I've created this new thread based upon comments by Bruce Lindfield and Chris Fitzgerald in another thread. Bruce seems to think that the chords i.e. the progressions are what make music Jazz. Chris seems to think this excerpt (http://www.activitybuddy.net/music/msjackson.mp3) of a cover of Outkast's Ms Jackson is R&B. The excerpt here is an improvisation over the changes to the tune. Countless Jazz tunes have their origins from show tunes i.e. the chord progressions from show tunes have been used as a improvisational framework.

Can the improvisation in this excerpt be considered Jazz? Moreover, if inner city youth had launched the hip hop movement with harmony and instruments as opposed to rhythm and lyrics, what would be calling the resulting music?

Moreover, if inner city youth had launched the hip hop movement with harmony and instruments as opposed to rhythm and lyrics, what would be calling the resulting music?

That raises an interesting point--I've always thought of a freestyle rapper as being very much like a jazz musician. Each has a repertoire of favorite phrases, and each is expected to be fluent in his respective language. Thematic development is crucial for both--I'm a sucker for a dis on somebody's mom that can last eight bars :D

FWIW, I'm much more impressed with a good freestylist than some of the sorry-assed Miles and Trane wannabes who I've seen in student jazz ensembles. Something something find your own voice yadda yadda.

Originally posted by Phil Smith
Bruce seems to think that the chords i.e. the progressions are what make music Jazz.

Well this is very much taken out of context and is not really what I believe.

Basically, Jazz is a type of music that has developed organically over a whole century and it is impossible to pin down what it is, in a sentence. In my view this is far too simplistic!

What I was saying however, was that if you take a plain, unaltered 12 bar Blues sequence and only play the Blues Scale (Pentatonic) over it - it will sound less "Jazzy" than if you add chord substitutions, altered chords etc. and then play different scales over it.

I think most people will hear the difference and hear one as more Jazz(y) than the other.

I know lots of UK musicians who play Jazz professionally, but also will do sessions on rock, R&B records, chill-out ambient, pure pop or even hip hop!

So the main difference when they play Jazz is that they are changing their note choices - they know that there are a set of chords/scales that will work in Jazz but not in other styles. Ok there is style and attitude, but the most noticable difference is a set of extended scales and chords that "work" in Jazz but not everywhere else.

That raises an interesting point--I've always thought of a freestyle rapper as being very much like a jazz musician. Each has a repertoire of favorite phrases, and each is expected to be fluent in his respective language. Thematic development is crucial for both--I'm a sucker for a dis on somebody's mom that can last eight bars

Yeah, totally. Freestyle rap is awesomely impressive. I saw Herbaliser a few years back and they had some big dreaded rasta geezer rapping with them for few songs - he was rhyming on the spot in perfect rhythm and groove about anything everything at the gig, SO damned cool.

For what it's worth, the relevant dictionary definition I have is follows: from Collins concise dictionary
Jazz: music of US Black origin, characterised by syncopated rhythms, solo and group improvisation and a variety of harmonic idioms and instrumental techniques.

...sounds pretty good to me?

Personally, I find musical 'genre' a very hard thing to decribe.
Chords themselves can be jazzy, but this is because you associate the sound of certain chords with 'jazz'... in the same vein certain scales, melodies and harmonies are associated with 'jazz'.

I don't think there is an either-or definition.

Another idea would be to say that jazz is ANY musical improvisation over a structure.

In which case Outkast's clip mention above is in fact jazz.
I wouldn't refer to it as jazz, because jazz has become more of a record store genre than a way of playing, like punk. The attitude of punk is what defined the name for the genre, but now the genre is limited to a certain sound & style.

The guys who first played jazz in marching bands or whatever in the late 1800s maybe called their musical style 'jazz'.
But almost a hundred years later the likes of herbie hancock are recording a weirdest mix of repetative beats and synthesised noises, which purists of the earlier style might not think of as jazz.

So who's to say that jazz can't incorporate any kind of improvised music around a structure?

I think the problem is that the marketing of music (on any scale) requires it to be classified into genres.
So we think of jazz as a genre, rather than a method of making music - which I think is closer to the truth.

Howard K's definition: A method of making music defined by improvisation, usually around a common form.

:)

Originally posted by Phil Smith
I've created this new thread based upon comments by Bruce Lindfield and Chris Fitzgerald in another thread.

Oh man, I'm not sure I like the way this thread is starting.... did you have to link me and Brucie up as if we were contending for a tag-team match? I mean, he's going to do most of the talking no matter what, and I don't want to be held accountable for what he says when he gets on a roll in the ring. :D

Bruce seems to think that the chords i.e. the progressions are what make music Jazz.

Not to defend my "partner in crime", but I think what BLUES MINEFIELD said was a bit more complicated than that. At any rate, I think he's being misunderstood... :)

Chris seems to think this excerpt (http://www.activitybuddy.net/music/msjackson.mp3) of a cover of Outkast's Ms Jackson is R&B. The excerpt here is an improvisation over the changes to the tune.

True, but I also said that it was only my opinion based on what I was hearing sounded like to my own personal corn-fed Kentucky ears. That doesn't make it so, it just makes it what it sounds like to me.


Countless Jazz tunes have their origins from show tunes i.e. the chord progressions from show tunes have been used as a improvisational framework.

No one is disputing this

Can the improvisation in this excerpt be considered Jazz?

Sure, if you want to call it "jazz", call it "jazz". To me it sounds like a good funk player blowing over a three chord vamp. Whatever you call it, it doesn't change anything, and I certainly won't be offended if you want to call it jazz.

Moreover, if inner city youth had launched the hip hop movement with harmony and instruments as opposed to rhythm and lyrics, what would be calling the resulting music?

I have no idea.

Just to set the record straight, what I said in the other thread was in answer to this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Phil Smith


Jazz isn't a chord progression, the what and the how that's played over a progression is Jazz.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Exactly my point. Smooth Jazz = R&B style over jazz changes, hence the "smooth". I'd only give the nod to the word "jazz" in the title because ATTYA is a jazz standard. But to my very bucholic ears, that excerpt was what I'd call R&B. All it needs is BOYZ TO MEN IN THE HOOD singing, "Baby, I'm so sorry I ****ed that other girl, she don't mean nothin' to me, please take me back". :D



Yes, jazz is a way of playing, but it is also a harmonic language. I don't know where that line is drawn, and I don't much care. And before I get labled an "elitist", I'd like to mention that in the original group I play with (Java Men, viewable at www.javamen.com ), we don't draw any boundaries between styles. Although three of us are primarily "jazz" players by label, we write tunes based on whatever we're feeling at the moment. We've got Jazz tunes, "Prog" tunes, a "Cajun" groove tune, Funk tunes, a "New Grass" sounding tune in 5/4, etc. It doesn't really matter what you call it as long as it sounds good.

And I'm not going to get drawn into any argument about where the boundaries of "Jazz" are, as I don't even pretend to know or care. I just thought that excerpt sounded like R&B to me, so I called it R&B.

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield

Well this is very much taken out of context and is not really what I believe.

Basically, Jazz is a type of music that has developed organically over a whole century and it is impossible to pin down what it is, in a sentence. In my view this is far too simplistic!


