Jazz - the major musical art form of the 20th century

[ninette]

Do you think that the history of jazz is like a micro-history of the Western Art music tradition, in that its evolution has occured in a similar way, but in a time frame of 100 years?

Is the break into modal and free jazz comparable to what Schoenberg was doing at start of 20th century?

Has the romanticism of the 19th century classical tradition, the intellectualisation of the music and the sacrilisation of culture occurred in jazz?

I think that all these things are clearly evident, but am looking for other opinions on the matter? I think that jazz has become an elitist music in many ways, accessible by those with knowledge and appreciation and this is phenomenal considering it is essentially an oral/aural tradition. Any thoughts?

[Hugelittle]

It is most definetely a reflection of the evolution of western music. I think with new technology and todays culture influences it to change more rapidly than classical music in the past. Artists do not want to wait 100 years to create a new type of music, they want to do it today, now. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here. Hopefully in a good direction. My guess: the next generation of jazz will reflect the earliest jazz music with slight changes, kinda like the 20th century classical music.

Hugh

[solarjazzband]

Yes, if I understand what you mean, you're right; the history of jazzmusic, is a bit the same as the history of European classical music. But the jazz did it in 100 years, and classical in 500.

In my opinion, the blues has something similiar as the Gregorian music. Than the bebop and Baroque music, and so on. And eventually, the expressionists go with Ornette Coleman and his mates.

So, I think jazzhistory reflects classical music history.

[Bev Stapleton]

If jazz is following the classical model there is a huge warning lying there.

'Classical music' has a long and hugely varied tradition that over many centuries developed, mutated and then, in the mid-20thC, hit a wall. From there on 'classical music' became either something esoteric, requiring an immense intellectual effort, deliberately rejecting the tonality to take listeners along; or it became watered down or cross-over, so desperate to connect back to a wider audience that it resorted to simplistic tricks.

I'm not that up on contemporary classical music - I tried to follow that direction in the 80s but found myself buying discs of sterile intellectualism or neo-Romantic goo or, worst of all, pseudo-spiritual choirworks (yes Tavener, I mean you!). There may well be highly creative pieces being written and performed that avoid the pitfalls of either approach but as yet the classical music world has not been all that successful in indicating that there is a creative, intelligent yet approachable tradition continuing. Pick up any of the classical music magazines that are read by a broad (as opposed to specialised) audience, the audience that has sustained classical music since it entered the concert hall, and you will see it overwhelmingly concerned with the music of the past...and tonal music of the past at that. Classical music has become retrospective in the minds of most listeners rather than a creative music of the present. In the UK names like Turnage or MacMillan get a reasonably high profile...but they are minnows compared with the impact each new Britten piece was having half a century ago. As I say, these composers may well be moving music forward in an approachable way...but to the listening public at large the impact is slender.

If jazz wants to avoid becoming purely a music of nostalgia, tradition, heritage (and I don't need to mention the names that already see it that way) then I'd say it needs to watch those two extremes. There's going to be an intellectualised left-field; there's going to be the honey-dripping simplification. And it is good that those two wings exist as they can both feed productively into the centre. But what really matters is that the successes of that centre-ground are clear for all to see.

I think there is plenty of creative, intelligent yet approachable jazz being made and being made in more diverse ways than ever. I don't think most of it requires insider knowledge though it does require exposure to get listeners used to ways of doing things in music different to what they might hear on daily radio or TV.

In promoting jazz it strikes me as being vital to make clear that jazz is, by and large, entertaining and intellectually stimulating.

The siren voices who would have it be an elitist 'art' or purged of all but instant entertainment need to be resisted!

[Muskrat Ramble]

The siren voices who would have it be an elitist 'art' or purged of all but instant entertainment need to be resisted!

I think there's a lot of truth in jazz being perceived as elitist, rightly or wrongly. Look at how it downplays melody and catchy hooks and the sorts of through-composed structures pop and classical fans are used to, how it largely disposes with vocals, how solos tend to ramble aimlessly (real or perceived), how it simply doesn't make sense to many newcomers for the above reasons. Look at how it's a cultural and economic niche music, how its fans often tend to obsess over tiny discographical details, and so on.

