on asking or academic definitions?

make music that makes you feel onto yourself

pardon, I don't know
You know?

A lot of words, why?

sorry
Hubert

[hubert54]

ja sicher
tempora mutantur
oder suum cuique
aber cui bono?
aber Du willst ja eigentlich gar nichts "wissen"?

hab ich unrecht?

Hubert

[derek]

hi there

why do You waste so much time on asking or academic definitions?

make music that makes you feel onto yourself

pardon, I don't know
You know?

A lot of words, why?

sorry
Hubert

Because as students of the form, or at least active participants, it is an interesting topic. A another question might be, if you are a jazz player, why aren't you interested in the topic, or if not, why are you wasting time reading our discussion?