No it's not taken out of context, here's what you said in the other thread:


It is all about the chords and theri function in the harmony - this sound was adopted by some 20th Century composers working in the classical area and you can clearly hear the Jazz sound, no matter who plays those works - so like Rhapsody in Blue always sounds Jazzy whether it is the Moscow or London Symphony orchestra!

You seemed to have changed your position somewhat or should I say softened your line.


What I was saying however, was that if you take a plain, unaltered 12 bar Blues sequence and only play the Blues Scale (Pentatonic) over it - it will sound less "Jazzy" than if you add chord substitutions, altered chords etc. and then play different scales over it.

I think most people will hear the difference and hear one as more Jazz(y) than the other.
[QUOTE]

You're a making a broad generalization here. Take a listen to "California Nights" as performed by Wes Montgomery on the "A Day In The Life" recording, he's wearing the Pentatonic scale out on that cut.

[QUOTE]
I know lots of UK musicians who play Jazz professionally, but also will do sessions on rock, R&B records, chill-out ambient, pure pop or even hip hop!

So the main difference when they play Jazz is that they are changing their note choices - they know that there are a set of chords/scales that will work in Jazz but not in other styles. Ok there is style and attitude, but the most noticable difference is a set of extended scales and chords that "work" in Jazz but not everywhere else.

I would say the main difference is the style and the attitude since the only thing really required to "Jazz" up a blues is a swing feel by the drums, the bass, and the phrasing of the solo instruments.

[QUOTE]Ok there is style and attitude, but the most noticable difference is a set of extended scales and chords that "work" in Jazz but not everywhere else.[QUOTE]

I disagree. These 'jazz chords/scales' might well work in other places, but I think this is limited by the fact that the vast majority of musicians have limited knowledge of such scales/chords and that music tends to be limited by what is and isn't commercially viable for the record label.

I'd bet 'something fairly valuable' there is probably a whole bunch of music in every genre using wacky chords, weird rhythms and exotic scales that are used in jazz, but it never gets heard because your average music buyer wants something easily accessable (Ms Dynamite for example) and therefore commmercial.
Ever heard of Squarepusher? - This guy is a trained jazz drummer and bass player (and he is sh*t hot!), who uses drum machines, live kit, synths, upright, leccy bass... everything to make fkd up drum and bass at 180 odd bpm. Fantastcially creative music, but it's difficult to listen to (as is some jazz) that it doesnt sell all that much.

Anyway, I think it is out there, but it's just hard to find. :)

Originally posted by Phil Smith

I would say the main difference is the style and the attitude since the only thing really required to "Jazz" up a blues is a swing feel by the drums, the bass, and the phrasing of the solo instruments.

I disagree with this entirely - so Dave Holland, for example, is widely recognised as one of the best Jazz bass players and composers aroudn today, but he very rarely if ever, plays with a swing feel. None of his own compositions are like this anyway and he and his regular drummer do lots of feels and not just swing.

The way Blues players phrase solos has been taken up by a lot of Jazz players, but it is the extended vocabulary in terms of chord/scale relationships that really defines someone as a Jazz soloist.

So - all the Jazz educators I have worked with, would not consider that you knew very much about Jazz, at all if all you played was a Blues scale. You wouldn't pass the audition for "Jazz school"! ;)

The reason I seem to have changed my position from the other thread is that, that was about Chord Substitutions and this is about "What is Jazz".

So in the other thread I was saying that altering chords and using different scales can make it sound more "Jazzy". This is not the same thing as saying that this is Jazz!

I think that Jazz has developed organically and it is not possible to say exactly what is Jazz - why restrict yourself to definitions anyway? - just that soem things sound a bit Jazzier than others.The line between Blues and Jazz is not cut and dried, but I think that people can hear the difference between a Jazz Blues - 2 chords per bar and lots of substitutions - and the basic 12 bar.

But really what purpose does it serve to ask : "What is Jazz?" unless you are in Marketing? ;)

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald

Oh man, I'm not sure I like the way this thread is starting.... did you have to link me and Brucie up as if we were contending for a tag-team match? I mean, he's going to do most of the talking no matter what, and I don't want to be held accountable for what he says when he gets on a roll in the ring.

"Bruce seems to think that the chords i.e. the progressions are what make music Jazz. "

Not to defend my "partner in crime", but I think what BLUES MINEFIELD said was a bit more complicated than that. At any rate, I think he's being misunderstood...


Thank you for backing me up on this - of course I will defer to your superior knowledge on all of this - I'm just the pupil while you are the teacher! ;)

But I would be very unhappy with any Jazz teacher who didn't talk about functional harmony and note choice for each chord sequence - and just said play it....but with a swing feel and Jazz inflection. ;)

Originally posted by Howard K
[QUOTE]Ok there is style and attitude, but the most noticable difference is a set of extended scales and chords that "work" in Jazz but not everywhere else.QUOTE]

I disagree. These 'jazz chords/scales' might well work in other places, but I think this is limited by the fact that the vast majority of musicians have limited knowledge of such scales/chords and that music tends to be limited by what is and isn't commercially viable for the record label.



Well, I don't want to get into saying what Jazz is, but I can certainly say what it is not! ;) So it is not about throwing in random "odd" or unusual chords!

The point is that there is actually a "Jazz Theory" and each chord can be explained in term of functional harmony and there is a reason for why it works "in context"!

It is a whole package which does includes idiom and style to some extent in some areas of Jazz, as well as theory, functional harmony, chord/scale realtionships - but in the other thread we were talking particularly about chord substitutions, so that was where the emphasis fell as it was the topic under discussion.

Anyway I think it would be fairly easy to demonstrate that the things you mention are not Jazz - well easier than saying what is Jazz anyway! ;)

Well, I don't want to get into saying what Jazz is, but I can certainly say what it is not! So it is not about throwing in random "odd" or unusual chords!
I agree 110%. My hard rock band played a gig supporting a 'signed' US metal band on tour - they called themselves 'jazz-metal' because they did just that - dropped the odd chord that "wasnt a power chord" ;) and called it jazz. It left me seething, I ranted about it for bloody hours. Not that I am able to say what jazz is, but I know that rehearsed metal with a couple of weirdy beardy chords isnt fkn jazz!
Anyway, in that statement I didn't even begin to imply that jazz was as mind numbingly simple as just throwing in a 'jazzy chord'. Don't even bloody go there!

Your original comment was "...the most noticable difference is a set of extended scales and chords that "work" in Jazz but not everywhere else"

I then suggested that I didnt think the use of these chords/scales is what defines jazz simpley because you dont hear those scales/chords played anywhere else and that it was limitations of other musical genres, the average listener and the industry that bring about the over simplification of non-jazz music, and the lack of these 'interesting' scales/chords.

If you're saying that only jazz can make good use of these extended scales/chords and what is commonly known as 'jazz theory', that's pretty damned limiting, IMO?
I also didnt say that 'squarepusher' was jazz. I used it as an example of non-jazz music that obviously uses 'jazz theory' to some degree.

The point is that there is actually a "Jazz Theory" and each chord can be explained in term of functional harmony and there is a reason for why it works "in context"!

So does this jazz theory you speak of HAVE to used in the context of jazz?

If this 'theory' can only be used in the context of jazz it kinda reduces the potential for development somewhat, don't you think?
I mean where does jazz go once it's pushing the boundaries of it's theory?

