[Dixielandjazz] Is it Jazz? was Brubeck

[Dan Augustine]

Folks--
     Another angle to view this problem from is that of the first-time listener.
     If you hear a tune that you've never heard before, and someone 
plays a solo you've never heard before, the soloist might actually be 
playing a written-out solo that he's played a thousand times before, 
but to you, it's new and fresh, so it's 'jazz'.  To the soloist or to 
someone who's heard the tune before, it may have long lost it's 
allure because you've heard it so many times.  This is akin to the 
old saw about having your favorite meal of all time, one you just 
love--but if you eat that meal three times a day for a month, i 
guar-aur-tee you won't like it nearly as much any more.

     Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: "Larry Walton Entertainment - St. Louis" <larrys.bands at charter.net>
>Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:30:04 -0500
>Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Is it Jazz? was Brubeck
>Cc: Dixieland Jazz Mailing List <dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com>
>
>  Pat Said You mean that jazz stops being jazz if
>>  you play or hear it often enough?
>
>LW --  First of all understand that the listener cannot produce jazz 
>and is passive in the equations.  You have to separate Playing from 
>Listening and further divide Playing into two areas.1 pure 
>improvisation and 2. playing the same solo either yours or someone 
>else's solo or composition over and over the same way.  Lets call 
>them Jazz A and Jazz B
>>
>PAT --  If every time we listen to a radio show they play something 
>by the `Hot
>>  Five` it will stop being jazz?
>
>LW -- No it is still jazz no matter how many times you LISTEN to it 
>because it was jazz (A) when it was recorded but if you copy it as a 
>player then it is no longer what I am calling Jazz A or improvised 
>jazz.
>
>Jazz A - - -  IMO jazz in its pure form is improvised and it should 
>be a unique performance each time. (Jazz A) Therefore when you hear 
>someone play an improvisation it's like a sun set with no two being 
>alike.  After it is recorded, written down, and played accurately by 
>others either mechanically or live, then it is no longer this type 
>of jazz (A) as I have defined it but it becomes Jazz B. This is the 
>Jazz we primarily play.  Therefore Bach in his improvisations on the 
>organ was playing jazz even before the term was invented.  Using the 
>Bach example, jazz then therefore does not necessarily need to base 
>it's style or origins in Afro American history even though it 
>usually is thought of in that way.  This allows new and creative 
>forms that have not been invented yet and may not be even in the 
>Western tradition of rhythm, harmony or melody.
>
>Jazz B - - - If you want to define Jazz as a style (Jazz B) then you 
>get into such things as swung eighths and myriad other technical 
>things all of which are true depending on the era and sub style that 
>you are trying to define.  Jazz B is primarily written solos, 
>recorded and published music and is not improvised but more 
>accurately reproduced.  This is the Jazz we listen to or as a player 
>we reproduce.  It's also like beauty being in the eyes of the 
>beholder so without dividing the two types of jazz in a discussion, 
>the eternal question  "what is jazz?" will be debated endlessly
>
>I think the arguments and confusion comes when we mix Jazz A with 
>the Jazz B definition.  We call them by the same name.  You would 
>have thought that at least the spellings would be different (as in 
>Dear - Deer) at least then we would instantly know what the other 
>guy was talking about.
>
>Jazz can exist in both forms and at the same time but if you use the 
>In The Mood example or Take 5.  By Jazz definition A it is jazz but 
>once it is recorded, written and performed by others it becomes Jazz 
>B even though it may have been Jazz A in the first place. ( assuming 
>that at one time the solos in ITM or Take 5 were improvised and then 
>written down)
>
>You are sort of mixing Apples and Oranges by discussing what you 
>hear and what a musician is playing.  This is a further division. 
>The listener can very well perceive the Solo in "In The Mood as 
>Jazz" and leave it at that but the musician playing it can only be a 
>copyist much like a zerox machine duplicating someone else's 
>performance and in that case by the Definition of Jazz A it simply 
>can't be jazz any longer even if originally it did fit into the Jazz 
>A category.
>
>In art we separate it quite nicely.  Rembrandt paints a picture and 
>we call it great art.  Someone comes along and photographs that same 
>picture and reproduces it on canvas using the latest techniques.  We 
>call those "prints" and arrest people trying to sell them as 
>original Rembrandts even if they are virtually perfect.
>
>I have read endless discussions of jazz where people using only one 
>definition continually talk past each other when they are actually 
>talking about two different things.  You have to look at it from 
>three perspectives: the improvising player, the reproducing player 
>and the listeners.
>Larry
>St. Louis
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd at btinternet.com>
>To: "Larry Walton Entertainment - St. Louis" <larrys.bands at charter.net>
>Cc: "jazz" <dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 4:07 AM
>Subject: Re: [Dixielandjazz] Brubeck
>
>
>>  I think the sax solos in "In the Mood".  after the 47 thousandth time it's
>>  played it certainly isn't jazz any longer >>
>>
>>  Hi Larry,
>>  that's an interesting concept that has not appeared on the list before
>>  according to my (failing) memory.  You mean that jazz stops being jazz if
>>  you play or hear it often enough?
>>
>>  If every time we listen to a radio show they play something by the `Hot
>>  Five` it will stop being jazz?
>>
>>  I think there is enough material there for a VERY long thread.
>>
>  > Cheers

-- 
**--------------------------------------------------------------------**
**  Dan Augustine  --  Austin, Texas  --  ds.augustine at mail.utexas.edu
**    "There is no great concurrence between learning and wisdom."   
**              -- Francis Bacon (1561-1626)                         
**--------------------------------------------------------------------**