As fans, it's easy to say that a lot of jazz is straightforward and catchy (think Pops, a lot of hard bop, etc.), but to outsiders, it sure doesn't seem that way. I know when I first approached jazz, it mainly bored and confused me, and at the time I was someone with fairly broad musical tastes and some formal musical education.

Either way, I certainly agree with Bev that those who are trying to turn jazz into a museum culture are doing it a huge and potentially deadly disservice. Classical music really shot itself in the foot by losing touch with the people in the 20th century (though social changes and the advent of rock/pop/jazz as competitors surely played a huge role) and then focusing on everything that went before instead of what's happening now. (Btw, Bev, you might want to check out Robert Simpson.)

[Scottone]

The main connection between what happened with classical and what is/could be happening with jazz is the balance of power in the social order.
Classical music of 300-500 years ago was subsidized largely by the wealthy and the Church (redundant). The mores of these power centers dictated what the people of the time were allowed to hear.

In the 20th century, the advent of radio and recordings made it possible to hear a wide spectrum of music, because the technology was new and, like a word we just learned, we gloried in using it in any and every possible way.
Soon, however, the potential of the new media became apparent to those in control, and what we heard on the radio and what we could find on record was selected by an invisible network of power brokers. This only lasted, however, until the end of World War II.

After the war, America enjoyed a economic boom, which put money in people's - little people's - pockets. Someone could - and did - go out and make a 45 with his college buddies and have a regional hit.
Teenagers had jobs and, very soon, they had cars, their own record players and radios. The major labels were quick to capitalize on this, hurriedly manufacturing acts and records to appeal to kids' as-yet-unsophisticated tastes: hence, the rock-n-roll explosion.

Every few years, something wild would get through, but in a while all would even out again. The trick was to flood the market with as many clones as possible, to try to lessen the impact of the original.
It usually worked.

Here we are, at the dawn of a new century and, once again, technology has placed in the hands of the people - the little people - an alternative to the restrictions of the music power brokers: direct distribution/sales via the internet.
Musicians can now connect with their listeners directly; listeners can sample before they buy, much like the listening booths in record stores of my youth. Now, of course, one doesn't have to go downtown: just log on.

Naturally, with this freedom comes a downside: any musically embryonic hacks, with price tags still hanging from their instruments, can enter the same marketplace as trained, seasoned, gifted artists. This puts the burden of discernment on a listening public who, after 25 years of flash-and-sizzle marketing, has very little experience with such discrimination.

Still, the rapid rate of musical evolution will be a positive one, once we, the people, take back the control of what we listen to from those who try to convince us that the 20-year-old singerlet, baring her influences like blueberry stains on a white blouse, really IS just as good as Carmen McRae, really!....

[zaragemca]

I do agree with some of the posters,just to point out that music is a reflection of the environment were it is created,the western society were elitistic,so that was the music which come from it,The African-Civilizations were dinamic cultures,so that's the music comming from them,the same that the Caribbean Music,canned and prepackaged music comes from commercial environment,and Jazz comes from an environment looking( fighting )from freedom,so that's the reflection you observed in the solos.Also Rock comes from an environment of liberation,rebellions(the 60's).

[Bev Stapleton]

You're accepting a whole bunch of myths there.

Are western societies not dynamic?

Do African civilisations not also have their own elites?

Jazz certainly grew up alongside the slow struggle for civil rights - but was there really a causal relationship?

As for rock coming from an environment of rebellion and liberation...well, you might argue it actually came from the era of post-World War II commercialism when the industry succeeded in taking music from other sources and then packaged it up to be able to sell en-masse to a newly affluent youth. The rebelliousness was part of the packaging!

I suspect the origins of particular musics are infinitely more complex than being the sound of 'freedom' or 'rebellion'. Such labels, however, sell well!

[zaragemca]

Well the packaging in Rock was done by the labels later,but the music as expression was initially created by musicians which have nothing to do with the packaging.'I'm sorry somebody is login me off'.The Elite in African Civilization,have to do with aging(the leader of the group),which is a different elite from the western -civilization.Also when I'm talking of dynamics it is in reference to the powerful african-dancing for which that music(at that time long ago),was created.

[omar zamora]

This sounds too much like questions for a term paper.

