The Blues in Jazz...

[anonymous0726]

Originally Posted by Phil Smith

According to John Fordham's book "Jazz":

That's the myth, anyhow. I don't buy it. A stronger case could be made for military marches having a larger influence, given Sousa's insane popularity at the time and the make up of early jass groups having a stripped down version of the Sousa intrumentation.

The basics, again -- as I understand them -- is this:

Blues: Vocal, rural
Jazz: Instrumental, urban

Blues has always been a kissing cousin (at best) to jazz, but is not the basis of jazz.

[Damon Rondeau]

People take things too literally. Especially in the context of jazz, the term "the blues" has been used to refer to a feeling and an attitude as much as it has been to signify a particular form and style of music. A long-held note whose tonality twists and bends: that's blues, or blues-informed. Earthy rhythms that make you wanna grind instead of march or twitch -- blues.

To insist that one comes before the other, that one is the seed and the other the flower -- that's a political argument, not a historical one.

I like Ray's way of using ideal types to characterize them. To urban/rural, I'd play around with mind/body, sophisticated/naive, sacred/profane, stuff like that. Not for one second would I put one higher over the other except to say that I am personally more on the jazz side of the spectrum than the blues side.

I just put down half-finished a Muddy Waters bio (the fuse didn't catch on that one....) Muddy talks about liking to play in Chicago with guys who could play country style -- not hung up on counting bars and beats, 12 bars or 16, but who could just flow with him. This is in the '40's and 50's, not the cotton-picking '20s and '30s. If the blue notes and the funky rhythms are part of the positive side of the coin representing the affiliation between these two musics, then Muddy's frustration with bar-counters speaks to where the tension is.

[Phil Smith]

The mythology seems to loom large...from this site.

http://www.jazzitude.com/historleans.htm

The influence of the blues on jazz cannot be overemphasized. Although many other influences have existed and continue to influence the development of jazz music, blues is the basis of jazz. Blues was the first music to emphasize improvisation, and its unique tonal coloration became an integral part of the jazz vocabulary. Any attempt to trace the roots of jazz music must take into account the influence of the blues.

Anyone have any links or references to any books that dispel the notion that blues is the basis of jazz?

[Tbeers]

It helps to look back every once in a while. Jazz has not become any more "sophisticated" or better since at least sixty years ago. I know that, since right now I am listening to a 1945 duet recording of Slam Stewart and Don Byas. They're playing "Indiana" and it's absolutely incredible. Slam could give Christian McBride or any of the modern monsters a run for their money. Our music continues to evolve, but it never becomes better or worse as it changes. Suggesting that what we have now is somehow superior is arrogant and ignorant.

I listen to everything I can, instead of using twisted rhetoric and flawed logic to distance myself from "blues" or "R&B" or "hip-hop." The fact is that jazz continues to evolve through every genre of music that emerges from the African American community. That certainly included blues! Listen to Joshua Redman playing "Jazz Crimes" (which everyone should hear, it's ridiculous) and tell me there's no hip hop influence.

I honestly believe that you ought to be able to listen to something as non-jazz as "We Are Family" by Sister Sledge and hear the connection. Well, now I'm just ranting. I guess my basic point is, if you're ruling out any type of music then it's your loss and your jazz playing will suffer.

[Damon Rondeau]

Originally Posted by Tbeers

I honestly believe that you ought to be able to listen to something as non-jazz as "We Are Family" by Sister Sledge and hear the connection. Well, now I'm just ranting. I guess my basic point is, if you're ruling out any type of music then it's your loss and your jazz playing will suffer.

Hear, hear!

[Sam Sherry]

Originally Posted by Tbeers

Jazz has not become any more "sophisticated" or better since at least sixty years ago. . . . Our music continues to evolve, but it never becomes better or worse as it changes. Suggesting that what we have now is somehow superior is arrogant and ignorant.

I see where you're coming from but I think you've gone a step too far. "Better" is a subjective term. You, bright guy that you are, are certainly entitled to your opinion. "Sophisticated" is much less subjective because it means, "making use of more choices" and there are more choices on the table now than there were sixty years ago.

It is an objective fact that after 1960 jazz bassists (and everybody else) were able to play a more fluid, equal role in the rhythm section. Scott LaFaro's playing is, objectively, more rhythmically sophisticated than Slam Stewart's.

It is an objective fact that after 1960 jazz players were much more free to explore odd meters. By reason of the sheer quantity of the options employed, Dave Holland's writing is objectively more rhythmically sophisticated than Oscar Pettiford's.

