What is your definition of jazz?

[vision]

Do you consider any music based in improvisation to be jazz? Or does jazz have to fit a specific format? Is there any improvisational music you listen to and say, "that's not jazz!"

Also, here's a separate question...what do you think was the cause for the decline in popularity of jazz music? Did the audiences simply move on to other types of music? Did the musicians scare the audience away by pushing "free improvisation" too far? Will it ever again gain mass popularity?

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by vision

Do you consider any music based in improvisation to be jazz?

No - there are many other types of music that involved improvisation - even Bach expected improvisation in many of the pieces he wrote!

Or does jazz have to fit a specific format?

YES!

Is there any improvisational music you listen to and say, "that's not jazz!"

Yes - Bach organ music, some AfroCuban, a lot of funk - many rock bands etc. etc.

Also, here's a separate question...what do you think was the cause for the decline in popularity of jazz music? Did the audiences simply move on to other types of music? Did the musicians scare the audience away by pushing "free improvisation" too far? Will it ever again gain mass popularity?

Jazz is more popular with me now than it has ever been before!!

Seriously - it requires more effort on the part of the listener and we live in a minimum effort world of low attention spans -so no suprise there!

[vision]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

YES!

Then what is that format?

Jazz is more popular with me now than it has ever been before!!

Seriously - it requires more effort on the part of the listener and we live in a minimum effort world of low attention spans -so no suprise there!

I agree, but do you think jazz always required this effort, even when it was a popular music? What has changed more over the years - has the music gotten more complicated or has the attention span of the audience gotten shorter?

[tZer]

RE: Decline in popularity...

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

Seriously - it requires more effort on the part of the listener and we live in a minimum effort world of low attention spans -so no suprise there!

zactly!

I've had that conversation a thousand times with my 'improv' band. I am avoiding calling our band a "jam band", even though at this point in time that's exactly what we are.

My friend and I who are running this improv band project are both big fans of the standards and fusion. I am more a fan of standards and the various ways people choose to interpret them - but I do enjoy some fusion on occasion.

What we're trying to do to make our 'improv' band more of a 'jazz' band, is to introduce the structural components you typically find in traditional jazz... Heads, vamps, strong stylistic statements (samba, bossa, blues, swing, etc...), a strong awareness of phrasing, time and melody - working with complex time signatures - how to improvise in a very conversational fashion where one person's ideas are picked up and added to by another - trading 4's, question/answer et al.

While jazz can appear loose and unstructured, it's really very solid. The key is to make it seem natural and effortless - and again, conversational, in my opinion.

And again, I agree with what Bruce stated; jazz requires more out of the listener - so it's an added challenge to make a 'jazz-type' band able to hold a typical audience's attention.

[sarcastro83]

I define it as "not my thing", personally.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by vision

Then what is that format?

Too much to write in a post here - if you really want to know the answer - read "the Jazz Theory Book by Mark Levine"!



http://www.amazon.com/Jazz-Theory-Bo.../dp/1883217040

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by vision

I agree, but do you think jazz always required this effort, even when it was a popular music? What has changed more over the years - has the music gotten more complicated or has the attention span of the audience gotten shorter?

There are a huge number of factors involved
- so when Jazz was most popular - it was based on the popular tunes of the day, which people would have recognised and "swing" was a rhythm that people danced to...?

Nowadays - people are not so good at recognising tunes in instrumental format and wouldn't know the tunes that Jazz players use..

Also people don't dance to anything but very obviously-stated backbeats nowadays...

etc. etc.

[vision]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

Too much to write in a post here - if you really want to know the answer - read "the Jazz Theory Book by Mark Levine"!

It's not that I'm looking for an "answer", my degree is in jazz so I understand jazz theory. I'm moreso trying to get an understanding of the opinions of others on this because "jazz" has very different meanings for different people.

This conversation is coming from all the times when I'll tell a non-musician that I play jazz, and some of the questions they may ask me about it.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Well - to me - it is either about the kind of stuff in Levine's book - ii-V-Is etc. "changes" or it is "Free" and that's it!

Simple!

[kobass]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBSFS...elated&search=

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by kobass

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBSFS...elated&search=

Nahh! Everybody knows that for it to be Jazz, you have to have Double Bass !!

[kobass]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

Nahh! Everybody knows that for it to be Jazz, you have to have Double Bass !!

LOL!

[Adam Bomb]

Hopefully this is the least qualified or supported opinion I will render today.

Re listener effort: To me, good jazz is enjoyable on more than one level. It is music that has rewards for those who are willing and able to put in the effort, but also, and equally, it just sounds good.

I loved Armstrong and Gillespie from the moment I heard them, when I was a kid. I felt about them the way Diz said he felt when he first heard Parker: “That’s how music should sound.” Pretty sure you could beam Armstrong anywhere on the planet at any time in our history and have them start playing for anybody, and that person’s foot would start tapping. But IMO only a fool would think that they or anyone has fully understood all that Armstrong knew about music, or all that he did for music.

In my noob opinion, to create music that only music scholars and virtuosos can appreciate is lazy. I don’t like Coltrane. I respect him. My favorite musician ever is probably Hendrix, and I have come to suspect that every guitar solo ever is a bad Coltrane impression. But Jimi, and Diz, engage my brain *and* my ears. And I think that is the job description for all musicians, including jazz musicians. After all, it’s music!