[RDK]

"Jazz - the major musical art form of the 20th century"

I'm not even sure if I can agree with that opening statement. As much as I like jazz, I think rock and roll had a much greater impact on the world from 1950-2000 (or so).

[Scottone]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Muskrat Ramble
I think there's a lot of truth in jazz being perceived as elitist, rightly or wrongly. Look at how it downplays melody and catchy hooks and the sorts of through-composed structures pop and classical fans are used to, how it largely disposes with vocals, how solos tend to ramble aimlessly (real or perceived), how it simply doesn't make sense to many newcomers for the above reasons. Look at how it's a cultural and economic niche music, how its fans often tend to obsess over tiny discographical details, and so on.
[/QUOTE

A relationship never begins with knowledge and understanding; it starts with attraction. From that initial response, we want to know more.

You see a woman across a room, observe her, for a moment she catches your eye, and you're drawn to her.
You don't her name, occupation, age, birthplace, address, or her real hair color. But you are attracted just the same.
You'll get the details later.

When we are not swayed by peer pressure and/or oppressive advertising, our relationships with music happen the same way: we hear it, it speaks to us; we find out who it was we heard, we track down a recording, then another; we find it in the jazz section, we check out other artists in the section.
A relationship with jazz is born.

Jazz is no more elitist than classical music, just not as well-subsidized or promoted.
Not many people can hang with grand opera in their first contact with it, and the swoops and high notes and other forms of vocal grandstanding seem to be just that at first.
Catchy hooks are for those with no attention span- hear the same thing repeated ad nauseam for 5 minutes,and maybe they figure out the title of the song so they can go buy the CD. People become used to that which they are exposed to regularly. Most song forms in jazz were borrowed from the music of the day, and grew from there, just as 'Sgt Pepper's' expanded on the basic forms of pop/rock.

And obsessing over recording details? Please: rather that than following every burp and hiccup from JLo and Britney, the arrest records of the latest gangsta rapper, or a map of a rocker's tatts and piercings.

Jazz has been wrongly or poorly marketed over these past few years, when the music video became the primary publicity tool. And yes, it has been marginalized in the country that spawned it. But anyone who believe jazz has little or no relevance at this time needs to see beyond MTV and the Grammys, beyond platinum sales and People magazine covers as a measure of cultural impact, especially abroad.

I am in Shanghai China this week, where the jazz club I performed in last summer has opened a second location. In fact, since my first visit here in May 2002, six new venues for jazz have opened.
Before here, I was in Tokyo where, because of a sustained American presence over the last 60 years (one good thing to come out military occupation), jazz has thrived. US and European musicians are welcomed; native players have developed to such degree that assembling a band of 'local musicians' in Tokyo doesn't frighten me as much as doing so in most towns in the US.

Many people overseas accept Top 40/R&B/rock as ubiquitous pop culture, the sonic wallpaper of our time. Jazz, on the other hand, is treasured as a representation of all that is (should be?) good about America- freedom of expression, embracing new ideas, celebrating individualism in a context of common focus.

It's easy to forget in the bottom-line mentality so prevalent today that the audio record was once used to document art. Today, we see the recording as art itself; how much you sell is how much you're worth. One of Diana Krall's handlers actually stated that publicly here in Shanghai: his client has sold more records than any other jazz singer, which makes her the greatest jazz singer who ever lived.
Many in America have obviously bought into that mindset, if we think we can begin to measure the value and relevance of jazz in monetary terms.

[Muskrat Ramble]

Catchy hooks are for those with no attention span- hear the same thing repeated ad nauseam for 5 minutes

A hook needn't be repeated ad nauseam. And if you think hooks and/or melody aren't important, that would come as a big surprise to Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven (how dare he keep repeating a riff in the first movement of the fifth symphony! He must have been catering to the masses ;) ), and on down the line. It's no coincidence that people gravitate towards music with great melodies and great hooks, melodic or otherwise. Those seem to satisfy some real psychological need--or at least they can give great--even addictive--pleasure.

Based on my experience and what I've heard from others, I think "modern" jazz (i.e., bebop and beyond) is generally less accessible than classical music (with its huge fund of unforgettable melodies), and certainly less than the various forms of pop/rock, folk, rap, etc., with their emphasis on readily intelligible forms, catchy melodies, and vocals (the human voice is the most intimate instrument and the one people seem to relate to most easily. Plus, it carries extra meaning via a song's words, which adds a whole extra dimension and makes songs even easier to relate to and remember, considering how language is one of our species' defining traits).