It is an objective fact that after 1960 jazz players were more free to explore spontaneously-composed or "free" jazz. It's an open question whether "more improvised" is or is not "more sophisticated" than playing over a song-form. There sure are people who say that William Parker is "more sophisticated" than Paul Chambers. (For the record, I'm not one of them.)

It is an objective fact that after 1959 jazz writers and players were much more free to choose to work with a restricted or "modal" chordal pallette. Before Kind of Blue the vast bulk of jazz composing was about establishing detailed road-maps. Afterward composers (and players) were more free to choose to use lots of chords, a few chords or both. And after about 1965 the use of polychords became more prevalent -- the actual chordal pallette commonly employed became broader. By reason of the sheer quantity of the options employed, Wayne Shorter's writing is more sophisticated than, say, John Lewis'.

None of this means that LaFaro, Shorter, Holland or Parker is "better" than Stewart, Lewis, Pettiford or Chambers. To each their own. Like you, I value it all. But there are a bunch of us who prefer listening to today's music, and the music of the past 45 years, precisely because the newer stuff does offer a richer pallette.

"Now somebody open a window before we all get sophisticated in here," OK?

[Damon Rondeau]

Here is a little rundown on the history of the word "sophisticated". It doesn't mean "better".

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Sam Sherry

I see where you're coming from but I think you've gone a step too far. "Better" is a subjective term. You, bright guy that you are, are certainly entitled to your opinion. "Sophisticated" is much less subjective because it means, "making use of more choices" and there are more choices on the table now than there were sixty years ago.

It is an objective fact that after 1960 jazz bassists (and everybody else) were able to play a more fluid, equal role in the rhythm section. Scott LaFaro's playing is, objectively, more rhythmically sophisticated than Slam Stewart's.

It is an objective fact that after 1960 jazz players were much more free to explore odd meters. By reason of the sheer quantity of the options employed, Dave Holland's writing is objectively more rhythmically sophisticated than Oscar Pettiford's.

It is an objective fact that after 1960 jazz players were more free to explore spontaneously-composed or "free" jazz. It's an open question whether "more improvised" is or is not "more sophisticated" than playing over a song-form. There sure are people who say that William Parker is "more sophisticated" than Paul Chambers. (For the record, I'm not one of them.)

It is an objective fact that after 1959 jazz writers and players were much more free to choose to work with a restricted or "modal" chordal pallette. Before Kind of Blue the vast bulk of jazz composing was about establishing detailed road-maps. Afterward composers (and players) were more free to choose to use lots of chords, a few chords or both. And after about 1965 the use of polychords became more prevalent -- the actual chordal pallette commonly employed became broader. By reason of the sheer quantity of the options employed, Wayne Shorter's writing is more sophisticated than, say, John Lewis'.

None of this means that LaFaro, Shorter, Holland or Parker is "better" than Stewart, Lewis, Pettiford or Chambers. To each their own. Like you, I value it all. But there are a bunch of us who prefer listening to today's music, and the music of the past 45 years, precisely because the newer stuff does offer a richer pallette.

I agree we have a much richer pallette nowadays - so, I can go to my local Jazz club and one week maybe see a tribute to a Jazz great, like Monk, Coltrane etc.

But then I can also see original music in odd meters played by people who studied with Dave Holland and have added in a string quartet to their improvising group.

Next week , might be a group of Europeans, lead by an Israeli, with a Palestinian singer, using Microtonal intervals, swapping phrases ..

Then there are groups using the music of Hendrix, the Strokes etc as the basis for Jazz improv - others who integrate electronics - sampling or "treating" what is being played and using that as a jumping off point for Jazz.

etc. etc.

[D McCartney]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

I agree we have a much richer pallette nowadays - so, I can go to my local Jazz club and one week maybe see a tribute to a Jazz great, like Monk, Coltrane etc.

But then I can also see original music in odd meters played by people who studied with Dave Holland and have added in a string quartet to their improvising group.

Next week , might be a group of Europeans, lead by an Israeli, with a Palestinian singer, using Microtonal intervals, swapping phrases ..

Then there are groups using the music of Hendrix, the Strokes etc as the basis for Jazz improv - others who integrate electronics - sampling or "treating" what is being played and using that as a jumping off point for Jazz.

etc. etc.

And don't forget Kenny G

[Bruce Lindfield]

I never knew him in the first place!!

I've only ever heard his name mentioned here, or as part of a joke!

[Tbeers]

Originally Posted by D McCartney

And don't forget Kenny G

This is off topic, but you reminded me of one of my favorite SNL quotes ever. It's from Weekend Update....

Norm MacDonald: "Kenny G will be releasing a CD fully comprised of Christmas songs. Happy birthday Jesus, I hope you like crap."