On a continuum where on one end is A Love Supreme and on the other end is My Sharona, the sweet spot is in the middle. Miles and Monk at Newport would be a good example.

--Bomb

[Adam Bomb]

Originally Posted by kobass

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBSFS...elated&search=

... I can totally play that solo ...

[BassChuck]

Well its all music, so whenever you point to certain aspects of a style, you'll have people say, "Yea, but that also true of........."

But, IMHO, jazz has some unique aspects. Here are a few that come to mind.

The leadsheet or melody as remembered is the original blueprint of jazz, in rock its the recording, in classical the score.

In jazz, performers are 'allowed' to change, alter and recompose the music, in rock this is rarely the case... in classical, never. (We think nothing of reharmonizing Gershwin and its all good, but to do that to Brahms is really considered bad taste)

In jazz there is a wider tolerance for performer generated choices. In other words, a jazz performer is presenting the material inflected by the personality of the performer. Less so in Rock. In Classical the tolerance for perfromer generated choices is very narrow, mostly confined to tone, tempo and a small variances of phrasing (small in comparison to those allowed in jazz).

Jazz has a great tolerance for instrumentation variations. Rock is OK with this, but far less so than jazz. Bassoon players can find a home in a lot of jazz ensembles, not so much with rock bands. Orchestras always have to hire in the sax player for those very few pieces that use sax... and if you see an electric instrument in a symphony orchestra, you can bet there's something in the program notes about 'experimental' or some other such justification.

Jazz and Classical are in common that they require the audiences to engage themselves with the performance of the music. Rock tends to reach out and demand attention.

Jazz and Classical are also in common in that there is a larger list of artistic and intellectual devices at hand to create and perform the music. Rock, less so. Therefore, with Rock the demands on the listeners previous experiences are less. (this is neither good nor bad)

If a listener is expecting to 'be entertained' by Jazz or Classical they may leave the experience empty-handed. And also the Rock listener expecting to be intellectually challenged may find the performance empty.

Any music that you hear, no matter what style will leave you cold if it does not meet your expectations. The wider your listening experience are the better the chance you have of understanding whatever music you are exposed to.

Of course these are all generalities... YMMV

[tomvelsor]

on several occasions ive had in depth conversations about "what is jazz." to me, jazz is a lot of things. for starters, it consumes my life- damn mr.john coltrane for putting that curse on my ears..

jazz is what everything else is not.

[tZer]

For me, jazz is the musical equivalent to a highly animated, interesting and intelligent conversation. One that starts as a simple statement that each player weighs in on with their particular take. The point gets emphatically argued at times with people chiming in, pushing and pulling, giving and taking, shouting, laughing, building on the original statement and the subsequent comments - and everyone is in on the conversation. Finally, unlike many discussions here at TB, Jazz usually concludes with a nice, harmonious resolution.

[Yngwie 4String]

Do you consider any music based in improvisation to be jazz,
Or does jazz have to fit a specific format?

Sub-Genres of Jazz range from specific compositions wich must be followed exactly, to avant garde improvisations. Also between the two are some pieces that take one section of composition and use it as sort of a glue to hold improvised parts together.

Is there any improvisational music you listen to and say, "that's not jazz!"

Anytime someone picks up an instrument and procedes to play something that has not been written down as a composition they are improvising. You can improvise in any genre.

Also, here's a separate question...what do you think was the cause for the decline in popularity of jazz music?

Jazz declined because it was a type of music that required a multitude of musicians to play it. When Word War II came about many of these musicians where drafted and then there was simply noone around to play the music.

Did the audiences simply move on to other types of music?

That happened to, specifically with the rise of rock and roll.

Did the musicians scare the audience away by pushing "free improvisation" too far?

Jazz went through a phase where the whole idea was to take improvisation to the extreme. This resulted in many very strange compositions. It had a cult following, but probably had small part in diminishing mainstream success.

Will it ever again gain mass popularity?

I personally dont see it happening, but it will always have a cult following.

[Pacman]

Jazz, to me, is about the interaction between members of the ensemble. One player states something, and others react - like the conversation referred to above.

There are few "rules", and I guarantee the entire thing can't be held in any one book.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Yngwie 4String

Jazz declined because it was a type of music that required a multitude of musicians to play it. When Word War II came about many of these musicians where drafted and then there was simply noone around to play the music.

I think you're certainly wrong there - to me - the best Jazz is 3,4 or 5 musicians as people have said "having a conversation" - it's not a big band and the history of Jazz from the 1940s on has been about the small group and the true classics of the genre have been in this format - whether we are talking about Miles' great quintets, Rollins' trio recordings, Bill Evans trios etc. etc.

This is the great era of Jazz and continues to this day through Weather Report,Steps Ahead to Dave Holland and a thousand other small Jazz bands you could name!

Jazz went through a phase where the whole idea was to take improvisation to the extreme. This resulted in many very strange compositions. It had a cult following, but probably had small part in diminishing mainstream success.

Free Jazz in its purest form has no compositions and no prior agreement - it is entirely "in the moment"!!

This is not a "phase" as such, but has existed side by side with other types of Jazz since Ornette Coleman and Albert Ayler.