And obsessing over recording details? Please: rather that than following every burp and hiccup from JLo and Britney, the arrest records of the latest gangsta rapper, or a map of a rocker's tatts and piercings.


As a matter of preference, I agree, though those latter things are all widely broadcast as part of pop culture (sad to say), while the minutiae of jazz history and discography are limited to a small, isolated subculture. So, your average man on the street will know how JLo is, even if (rightly) doesn't care, but he'll likely have no clue what jazz fans are going on about in forums like this. Therefore, less accessible.

[Scottone]

The melodic device you refer to from Beethoven's 5th, Muskrat, is what I would call a motif, which is- even in the example you mention- replete with modulations, inversions and other variations and inventions. Not quite 'who let the dogs out' repeated the same way each and every time.

As a singer, I have the utmost respect for melody. As a jazz singer, I submit that the improvised line I create, based on the theme we're playing- be it Gershwin, Tadd Dameron or my own song- IS the melody. My role as a vocalist is to create and maintain a mood, based on the subject matter I'm singing; within that mood, there should be storytelling- tension, release; conflict, resolution. And variety: paraphrase, simile, hyperbole, and yes- even dramatic repetition.

I agree that the 2 main goals in any art form- communication and self-expression- do not always get equal billing with a lot of jazz players. Many jazz folk get caught up in technical proficiency, and allow connection with the listener to be, if anything, a side-effect.
But I see that just as often in other styles of music, and the reverse for me is just as bad. Often no energy is given to developing one's skill as a musician; just focusing on visual style, cheap, empty perfomance gimmicks stolen from bygone eras (lemme hear you say YEAH! Didn't Al Jolson do that in the 1920s? AND he could sing?) and creating a public image to make the supposed point of interest- one's ability as a musician - totally irrelevant.

As for your mention about the lack of vocals in jazz, singing has been a part of jazz from the beginning, as with classical music. Caruso wasn't doing country western; neither were Billie Holiday, Sarah Vaughan or Joe Williams.
The greatest compliment given to jazz players who are making a clear statement has been to say they were really singing.

One more semantic point: in today's cyber-universe, nothing is inaccessible. All the information about any trivial item on any subject imaginable is available to us all. Jazz requires advanced listenership: to reap the full benefits, you must meet the music halfway, and you must listen all the way. We have become so accustomed to a distracted, multi-task existence, to give our full attention to anything is an almost ludicrous request.
Classical music requires the same focus as jazz but, as I said earlier, its support system presents it in venues where there are none of the distractions you'd commonly find with most jazz venues- drinking, dining, conversational seating, etc.

Jazz will never again be the pop music it was in the 1930s: we are different, therefore, the music is different from that era. But I believe there will always be those who want more from the art of music.
Pop music may be the drive-in McDonald's - how many billion sold? - but there always will be a handful who will take the time to dine in a dim, quiet corner booth of jazz and/or classical music.
Both maybe food, but the overall experience of a great meal - dressing, perusing the menu, choosing a wine, just the TIME devoted to the act of dining - stays with us, enriches us, much longer than a quick bite.

[Muskrat Ramble]

The melodic device you refer to from Beethoven's 5th, Muskrat, is what I would call a motif, which is- even in the example you mention- replete with modulations, inversions and other variations and inventions. Not quite 'who let the dogs out' repeated the same way each and every time.


I'm fully aware of that; it was part of my point that hooks needn't be repeated ad nauseam (though exact repetition plays a big role in music, too--there's no shame in it). You include hooks (of whatever sort) in a piece and then do something with them. That's why, where rock is concerned, I've long been partial to serious heavy metal: motivic development reminiscent of classical music plays a central role. Listen to 80's Metallica for some prime examples.

As for your mention about the lack of vocals in jazz, singing has been a part of jazz from the beginning, as with classical music.

Vocals have nowhere near the prominence in jazz that they've had in classical music or--even more so--rock/pop. It's night and day. For every Holiday and Fitzgerald, there are scores and scores of prominent jazz instrumentalists. Jazz is mostly perceived and enjoyed as an instrumental music. I mean no offense to jazz vocalists at all, but I'm just calling it as I see it.