Sorry, but I think the phrase 'jazz theory' is a limitation in itself. I thought the beauty jazz was the limitless possibilities and the freedom of expression to be found in improvisation?

Well I suppose you're right in that "Free Jazz" is limitless in theory and improvisation is the only constant - that's why it is so difficult to define what Jazz is - of course Jazz isn't just II-V-Is - but you now it when yo hear it! ;)

Though jazz and rap are two distinctly different styles, I consider rap (the real deal, roots, street corner, freestyle stuff) to be the 'jazz' of today. Or should I say, the equivalent of what jazz used to be in it's heyday.

Rap is clearly along the same lineage as jazz as far as being an American music form based on improvisation, rooted in African tradition and pioneered by African Americans.

I'll listen in on this one, I love it when Bruce gets a full head of steam!!

(even if I've been the one to get the steam there - Noone mention TAB)

Sorry folks just here to keep up with where this goes

Krakkers

Ed, I agree. I just wanted to point out that there's a direct lineage.

As far as what qualifies as jazz - we're totally on the same page.

>>As far as hip hop and jazz, dint we have that discussion already? I still have yet to hear a "free styler" that has either the rhythmic flexibility and responsiveness of a Billy Higgins OR the melodic inventiveness of Bird....<<

Definitely not the melodic inventiveness of Bird but the artform is really pushing the boundaries of rythmic complexity vocally. So much in fact, that, like bebop was initially, it's not commercially viable or even palletable to the average listener or fan.

Originally posted by Ed Fuqua
It's not chords and it's not (strictly) improvisation. It's an approach to harmony AND an approach to improvisation that is unique to jazz.

Yes - this is what I was trying to say to Howard and why the things he mentioned weren't Jazz. Chords , as such, were only the focus of this debate as it started out with somebody asking about Chord Substitutions.

Of course chords are involved in this approach, but it is the way that they fit into the functional harmony that is important.

I agree with Ed that improvisation is essential for it to be Jazz, but a lot of people don't see it that way - so they hear the "sound" of "Rhapsody in Blue" and say - that's Jazz and it's difficult to disagree - Gershwin did improvise himself on the piano and his compositional style includes elements which sound like improvisation - I've heard Wynton Marsalis arguing about this!! ;)

PS - to Ed - so what about Free Jazz that has no harmony or form?

>>Definitely not the melodic inventiveness of Bird but the artform is really pushing the boundaries of rythmic complexity vocally. So much in fact, that, like bebop was initially, it's not commercially viable or even palletable to the average listener or fan.<<


I thought I'd clarify this. I'm referring to the stuff that doesn't get mainstream play.

Originally posted by marc40a

I thought I'd clarify this. I'm referring to the stuff that doesn't get mainstream play.

Yeah, I have a feeling that when most people put down rap, they've only been exposed to the stuff that's on MTV. It's not all about bling-bling and Thug Life.

Well there are crossovers - so like US3 have live musicians who play mainstream Jazz in the UK along with sampled and programmed beats, but generally this type of thing limits the flexibility of the rhythm section where it isn't really part of the overall music as much as a backdrop against which people play - Jazz is really about playing with other people and reacting - and if you have a static element you are definitely losing something.

Originally posted by Ed Fuqua
Bottom line, I hear a lotta 8th note stuff that starts and stops in the same place in a bar, some quarter note triplet stuff that does the same thing. What I don't hear is anybody taking and developing a rhythmic composition the way that Bird or Lee Konitz or Billy or Elvin or Bu or abouta buncha other jazz players do. I don't hear the same openess and flexibility. I don't hear the interactivity and suppleness in the interplay between "soloist" and rhythm section.

Because, after all, you heard so many people who sounded like Bird and Konitz in the '30s... :rolleyes:

Hip-hop is still a young form. It's nowhere near finished with its development. It would have been very foolish to say, "Jazz is never going to amount to a hill of beans" in 1935, which is what many people say about hip-hop today.

The trend toward live instrumentation and a more organic feel has already encouraged experimentation and interaction--even at Cornell, which ain't exactly at the vanguard of musical development (we seem to be stuck on Phish and Sublime), I have heard hip-hop groups who, while not completely improvisational, are definitely getting there.

In short, don't underestimate the potential for sophistication within the form.

Originally posted by Peter McFerrin

Hip-hop is still a young form. It's nowhere near finished with its development.

Well I think it's going the other way - when I heard "The Message" - Grandmaster Flash in the early 80s I thought Wow - here is a genuinely new development in music - great lyrics and interesting rhythmical styling.

In the last 20 years though, there has been very little like that and I'm sure if there was anything as good, it would have reached the mainstream as "The Message" did!

Well, hey, my grandmother thinks music went to hell when Bird made the Dorsey brothers obsolete, so one man's regression is another's progress.

Certainly, hip-hop sounds a lot less stilted now than it did 20 years ago, and a lot of rappers are very lazy with their phrasing. However, I think guys like Cannibal Ox and Outkast are quite interesting in their rhythmic approaches.

Originally posted by DEAD HORSEFLAY
For my stance you might wanna review a thread called ARE JAZZ AND HIP HOP COMPATIBLE or something like that. I've already typed a buncha stuff about my view that I din't really feel like typing again. But if it raises new issues feel free to bring it back, either here or there.


What MR. FUNGUS said. We did that already in DB, and there's no point in doing it again. And as my (hopefully) final contribution to this thread, I just wanted to say that my big problem with "RAP" is that anybody who wants to call themselves a musician but can't be bothered to deal with MELODY is only a partial musician - and one who has thrown out one my favorite elements of music just because SINGING seems not to be as "stylish" as TALKING these days. :rolleyes: To me, this is like someone claiming to be an auto mechanic, but who can't be bothered to deal with engines. Do what you want, but I'll be taking my car elsewhere...

This is a personal opinion only, of course, without any scientific evidence whatsoever being offered to back it up....and, as always, Brad Johnson could be wrong. :)

Originally posted by Peter McFerrin


Because, after all, you heard so many people who sounded like Bird and Konitz in the '30s...

Well....but there were hundreds maybe thousands across the world in the period between 1945 and 1970.

So I have the Penguin Guide to Jazz on CD, which has 1,618 pages (in very small type) of albums - which are cross-referenced by thousands of musicians - and they explain why they have left out large categories of music and other formats like vinyl etc.

I could buy several abums a week and not really scratch the surface before I die!

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield


So I have the Penguin Guide to Jazz on CD, which has 1,618 pages (in very small type) of albums - which are cross-referenced by thousands of musicians - and they explain why they have left out large categories of music and other formats like vinyl etc.



Dude--GREATEST BOOK EVER. My copy is so well-worn that the covers have come off!

Originally posted by Kraken
I'll listen in on this one, I love it when Bruce gets a full head of steam!!

Krakkers

Hmmm..sounds like an appropriate "nom de plume"!

I'm always more interested in hearing what others like Ed and Chris have to say, but I like a good debate - just like I would at my local Jazz Club after a few pints - Peter King quartet tonight - Great! ;)

Ed, I'm not trying to pick a fight w/ you. As I stated earlier, we're on the same page concerning most of this stuff. But.......

