[Dixielandjazz] What is Jazz

[Steve Barbone]

"Norman Vickers" <nvickers1 at cox.net> wrote
 
> Re:  your discussion about what is ( and isn't) jazz
 
> I realize that making a few simplistic statements to this group with much
> experience and strong opinions can be hazardous.
 
> However, let me make some observations.
 
> This is how I explain it to myself and to those who ask what makes jazz
> "jazz."
 
> Three essential elements:
> 1.  rhythmic pulse ( sense of "swing')
> 2.  use of blues scale-that is flatted 3rds, 5ths and dominant 7ths
> 3  improvisation
 
> Lacking any one of these, then it may be jazz-like ( for example Gershwin's
> Rhapsody in Blue) but it isn't jazz. . . .
 
> I like to tell those who ask, that big band music is "near-jazz," explaining
> that with 16 pieces (or more) music has to be arranged to keep the musicians
> from getting in each other's way.  The reason it can qualify as jazz is that
> the arranger leaves the solo parts notated as just chord symbols.  Hence 8
> to 16 bars can be improvised, thereby qualifying as jazz.
 
> I have been told that Red Nichols ( you scholars and others older and wiser
> can confirm or refute this) made his soloists write out their improvised
> solos after they were recorded since those future listeners wanted to hear
> the solo repeated exactly as they remembered from the recording.  I was
> told, further, that the musicians HATED that practice!
 
> Thanks.  
> Norman--- Can't wait for your responses--Vickers

Hello Norman:

That's a very narrow definition. It eliminates Paul Whiteman, Glenn Miller
et al, as well as many White Dixieland Bands who did/do not base their music
on the Blues, or the Blues scale.

(And where is it written that the In "The Mood Sax" solo was ever jazz?)

It also eliminates many avant garde "jazz" groups in NYC, for example, that
score everything out and do not improvise at all.

It is bound to draw a lot of flak.

That being said, I agree with you. I also agree with those who have less
strict, or more strict definitions. <grin>

Never mind that most of us can't tell the difference between a written solo
and an improvised solo. Most of us can't tell the difference between an
original work of art (painting) and a copy either. <grin>

Jazz? Listen to Charlie Parker's two solos takes on "Embraceable You". Done
5 minutes apart. Very different. Both extraordinary. That's Jazz.

But then, when jazz musicians keep on playing the same songs, they tend
towards refining their prior improvisations. They get into similar patterns.
Some, like Armstrong, played the same solo over and over. Is that Jazz?
Sure, if the listener wants it to be.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone