Well, Duke Ellington didn't care much for the word "jazz," perhaps because
of it's supposed "lewd" origins. So let's call it, maybe, "Afro-American
Music..." AAM. (as opposed to Western European Music... WEM.)
Now, AAM, from the earliest days, seems to have a couple of basic things in
it that mark it off from WEM, at least as WEM was practiced from 1600-1920.
1. An emphasis on rhythm. A HEAVY emphasis on rhythm and syncopated groove;
swing, funk, whatever. (to say nothing of your various latin and
afro-carribean grooves.)
2. Improvisation. There has got to be a lot of room for individual
on-the-spot creativity, usually within a set structure. (Duke, of course, is
the master at this.)
3. Blues. Liberal doses of the "blues scale," what with its flatted 3rds,
5ths, and 7th's. (alot of other scales have been used as well... but blues
is a common thread.)
Of course, there are other defining characteristics, but those 3 seem pretty
basic to me.
With this definition, you might easily include James Brown, Marvin Gaye,
Jimmie Hendrix, and Curtis Mayfield to go right along side with your Charlie
Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, and Art Tatum as true masters of AAM.
This is to say nothing of your Public Enemy and your Roots.
I guess the nicest way to discover what jazz is is just to listen to Duke
straight through for one weekend, with no breaks. Afro Eurasian Eclipse,
Latin American Suite, Meets Coleman Hawkins, The Far East Suite, Blues In
Orbit, Meets John Coltrane, etc...
When you get high on that spirit of groove, improvisation, blues, and just
plain FUN, you'll recognize it wherever you hear it, whether it's done with
jazz quartet, big band, or 2 turntables and a microphone.
----- Original Message -----
From: stephanie <nnine@yahoo.com>
To: Dale Chapman <dchapman@ucla.edu>; acid jazz <acid-jazz@ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:07 AM
Subject: what is jazz? was: blue note
> > because
> > the overtures that
> > drum and bass artists are making towards jazz have
> > become increasingly
> > bold,
> > shouldn't we be even mildly interested when recent
> > jazz artists make a
> > few preliminary (if failing, miserable) attempts to
> > go in the other
> > direction, synthesize influences from other scenes?
>
> this points straight to a question that's been gnawing
> at me...what *is* contemporary jazz? as an outsider
> who doesn't really have enough money or fancy satin
> sequin pant suit outfits to go to the respected jazz
> clubs, what i see is groups who are pretty much based
> on classic forms (let's say charlie kolhase quintet
> maybe), pop-radio deflated "jazz"y schtick,
> incomprehensible (to me) hyper-experiments for the
> sake of being weird (charles gayle is the only name i
> know), and then everybody you read aobut in straight
> no chaser.
>
> getting into this scene i was kind of letting myself
> assume that the s.n.chaser set was where "jazz",
> whatever that is, resides right now, but i really
> don't know. Is there consensus about what/who/where
> jazz is? what does the jazz community, if there is one
> (as opposed to many scattered) think of the stuff that
> falls under the "nu jazz" type of umbrella? what does
> it think of the term jazz being thrown around
> everywhere from hip hop to indy rock? i imagine there
> must be lots of heated debates about authenticity and
> audience.
>
> Dale, thank you for this straightforward, informed,
> insightful insider's point of view. good thread. =)
> btw,
>
> i think the st germain is lovely. sounds to me like
> rose rouge is based on tito puente's version of take
> 5, and mixes very nicely indeed.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 10 2000 - 19:27:46 MET DST