>>consider rap (the real deal, roots, street corner, freestyle stuff) to be the 'jazz' of today...". I don't consider it to be so, either musically or culturally. Musically for many of the reasons stated in the older thread. Culturally, because the advent and history of jazz is more about the outlet for a growing black middle class in a horribly segrated and racist society than disenfranchised youth commenting on their social strata. I'm not even sure that the statement " <<

Maybe not musically because it's not technically 'jazz' - there's really no debate there. I don't see anyone saying that rap is jazz. As far as socioeconomic class....... yeah dude, it's the same deal, except you made the mistake of saying 'black middle class'???? What does that mean?? In economic terms, is that equal to 'white lower class' ???

Speaking from a socioeconomic viewpoint, there's not a whole lot of difference between now and then....sadly so.

Originally posted by marc40a
As far as socioeconomic class....... yeah dude, it's the same deal, except you made the mistake of saying 'black middle class'???? What does that mean?? In economic terms, is that equal to 'white lower class' ???

Speaking from a socioeconomic viewpoint, there's not a whole lot of difference between now and then....sadly so.

Hmmm... interesting - not something I know a lot about, but Wynton Marsalis and his family, for example, are hardly from a ghetto or "the street" are they?

I mean Miles Davis was the son of a professional father and wasn't really fighting his way out of poverty?

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield


Hmmm... interesting - not something I know a lot about, but Wynton Marsalis and his family, for example, are hardly from a ghetto or "the street" are they?

I mean Miles Davis was the son of a professional father and wasn't really fighting his way out of poverty?

A great deal of rap artist do come from a middle class background, which is why there is a controversey about gangsta rap and whether or not the artist are/have truly lived the experience in which they are expounding about. The roots of the music, grew out of dance music, the original raps were over instrumental versions of R&B tunes. In any case, I don't think Ed's comments about the two genre's origin are accurate.

Originally posted by marc40a
Though jazz and rap are two distinctly different styles, I consider rap (the real deal, roots, street corner, freestyle stuff) to be the 'jazz' of today. Or should I say, the equivalent of what jazz used to be in it's heyday.

Rap is clearly along the same lineage as jazz as far as being an American music form based on improvisation, rooted in African tradition and pioneered by African Americans.

Well, I think Ed is just reacting to this statement (which I copied above) and disagreeing with that.

So marc seems to be trying to say that "street corner" rap is the equivalent today of Jazz in the 60s, for example.

I think there are big differences in that all the great Jazz musicians have a very high standard of musicianship and understanding of music theory - even if only at a practical level.

Whereas, rappers basically have no need of any of this and don't actually demonstrate it either! OK - maybe a highly developed sense of rhythm if we're being generous, but none of the skills which you need to improvise melodies coherently over chord changes.

I don't see any way in which rap can musically be considered the "equivalent" of Jazz in its heyday and tend to agree with Ed that it was always more of an acquired taste and was never the music "of the kids" - I mean my parents(white British, professional) listened to Jazz in the late 50s early 60s and held Jazz parties for their friends - but I can't imagine black kids in the ghetto listening to Oscar Peterson and Dave Brubeck records, as my parents did!! ;)

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield


Well, I think Ed is just reacting to this statement (which I copied above) and disagreeing with that.

So marc seems to be trying to say that "street corner" rap is the equivalent today of Jazz in the 60s, for example.

I think there are big differences in that all the great Jazz musicians have a very high standard of musicianship and understanding of music theory - even if only at a practical level.

Whereas, rappers basically have no need of any of this and don't actually demonstrate it either! OK - maybe a highly developed sense of rhythm if we're being generous, but none of the skills which you need to improvise melodies coherently over chord changes.

I don't see any way in which rap can musically be considered the "equivalent" of Jazz in its heyday and tend to agree with Ed that it was always more of an acquired taste and was never the music "of the kids" - I mean my parents(white British, professional) listened to Jazz in the late 50s early 60s and held Jazz parties for their friends - but I can't imagine black kids in the ghetto listening to Oscar Peterson and Dave Brubeck records, as my parents did!! ;)

Let me put this simply Bruce, you don't know what you're talking about. Check out "Thinking in Jazz, The Infinite Art of Improvisation", chapter one, which will give you some insight as to why you're wrong about your assumptions of what was going on in the black community during the Jazz heyday. Personally, I have direct experience, parents, brothers, sisters, friends, neighbors, etc. that directly contradicts what you're saying, but don't take my word for it, do some reading. ;)

Well I did say previously, I don't know much about this and I was joking on the last point - too obvious?

But then I'm not trying to prove that Rap is the direct equivalent of Jazz - I was just explaining what Ed was saying. ;) I don't really care about this and it's not really of interest to me in the way that Jazz music is.

I think there's no doubt that there is more practical exposition of music theory in a record by John Coltrane, (choose who you will, from Jazz greats in history) than all of Rap music put together! ;)

Originally posted by marc40a
In economic terms, is that equal to 'white lower class' ???

Speaking from a socioeconomic viewpoint, there's not a whole lot of difference between now and then....sadly so.

You're stunningly wrong, and this perception is harmful to the black middle class--which is just about 50% of black America.

Here's the thing: a lot of "the ghetto" is really middle-class housing (there are several very nice areas in Chicago and NYC that are almost 100% black) and is quite safe. It's just that blacks have historically been forced to live in those locations, because so many white suburbs were (and, unfortunately, remain) segregated de facto.

I mean, yes, 50% of African-Americans live in poverty. That's a big problem, although having grown up among impoverished rural whites I'd argue that dealing with white poverty is ultimately much more difficult. Still, there's no need to overinflate it and ignore the progress of the last 40 years.

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
Well I did say previously, I don't know much about this and I was joking on the last point - too obvious?

But then I'm not trying to prove that Rap is the direct equivalent of Jazz - I was just explaining what Ed was saying. ;) I don't really care about this and it's not really of interest to me in the way that Jazz music is.

I think there's no doubt that there is more practical exposition of music theory in a record by John Coltrane, (choose who you will, from Jazz greats in history) than all of Rap music put together! ;)

Yeah, I know you don't know much about this, which is why you were called on it. ;)

Here's something you might want to try, take a rap tune and transcribe the rhythmic and harmonic content of the verbal solo's.

Originally posted by Phil Smith

Here's something you might want to try, take a rap tune and transcribe the rhythmic and harmonic content of the verbal solo's.

I'll do the second part - harmonic content of verbal solos = 0, zero nada, nothing etc. ;)

Originally posted by Ed Fuqua
Bottom line, I hear a lotta 8th note stuff that starts and stops in the same place in a bar, some quarter note triplet stuff that does the same thing. What I don't hear is anybody taking and developing a rhythmic composition the way that Bird or Lee Konitz or Billy or Elvin or Bu or abouta buncha other jazz players do. I don't hear the same openess and flexibility. I don't hear the interactivity and suppleness in the interplay between "soloist" and rhythm section.

And you don't hear that with a lot of so-called Jazz artists today... only the really good ones;)

BTW can you get any more "open" than Free Jazz?

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield


Well, I think Ed is just reacting to this statement (which I copied above) and disagreeing with that.

So marc seems to be trying to say that "street corner" rap is the equivalent today of Jazz in the 60s, for example.

