[Dixielandjazz] Defining jazz

[Charles Suhor]

On Jan 13, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Fred Hoeptner wrote:
> In my opinion, musical styles are simply not subject to assignment of 
> hard
> and fast boundaries; instead, they are fuzzy.   A valid definition, 
> say of
> "trad jazz," must emphasize typical characteristics.  As a particular
> example deviates away from these characteristics, at some point it no 
> longer
> should be called "trad jazz."

This gets right to it, Fred, and "list of characteristics" approach 
applies to jazz in general as well as trad jazz (an overlapping but 
obviously not identical list). I think most would agree that in any 
such list, some characteristics are more essential/closer to the core 
than others. For example, the presence of growls and smears in a 
performance wouldn't make it very jazzical if there isn't any 
improvisation or an elastic approach to phrasing.

Also, the presence of ALL the items on an agreed-upon list wouldn't 
guarantee that the performance is a high quality of jazz. If the ideas 
are cliche-ridden or the phrases in a solo are all of four bars in 
length, you has jazz but not very interesting jazz.  It'sclear that a 
poet could write a sonnet that does everything the sonnet form is 
supposed to do, and a orator could improvise a speech following the 
rules of rhetoric to perfection, but many a sucky sonnet and many a 
lousy speech have been delivered without a trace of invention. Of 
course, the judgment of quality is even more subjective than the 
judgment of validity, but that's why we try to reach consensus on 
criteria for each.

Charlie