Both maybe food, but the overall experience of a great meal - dressing, perusing the menu, choosing a wine, just the TIME devoted to the act of dining - stays with us, enriches us, much longer than a quick bite.

I'm very sympathetic to that argument, but I also believe that people have a wide range of needs and desires that are best satisfied with the appropriate thing. I.e., don't put a round peg in a square hole. Sometimes you want spiritual awareness, sometimes you want an orgasm. Sometimes you want Shakespeare, sometimes you want The Real World. Sometimes want filet mignon and a fine wine, sometimes you want a Big Mac and a Coke. There's nothing inherently better in one or the other--only something better at the appropriate moment for that particular individual.

[Scottone]

Thanks again for your posts, MR. I enjoy sharing ideas in this manner, especially when it doesn't descend into name-calling and other negativism.

About the vocalist's place in jazz-- singers had been part of the big band swing era. Usually a band had 2- boy singer, girl singer. Very often, they would serve different purposes: the girl would do the romantic ballads, the guy would do the jump and novelty songs, for instance.

This all changed when a guy by the name of Sinatra, and a woman named Ella, changed the script. Frank became a bigger draw than the band he was with and, as a result, initiated the decline in large-unit popularity.
Ella, on the other hand, showed that a singer could be just as improvisational as the players, thus raising the bar for vocalists to a height not many in the 1930s (or now) could reach. She altered the definition of a jazz singer from "someone who sings with jazz musicians" to "someone who sings jazz".
Very few singers were able to compete on that level, so most of them followed the Frank approach, and became pop singers working in a jazz-influenced settings.

So, we had 3 distinct schools of singers operating in jazz: the jazz-influenced pop singer; the blues-based singer; and the instrumental-based vocal improvisor. Sure, there is overlap to be found, but most singers draw primarily from one approach.
Of the three, the IBVI is usually the most versatile, with the most overlap in style. Sarah, Betty Carter, Kurt Elling, Eddie Jefferson fall into this category.
Not hard to spot a JIPS: they usually just recite the tune, relying on the arranger/producer to add the jazz flavor. June Christy, Helen Merrill, Nat Cole (truly a jazz pianist; truly-after1945- a pop singer), Harry Connick Jr, Bobby Darin (Harry's main influence) are all JIPS and, to the chagrin of some, I would add stylists such as Diana Krall, Shirley Horn, Norah Jones and Nancy Wilson to the list.
The BluBaS were pretty plentiful in jazz for awhile, coming out of blues and gospel, but most defected to the more lucrative pop-soul-R&B field. Dinah Washington, Jimmy Rushing, Joe Williams, Ray Charles and Charles Brown are part of this group.

Still, there will always be decidedly less singers in jazz than players, because the music has evolved beyond the rudimentary skills of most singers. Knowing the words and melody is not enough; an understanding of all five elements of the music - lyric, melody, harmony, rhythm and form - are necessary to truly improvise in a jazz context, and few singers are up to it.

Which brings us to pop singing, a style for mass consumption, with an emphasis on simplifying all musical elements for general appeal. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the advent of rock and pop came from a new teen market in the 1950s: music to satisfy adolescent, largely unsophistcated tastes. Songs about major teen topics - boy-girl infatuation, cars, dance fads, school, parents/authority figures who don't understand, were the main subjects for pop tunes back then.
Some excellent singing- and great songwriting- has been done in pop, but it has never been necessary, because pop is about style in packaging, with music usually coming in a distant second.

This is, again, not a judgment, just an assessment. I enjoy listening to all music, and have performed in a variety of styles. I call myself a jazz musician, but only after having spent 20 years playing and writing and singing different kinds of music, and choosing to focus on the one style that offered the most freedom of expression and the greatest musical challenges for a person of my skills.

[savoy]

Originally posted by Scottone
Thanks again for your posts, MR. I enjoy sharing ideas in this manner, especially when it doesn't descend into name-calling and other negativism.

About the vocalist's place in jazz-- singers had been part of the big band swing era. Usually a band had 2- boy singer, girl singer. Very often, they would serve different purposes: the girl would do the romantic ballads, the guy would do the jump and novelty songs, for instance.