I think there are big differences in that all the great Jazz musicians have a very high standard of musicianship and understanding of music theory - even if only at a practical level.

Whereas, rappers basically have no need of any of this and don't actually demonstrate it either! OK - maybe a highly developed sense of rhythm if we're being generous, but none of the skills which you need to improvise melodies coherently over chord changes.

I don't see any way in which rap can musically be considered the "equivalent" of Jazz in its heyday and tend to agree with Ed that it was always more of an acquired taste and was never the music "of the kids" - I mean my parents(white British, professional) listened to Jazz in the late 50s early 60s and held Jazz parties for their friends - but I can't imagine black kids in the ghetto listening to Oscar Peterson and Dave Brubeck records, as my parents did!! ;)

"Whereas, rappers basically have no need of any of this and don't actually demonstrate it either! OK - maybe a highly developed sense of rhythm if we're being generous, but none of the skills which you need to improvise melodies coherently over chord changes".


I guess this is the part I don't get. Why is this deemed a requirement? Why do you (collectively speaking) think it's mandatory to be able to improvise melodies over chord changes to qualify? Why is rhythmic content not enough?

I know any number of Jazz drummers I can listen to and, while I don't hear them improvising harmonically over chord changes...

they still sound like Jazz to me:).

Thoughts?

On the Rap tip, if all you heard of Jazz was Kenny G and not Brad Mehldau, would you feel qualified to generalize about the "state of the art"?

The same is true of just about any genre... if all you are exposed to is the most populist artists, the guys doing Sprite commercials and voiceovers for Mr. Clean, maybe you aren't qualified to pass judgement on the fringe artists.

Just maybe.

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield


I'll do the second part - harmonic content of verbal solos = 0, zero nada, nothing etc. ;)

Beats actually listening every time;)

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield


Well I think it's going the other way - when I heard "The Message" - Grandmaster Flash in the early 80s I thought Wow - here is a genuinely new development in music - great lyrics and interesting rhythmical styling.

In the last 20 years though, there has been very little like that and I'm sure if there was anything as good, it would have reached the mainstream as "The Message" did!

Are you serious? The mainstream is typically reserved for the lowest common denominator type stuff.

What was Miles' last mainstream hit?

Originally posted by Brad Johnson

I guess this is the part I don't get. Why is this deemed a requirement? Why do you (collectively speaking) think it's mandatory to be able to improvise melodies over chord changes to qualify? Why is rhythmic content not enough?

Well - I don't buy albums that consist entirely of drum solos!! ;) I think such a thing would be pretty dull and at a typical Jazz gig that I attend, there are maybe 2 or 3 drums solos out of an evening where the Sax player will probably solo on every tune!

Anyway - to qualify for what? How many Jazz CDs have no harmonic or melodic content - I have lists of thousands, but can't think of any!?


PS - Brad's "stalking" me again - time to hit the ignore button and actually go off to a Jazz gig and listen to some real music!! ;)

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald


What MR. FUNGUS said. We did that already in DB, and there's no point in doing it again. And as my (hopefully) final contribution to this thread, I just wanted to say that my big problem with "RAP" is that anybody who wants to call themselves a musician but can't be bothered to deal with MELODY is only a partial musician - and one who has thrown out one my favorite elements of music just because SINGING seems not to be as "stylish" as TALKING these days. :rolleyes: To me, this is like someone claiming to be an auto mechanic, but who can't be bothered to deal with engines. Do what you want, but I'll be taking my car elsewhere...

This is a personal opinion only, of course, without any scientific evidence whatsoever being offered to back it up....and, as always, Brad Johnson could be wrong. :)

If this were true of all Rappers, I could see merit in it. Unfortunately it's not. Granted, I haven't heard any Ella-like scatting lately but that doesn't mean there's no melody in any of it. It's just not true.

Then again, I listen to some melodies in Rap and wonder why they made the melodic choices they did... because they didn't know any better or because they actually did have a feel for what they were doing and intentionally creating harmonic tension. I used to wonder the same thing about Ornette Coleman;)

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield


Well - I don't buy albums that consist entirely of drum solos!! ;) I think such a thing would be pretty dull and at a typical Jazz gig that I attend, there are maybe 2 or 3 drums solos out of an evening where the Sax player will probably solo on every tune!

So.. in your world Jazz is albums? In mine it's performance.

Stay typical.

Anyway - to qualify for what? How many Jazz CDs have no harmonic or melodic content - I have lists of thousands, but can't think of any!?

Sounds like an excellent point of reference.

PS - Brad's "stalking" me again - time to hit the ignore button and actually go off to a Jazz gig and listen to some real music!! ;)

Please use the ignore function, your constant whining about a simple difference of opinion is stale. And you're hardly worth stalking... I just think that in this thread your opinion and mine don't jibe.

Enjoy your "real music". Nice box you've got there;)

OK that was just a joke - no whining - but how come you say for me that Jazz is CDs - but in the same sentence (that you quoted) I mentioned live gigs as well as CDs?

You must be slipping! :D

I go to Jazz gigs every week, but I've never been to one with just drums/percussion. I've been to quite a few with no drums though.

The point I was making though, is there are many reference lists of great Jazz albums or recommended Jazz albums and none of these are just drum solos - if you can name one, then I will be very interested to check it out?

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
OK that was just a joke - no whining - but how come you say for me that Jazz is CDs - but in the same sentence (that you quoted) I mentioned live gigs as well as CDs?

You must be slipping! :D

I go to Jazz gigs every week, but I've never been to one with just drums/percussion. I've been to quite a few with no drums though.

The point I was making though, is there are many reference lists of great Jazz albums or recommended Jazz albums and none of these are just drum solos - if you can name one, then I will be very interested to check it out?

Bruce, your missing the point. You proclaim things about rap, but how much have you heard? I get the notion not much, are you familiar with Queen Latifah? Every check out some of the cuts on the "Nature of a Sista" CD? I would post a clip here, but you can't access sound files. ;)

The point is not that this is Jazz, but the verbal solo's are on par with Jazz solo's, though they may or may not (I haven't heard everything) be on the level of a Charlie Parker or other Jazz artist the represent the tip of the triangle of the art.

http://www.birdlives.com/jazzdefined.html

I think the article pretty much sums it up. Bottom line is, I don't think anyone can agree on what jazz is, but everyone seems to know when they hear it.

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
OK that was just a joke - no whining - but how come you say for me that Jazz is CDs - but in the same sentence (that you quoted) I mentioned live gigs as well as CDs?

You must be slipping! :D

I was referring to this: "Well - I don't buy albums that consist entirely of drum solos!!"

Who's slipping now, BL:D

BTW I was joking too. Sometimes it's fun to verbally spar. I get the feeling you like it too.

I go to Jazz gigs every week, but I've never been to one with just drums/percussion. I've been to quite a few with no drums though.

My point was that I think you can listen to drums and percussion and still recognize it as Jazz... if that's what they're playing.

The point I was making though, is there are many reference lists of great Jazz albums or recommended Jazz albums and none of these are just drum solos - if you can name one, then I will be very interested to check it out?

My point was, Jazz is not limited to recorded output.

Until next time, Moriarty:D

Originally posted by Phil Smith
The point is not that this is Jazz, but the verbal solo's are on par with Jazz solo's, though they may or may not (I haven't heard everything) be on the level of a Charlie Parker or other Jazz artist the represent the tip of the triangle of the art.

Well, there are two areas of confusion here. So firstly my definition of "Rap" is unpitched verbalisation - as other have said "speaking" rather than singing. So OK, I have been having fun playing with this concept in the argument, as Brad says - sparring - but seriously, if I heard somebody singing , well I would say then that's not Rap - that's (insert some other appropriate genre).

Secondly, how is something in music "on a par" with something else - can you compare Jazz with say and Orchestral concert by an 150-piece symphony orchestra playing a complex work that took the composer 7 years to write and orchestrate?

So based on the first point I can only see any possibility of a rap solo as being on a par with a drum solo in Jazz - hence my point that do people go to Jazz gigs or buy Jazz CDs just for the drum solos - I don't think so.

But mostly I Just think you cannot compare chalk and cheese - Friday night I saw a Jazz quartet : alto,piano,bass and drums. Last night I saw a large symphony orchestra playing South American Contemporary Classcial with a Bandoneon soloist in a concerto and a Mezzo-soprano singing seven Spanish songs - I have no idea whether any it was on a par with anything else - I just really liked it!! ;)

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
Well, there are two areas of confusion here. So firstly my definition of "Rap" is unpitched verbalisation - as other have said "speaking" rather than singing. So OK, I have been having fun playing with this concept in the argument, as Brad says - sparring - but seriously, if I heard somebody singing , well I would say then that's not Rap - that's (insert some other appropriate genre).

There's no such thing as "unpitched verbalisation" in rap, though you may be able to find that quality in a computer generated voice. Your sounding like the music neophyte that listens to Jazz and proclaims it's all jibberish. ;)


Secondly, how is something in music "on a par" with something else - can you compare Jazz with say and Orchestral concert by an 150-piece symphony orchestra playing a complex work that took the composer 7 years to write and orchestrate?

Sure you can, it depends on the piece. Take "Porgy and Bess" for example.


So based on the first point I can only see any possibility of a rap solo as being on a par with a drum solo in Jazz - hence my point that do people go to Jazz gigs or buy Jazz CDs just for the drum solos - I don't think so.

This is a weak argument. If the leader is the drummer, then people are going to the gigs for the drum solo's and are buying Jazz CD's for that as well.


But mostly I Just think you cannot compare chalk and cheese - Friday night I saw a Jazz quartet : alto,piano,bass and drums. Last night I saw a large symphony orchestra playing South American Contemporary Classcial with a Bandoneon soloist in a concerto and a Mezzo-soprano singing seven Spanish songs - I have no idea whether any it was on a par with anything else - I just really liked it!! ;)

When I say on par, I'm talking about the improvisational aspects. A person's ability to make up rhymes (with harmony) and articulate them rhythmically on the spot is on par with a solo instrumentalists ability to make up harmony and articulate that rhythmically on the spot.

Originally posted by Phil Smith


There's no such thing as "unpitched verbalisation" in rap, though you may be able to find that quality in a computer generated voice. Your sounding like the music neophyte that listens to Jazz and proclaims it's all jibberish. ;)


Well to me if it's pitched, then it's singing and not rapping- that's all I'm saying!



Sure you can, it depends on the piece. Take "Porgy and Bess" for example.

As an example of what?

This is a weak argument. If the leader is the drummer, then people are going to the gigs for the drum solo's and are buying Jazz CD's for that as well.


Not at all - I have seen at least three Jazz ensembles lead by the drummer in the past few months at my local Jazz club and in some cases there have been no drum solos at all! The audience goes for the tunes, the ensemble playing, the group rapport and energy, I know - Ive talked to virtually every one of them!! ;)

I have lots of records by Art Blakey, but I listen to them for the overall band sound and the great musicians he gets to plays with him - OK there might be the odd drum solo, but this is not why I would buy one of his records and I doubt that anybody except other drummers would do this.


When I say on par, I'm talking about the improvisational aspects. A person's ability to make up rhymes (with harmony) and articulate them rhythmically on the spot is on par with a solo instrumentalists ability to make up harmony and articulate that rhythmically on the spot.

I just don't think you can compare and don't see the need to anyway - are we talking about a competitive sports hierarchy - rapper 10 points , Jazz soloist 10 points - it just makes no sense to me?

Is the Double Bassist in a symphony orchestra under "par" when he play a piece that only has a very few notes written which are very simple to play and then suddenly over "par" when he plays in a local Jazz band for fun on Friday night and plays complex solos on every tune?

Par is for Golf, not music!! :D

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
Well to me if it's pitched, then it's singing and not rapping- that's all I'm saying! /QUOTE]

Well according to your definition, rap is singing, because it most definitely is pitched. All speech is pitched, unless of course your ear is unpitched. ;)

[QUOTE]
I just don't think you can compare and don't see the need to anyway - are we talking about a competitive sports hierarchy - rapper 10 points , Jazz soloist 10 points - it just makes no sense to me?

Is the Double Bassist in a symphony orchestra under "par" when he play a piece that only has a very few notes written which are very simple to play and then suddenly over "par" when he plays in a local Jazz band for fun on Friday night and plays complex solos on every tune?

Par is for Golf, not music!! :D

It's you that's doing the scoring, go back and read your own posts. You have your own valuation system of what music is what and why. I'm disagreeing with it, because you reasoning seems to be bogus and all over the place.

Here's what you said in another thread, which is the point of this thread:

Well it is often a "Jazzy" sound - so like normal 12 bar blues can have altered chords and the more you alter the more it sounds like Jazz and less like Blues!

If the changes aren't played in the style of Jazz, it won't sound like Jazz. i.e. Jazz is played over chords, but specific sets or types of chords are not Jazz.

Originally posted by Phil Smith

It's you that's doing the scoring, ....

Here's what you said in another thread, which is the point of this thread:

Well it is often a "Jazzy" sound - so like normal 12 bar blues can have altered chords and the more you alter the more it sounds like Jazz and less like Blues!


But how does this imply any "scoring" of a type of music? This is just stating what is fairly obvious to anyone with a small knowledge of Jazz - i.e. that you can have a fairly "straight" 12 bar Blues sequence and then in the 30s and 40s Jazz musicians like Charlie Parker started to re-harmonise the Blues adding alternate chords and II-V-Is - making it a "Jazz Blues".

This is widely-known and in no way controversial - Chris, Ed anybody else - back me up on this?
It is part of the history of Jazz and is documented in loads of books.

So the original thread to which you refer was asking about chord substitutions.

As a reference - go to page 222 of Mark Levine's "Jazz Theory Book" which shows "a more complex set of Blues changes that came into being during the bebop era. Note especially the use of tritone substitution in the 4th bar, the descending chromatic I-V progression in bars 6 through 10 ......."etc etc.

Levine goes on to detail dozens of different variations on the Blues that Jazz musicians made in the 30s - 60s - all of which made the sequences unique to Jazz - a unique Jazz sound - so if someone say to play "Jazz Blues" or "Bebop Blues" Jazz players know that it's not going to be just three dominant 7th chords.

So in that original thread I ws trying to explain the simplest reason for tritone chord substitutions - to add variety to the basic Blues sequence and make it sound more like Jazz and less like a standard Blues.

I didn't expect I would be "hounded" for weeks about this - just for trying to help somebody understand why you would use a tritone substitution!! :rolleyes:

OK - the following is from Mark Sabatella's "Jazz Improvisation primer and this is the part that is explaining what I was trying to :

"Blues
The term "blues" is somewhat overloaded, describing a general style of music and a more specific category of chord progressions, as well as its colloquial meaning of a particular mood, as in the phrase "I've got the blues". The blues as a style has a rich history that is beyond the scope of this primer. The basic twelve bar blues form was mentioned earlier. In its original form, still played often in rock and R&B music, only three chords are used: the I chord, the IV chord, and the V chord. The basic blues progression is:
|| I | I | I | I | which, || F | F | F | F |
| IV | IV | I | I | in the key of F, | Bb | Bb | F | F |
| V | IV | I | I || yields: | C | Bb | F | F ||.


The chords are usually all played as dominant seventh chords, although they are not actually functioning as dominant chords in that they do not resolve to a tonic. The F blues scale can be played over this entire progression. While the blues progression can be played in any key, the most popular keys among jazz musicians seem to be F, Bb, and Eb, whereas rock musicians often prefer E, A, D, or G. This has a lot to do with the way instruments are tuned. Popular jazz instruments such as the trumpet and the various members of the saxophone family are usually tuned in Bb or Eb, meaning that the notated ``C'' played on these instruments actually sounds like a Bb or Eb respectively. Music written for these instruments is therefore transposed. The fingerings for the instruments favors playing in the key of C, which is actually Bb or Eb, depending on the instrument. Guitars tend to dominate rock music, and guitars are tuned to favor the keys containing sharps.
Playing the blues scale over the basic three chord blues progression in a jazz setting gets old very quickly. Starting around the swing era, and most notably in the bebop era, musicians began to make additions to this simple formula. One common adaptation of the blues progression, which is still considered the standard for jazz jam sessions, is:

|| F7 | Bb7 | F7 | F7 |
| Bb7 | Bb7 | F7 | D7alt |
| Gm7 | C7 | F7 | C7 |.


This progression offers a wider range of scale possibilities than does the basic three chord blues. For example, bars 8 and 9 form a V-i in G minor, and bars 9-11 form a ii-V-I in F.
The idea of adding ii-V's to the blues progression yields more variations. For example, consider:

|| F7 | Bb7 | F7 | Cm7 F7 |
| Bb7 | Bdim | F7 | Am7b5 D7alt |
| Gm7 | C7alt | F7 D7alt | Gm7 C7alt |.


This particular progression is especially common in bebop and later styles. Note the substitution of a Bb ii-V-I in bars 4-5, a G minor ii-V-i in bars 8-9, and a G minor V-i in bars 11-12. Also note the diminished chord in bar 6. This diminished chord is serving as a substitute for the dominant seventh, since both Bdim and Bb7b9 share the same Bb HW (B WH) diminished scale. This same substitution can be made for the second half of bar 2.
Other variations can be made using tritone substitutions. For example, Ab7 can be played instead of D7alt in the second half of bar 8. You can also change the qualities of the chords, for instance replacing that Ab7 with an Abm7. Another common substitution is A7alt for the F7 in bar 11. This substitution works because the chords share several notes, including the tonic, F, and because the A7alt forms part of a G minor II-V-i progression with the D7alt and Gm7 that follow.

Charlie Parker carried these types of substitutions to an extreme in "Blues For Alice". The chord progression in that tune is:

|| Fmaj7 | Em7b5 A7b9 | Dm7 G7 | Cm7 F7 |
| Bb7 | Bbm7 Eb7 | Am7 D7 | Abm7 Db7 |
| Gm7 | C7 | Fmaj7 D7alt | Gm7 C7 |.


This uses most of the techniques described above. You may wish to play with this progression for a while.

http://www.outsideshore.com/primer/primer/ms-primer-5-2.html#Blues

Originally posted by Ed Fuqua
Done by who, where? Again my limited understanding puts the beginning in poorer innner city neighborhoods in the Bronx, areas of Philly and Chicago. Not really bastions of the middle class.[quote]

The first raps over instrumentals of R&B hits were done by DJ's, commercial ones, as well as those that were spinning at clubs. This is also where the remixes of tunes occurred as the dual turn table setup became popular. What you're referring to Ed, is the origins of Hip Hop, break dancing, resurgance of graffiti, no shoe laces in sneakers, etc, etc.

[quote]
But again, that's the question that was raised. "Rap is like jazz was in its heyday". So, again, what do you think jazz was in its heyday and why do you think rap fills the same function now? Specifically, do you think that the reasons why Bird did what he did and Queen Latifah does what she does are the same? What do you think those reasons are?


An apple isn't going to be an orange, though both may be fruit, in which case the creative energy of that envelope is the same.


OK, Phil. Why don't we both take a look at some transcriptions? Get two examples of a rap artist (or artists) on tape (or MD or CD if that's easier) and send'em to me (or maybe we can hook up for a beer or something) and I'll pull a couple (prolly Tony offa Four and More and Billy off of one of the Blue Note thangs rather than Ornette. That way we can both post salient examples with our reasoning here and everbody can make up their own minds.
Fair enough?

There's already been sufficient post analysis of what cats played on jazz tunes and the theory of why they played what they played. What has yet to be explored is what the tonal and rhythmic breakdown is of a rapper's lines. I'd be willing to do that, when I get some space on my plate and post my results at a later date.

Originally posted by Phil Smith

The first raps over instrumentals of R&B hits were done by DJ's, commercial ones, as well as those that were spinning at clubs. This is also where the remixes of tunes occurred as the dual turn table setup became popular.



My understanding - which is very limited - was that the origins of rap came from folks imitating the way that Jamaican DJ's would spin records, talking rhythmically over the record as it played. There was one in particular...DJ COOL HERC?? (sp??)...that I understood was one of the first to really spread this practice to the states by doing it in New York before anyone else. Of course, my memory is so bad, I could be talking out of my @$$, but does any of this ring a bell?

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
My understanding - which is very limited - was that the origins of rap came from folks imitating the way that Jamaican DJ's would spin records, talking rhythmically over the record as it played. There was one in particular...DJ COOL HERC?? (sp??)...that I understood was one of the first to really spread this practice to the states by doing it in New York before anyone else. Of course, my memory is so bad, I could be talking out of my @$$, but does any of this ring a bell?

I don't know about that, though Caribbean artist have been doing covers of US tunes for a long time, so there could be some truth to it.

Radio DJ personalities prided themselves on their vocal delivery and social and philosophical commentary and that area became competitive in a way, i.e. the envelope kept getting pushed. Frankie Crocker, Gary Byrd, (all NYC radio market) along with others are examples of this.

Bruce,

Are chords Jazz or is Jazz played over chords? Yes or no? :D

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald



My understanding - which is very limited - was that the origins of rap came from folks imitating the way that Jamaican DJ's would spin records, talking rhythmically over the record as it played. There was one in particular...DJ COOL HERC?? (sp??)...that I understood was one of the first to really spread this practice to the states by doing it in New York before anyone else. Of course, my memory is so bad, I could be talking out of my @$$, but does any of this ring a bell?

I don't think there's an official "Rap birthday", it all depends on your scope;). James Brown was rapping long before the genre became official. The same is true of the Last Poets, back in the early 70's. IME Rap did not initially require a DJ... some early examples were possibly best described as rhyming versions of the game, the dozens.

Then again, while I was in the video store today, I heard Walter Brennan doing "Old River". Who knew Grandpa was an OG?;)

My only problem with most of this discussion is the generalizations, as if there is one Jazz, one Rap, one set of rules, one type. It's not that simple yet we try to make it be that way.

Kungfuqua'd.

I think the Jamaican practice of 'rapping' over already existing Pop/rhythmn tracks was called Versioning...goes back to the '50s?
Basically, the singer would "improvise" new words over an already Popular tune.
Definite connection to what's been happenin' here; also, is that a parallel to how the early Boppers reharmonized the Popular tunes of their day?

I dunno.


I'm way late into this discussion-
IMO, Jazz can be played over chords or no chords.
IMO, the "jazzy" sounding chords may evoke a response of "Yeah, now that sounds like Jazz".
Then again, maybe not.

FWIW-
Practically every original I have composed follows these guidelines:
1)Funky(cough-cough) bass figure
2)"Jazzy" voiced chords(chords I learned outta a Mickey Baker Jazz Guitar book).

"Jazzy" chords in & by themself does not = Jazz.
At least in what I'm doing...

Originally posted by Phil Smith
Bruce,

Are chords Jazz or is Jazz played over chords? Yes or no? :D

I agree with Ed, when he said on the first page:

"It's not chords and it's not (strictly) improvisation. It's an approach to harmony AND an approach to improvisation that is unique to jazz."

But of course, an "approach to harmony" includes and involves chords/scales - and you can't define that approach, without reference to these!! ;)

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield


I agree with Ed, when he said on the first page:

"It's not chords and it's not (strictly) improvisation. It's an approach to harmony AND an approach to improvisation that is unique to jazz."

But of course, an "approach to harmony" includes and involves chords/scales - and you can't define that approach, without reference to these!! ;)

Hey Bruce, don't hide behind Ed, (not implying that your big enough to hide behind Ed ;)). You were gleefully waxing about how it's jazzy because of the reharmonized 12 bar blues form, which of course implied, and rather directly I might add, that the original harmony wasn't jazzy. I debunked this by offering up "Freddie Freeloader" as an example and I never saw you address this, instead you pasted the contents of a web page which you could have just given us the link to.

I do have a problem with Ed's quote though, in no way does it mention RHYTHM, which you can't have Jazz without.

Thanks, Richard-
I was gonna mention rhythm, too.

One can play "jazzy" chords all night long in any context(Rock, Funk, R&B, Reggae, etc).
Without that "rhythm"...I dunno.
I may think, "Hmmmm, that's jazzy" or "Cool, nice voicing", blah.


I thought I had killed this thread back on 9-10? ;)

Originally posted by Phil Smith
I do have a problem with Ed's quote though, in no way does it mention RHYTHM, which you can't have Jazz without.

Well, I have seen a lot of Jazz groups with no rhythm sections and some Jazz slow ballads can move into rubato so far that they might be said to have no "pulse" in both senses of the word! ;)

I did quote Ed verbatim from the first page of this thread - go look if you don't believe me! ;)

But I also believe that it's very difficult to pin down Jazz and I said elsewhere that I think it's easier to say what it isn't rather than what it is!

So to add another twist, I will quote a concrete example - Steely Dan! Now to me, they sound Jazzy or Jazzier when they add some typical Jazz chords and harmony - so some songs are clearly rock and not Jazz - others are blurred into Jazz territory, but overall they are probably closer to rock/funk, but when they throw some Jazz harmony into the mix they sound Jazzier ....?

So - Aja sounds "Jazzier" to me than Reelin in the Years ........?

But are either Jazz as such - probably not! ;)

Just a reminder to everyone who might care that there's a complete (merged) version of this thread down in DB OT.

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
Just a reminder to everyone who might care that there's a complete (merged) version of this thread down in DB OT.

But it doesn't include my last post which was directly replying to a lot of these points! I'm confused!! ;)

Maybe I shouldn't go on holiday(vacation in Kefallonia) !! :D

Bruce-
Steely Dan is a good example.
Agree with you on "Aja" vs. "Reeling In The Years", too...though look at the personnel on both tunes.
By the time Fagen/Becker got to Aja, they were really into using Jazz-oriented players.
"Reeling In The Years" is from their debut disc, right? ;)

Are really going on holiday, AGAIN?!
Man, where do I sign up?

Just back from my fourth trip since December - Spain, Malta, Wales and Greece - I've got to do something when I'm not on TB!! ;)

Actually, it's to keep my girflriend happy with all the time I spend on bass playing, going to Jazz gigs etc.

Not as glamorous as hitting the Jersey shore but I guess it'll do;)

I'm officially jealous, Bruce.

Originally posted by JimK
Bruce-
Steely Dan is a good example.
Agree with you on "Aja" vs. "Reeling In The Years", too...though look at the personnel on both tunes.
By the time Fagen/Becker got to Aja, they were really into using Jazz-oriented players.
"Reeling In The Years" is from their debut disc, right? ;)


I think you could come up with better examples if you looked through the whole list of Steely Dan songs. So, round about Pretzel logic they started to get more Jazz influences in - although "King of the World" on the previous album sounds Jazzier to me despite having the rock band and some of the other tunes on the album are very simple - like "Show BIz Kids".

So it's probably "Countdown to Ecstasy" that shows what I mean - it's clearly a rock band with rock rhythm section, but some of the songs slip in "Jazzy" chords which make them stand out from the other bands around at the time.

Here's a quote from an interview with Becker/Fagen, that is reproduced in the Citizen Steely Dan box set, Becker starts :

"Peple who are interested in more interesting lyrics are generally speaking not interested in Jazz harmonies. They want something more raw and what they perceive to be subversive-sounding, which usually means clanging guitars. And it was just a quirk of Donald's and my natures that we thought superimposing Jazz harmonies on pop songs was subversive in a much subtler way." Adds Fagen, "I think people who are sophisticated in the sense that they want to hear some kind of substance in the lyrics are musically going to tend to be primitivists...."

My 2 cents...

I think Jazz is more than just the chords or the improvisation - I wouldn't agree that Jazz is defined by the chords, but I wouldn't agree that Jazz is defined by the improvisation - but I wouldn't say that both are required for music to be Jazz. I think Jazz also has a lot to do with the player, and the feel they give the music - it's a way of playing music. For example, Herbie Hancock's performance of the 2nd movement of Ravel's Piano Concerto in G on "Gershwin's World" - Herbie makes it Jazz - where as a Classical Pianist wouldn't. It's little things that contribute to the feel, like the accent off the beat.

Continuing the Steely Dan thread, I think one reason Aja sounds so much more Jazzy than Can't Buy A Thrill is the players - Rainey, Shorter etc. Also, on Katy Lied - while songs like Your Gold Teeth 2 are undeniably Jazz influenced, the performance isn't all that Jazzy to me - whereas Aja is also undeniably Jazz influenced, but sounds a lot more like Jazz to me - because of the players.