This all changed when a guy by the name of Sinatra, and a woman named Ella, changed the script. Frank became a bigger draw than the band he was with and, as a result, initiated the decline in large-unit popularity.
Ella, on the other hand, showed that a singer could be just as improvisational as the players, thus raising the bar for vocalists to a height not many in the 1930s (or now) could reach. She altered the definition of a jazz singer from "someone who sings with jazz musicians" to "someone who sings jazz".
Very few singers were able to compete on that level, so most of them followed the Frank approach, and became pop singers working in a jazz-influenced settings.

So, we had 3 distinct schools of singers operating in jazz: the jazz-influenced pop singer; the blues-based singer; and the instrumental-based vocal improvisor. Sure, there is overlap to be found, but most singers draw primarily from one approach.
Of the three, the IBVI is usually the most versatile, with the most overlap in style. Sarah, Betty Carter, Kurt Elling, Eddie Jefferson fall into this category.
Not hard to spot a JIPS: they usually just recite the tune, relying on the arranger/producer to add the jazz flavor. June Christy, Helen Merrill, Nat Cole (truly a jazz pianist; truly-after1945- a pop singer), Harry Connick Jr, Bobby Darin (Harry's main influence) are all JIPS and, to the chagrin of some, I would add stylists such as Diana Krall, Shirley Horn, Norah Jones and Nancy Wilson to the list.
The BluBaS were pretty plentiful in jazz for awhile, coming out of blues and gospel, but most defected to the more lucrative pop-soul-R&B field. Dinah Washington, Jimmy Rushing, Joe Williams, Ray Charles and Charles Brown are part of this group.

Still, there will always be decidedly less singers in jazz than players, because the music has evolved beyond the rudimentary skills of most singers. Knowing the words and melody is not enough; an understanding of all five elements of the music - lyric, melody, harmony, rhythm and form - are necessary to truly improvise in a jazz context, and few singers are up to it.

Which brings us to pop singing, a style for mass consumption, with an emphasis on simplifying all musical elements for general appeal. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the advent of rock and pop came from a new teen market in the 1950s: music to satisfy adolescent, largely unsophistcated tastes. Songs about major teen topics - boy-girl infatuation, cars, dance fads, school, parents/authority figures who don't understand, were the main subjects for pop tunes back then.
Some excellent singing- and great songwriting- has been done in pop, but it has never been necessary, because pop is about style in packaging, with music usually coming in a distant second.

This is, again, not a judgment, just an assessment. I enjoy listening to all music, and have performed in a variety of styles. I call myself a jazz musician, but only after having spent 20 years playing and writing and singing different kinds of music, and choosing to focus on the one style that offered the most freedom of expression and the greatest musical challenges for a person of my skills.

Hi Scottone , Savoy here. I really enjoyed your assestment about the singers, you made it real simple and easy to get a grip on. Now for a favor when and if you have the inclination and time to do so ... Billie, Ella, and Sarah. Since these three seem to be at the top of most people's list, I would like you to give an assestment of each individual's fine points (what makes them so great). Now since no one is perfect, I would like you to also include some things that each don't do so well. I'm not asking which one is the best, just your opinion and I realize it is just that, your opinion. Looking forward to reading it. Thanks a lot. PS. If anyone else have some thoughts about this, please feel free to express them. Yes gang, I realize this is not the "Vocalist" forum, I'm just responding to a particular part of Scottone's post. Scottone, now that I thought it over, you can put it in the "Vocalist" forum if you like, I don't want to muck anything up over here. Anyway I'll be looking in both forums. :wink2:

[Scottone]

sorry to be out of touch; I'm in transit.
I'd be happy to share my thoughts about the Big 3 (after Louis, of course: the spring from which all jazz singing flows)- Billie, Ella and Sarah. They're wonderful to do comparative case studies on; each time I learn/hear/love something new about them.
looks like we lost the vocalists board, so we'll start a new thread when I get stateside next week, and see if we can open up the topic.
till then, keep supporting this wonderful music

SW

[savoy]

Originally posted by Scottone
till then, keep supporting this wonderful music

SW

Will do ... looking forward to hearing from you.