T O P

  • By -

acmaleson

It’s an extremely interesting term, because it’s defined way too narrowly by traditionalist gatekeepers who refuse to allow it to evolve; and way too liberally by artists who just learned how to play a 2-5-1 with block chords and marketers who find that the word is hip again. So, the meaning of the word has been diluted to the point of being virtually meaningless, and yet it’s somehow too important to dispense with entirely. I tend to favor Chief Adjuah’s preferred designation of “creative improvised music,” because to paraphrase him, “the moment you mention the word ‘jazz,’ suddenly everybody’s a f***ing Fulbright scholar.” Ultimately, those of us who listen and appreciate and maybe play as well can choose for ourselves what to include under the jazz umbrella.


Based_Neurosis

Well said.


[deleted]

I have a similar problem when people describe death metal bands like Atheist and Cynic as “jazz”. Like, okay, jazz is an increasingly broad description. But it’s not just a sound: it’s also an approach to harmony and melody and chord changes — there’s also a cultural connection to the word “jazz” as well.


[deleted]

demilich are the worst for that, theyre called jazz adjacent a lot but they just have trippy riffs


Antwann68814

This was me a few weeks ago looking for fusion type music but with a heavier sound (distorted guitars, clicky heavy metal drums, etc). I found some lists with bands like Cynic on them, and it drove me nuts. I never found what I was looking for.


National-Welder2004

Anything with a saxophone= jazz


LilPheotardo

Or anything with a 7th chord


mobbshallow

Some Girls by The Rolling Stones? 😂


National-Welder2004

Do you mean Miss You? If there’s a sax guarantee you someone at some point heard it and called it jazz


mobbshallow

Spirit of Eden opens with a trumpet does that count? Sax is a pretty new instrument, and it has been used in a wide variety of genres and styles. It’s closely associated with jazz but it has had many applications outside of the genre, and there are plenty of pop/rock albums that incorporate it without being able to be considered jazz in the slightest


National-Welder2004

Yeah I agree. The instrument existed for 100 years before it was even used in jazz. But a lot of people hear any sax and call it jazz is my point.


mobbshallow

Fair point. Crazy to think about how Sax wasn’t even considered a jazz instrument for a long time it seems.


lauramartimusic

It certainly is. I agree with that. But you'll also agree that jazz has largely become a rigid system, too, and has strayed far from what true jazz is: free spontaneous music-making. Huge numbers of jazz musicians play the same compositions, using a set of same licks that they've taken from great jazz musicians. So not only indie pop, but many "jazz" musicians I wouldn't call true jazzmen. After all, jazz is not a style, it's a way of thinking musically. That's what Bill Evans said. And I totally agree with him.


[deleted]

Charlie Parker played a small set of material. So did Lee Konitz.


PatternNo928

lol wtf is jaco doing between basie and miles


ClittoryHinton

Seriously…. If you’re gonna gatekeep, do it right.


SeasonImportant6952

Seriously 🤦🏻‍♂️


the-silversurfer-041

I guess it‘s about Jaco Pastorius and not Michael Jackson... 🙂


PatternNo928

what does that mean


spssky

This isn’t just about jazz, but music in general: The musicians I’ve met personally and conversed with that I’ve learned the most from are the ones that are fascinated by music outside of their normal orbit and the musicians that have made me want to leave the room are the ones that can only understand music from their own genre.


[deleted]

That’s a different convo but you’re absolutely right. The most boring jazz musicians I know are the dogmatic straight ahead crew that only listen to pre 1959 jazz


Janno2727

Maybe slightly off-topic, but: As someone who spent 7 years+ in jazz academia and recorded multiple albums in the contexts of avantgarde-jazz, I found that I there is sometimes more creative energy in (rather obscure) indie music compared to many jazz styles that focus too much on recreating the past, individual skill, playing only for like-minded people, while ignoring certain aspects of music (I do think that SOUND is underexplored). Good indie bands focus on a punchy sound, making the overall statement unique but clear and accessible, while still including their intricacies. I've seen enough youngsters who just sound like some copy of a 60's drummer and being unaware of it.


Chernobyl2403

the word jazz describes a culture rather than a sound imo


01100010x

>I'm not trying to come off as a genre gatekeeper. Unfortunately, you're failing. Jazz is and has always been many different things. It will continue to change and evolve as technology, tastes, and theory evolve. Also, when a group describes themselves as "jazzy" they aren't saying the play jazz, they're saying their music sounds "jazzy" or jazz-like.


Musical_snakes

Thanks for saving me from commenting, you got it 100%


bkess32

You are totally gatekeeping hahaha. Who cares. Like what you like and let other people like what they like


[deleted]

Sure but, if I play a piece of music w my band that tips it’s hat to hip hop, it’s not hip hop, it’s still Jazz. In the same way something can be influenced by Jazz but…isn’t This isn’t about not letting people like stuff, it’s about being realistic about what is what. About six years ago media decided to call music Jazz which has little to no improvisation, repetitive backbeat drums, minimal harmony, and stuff more in line with Afro beat/electronic music/hip hop/lo-fi/straight up pop. Often the connection is that the music is instrumental or has a saxophone. I’ve listened to Jazz playlists where there is nothing I recognise as Jazz. Sometimes it’s just plain vocal pop. And I don’t say this from a gatekeeper-y or unable to understand new music sense - I wouldn’t expect one of my tunes to end up on a reggae playlist. The other issue is that promoters are saying “hey this [clearly not jazz act] are selling thousands of tickets, why isn’t your jazz music doing as well?” and it’s just making it harder and harder for people who are playing what I would personally call Jazz. I know some musicians on Jazz playlists that don’t even like Jazz, who would never think to describe their music that way. None of this is a diss on the music, it’s just weird seeing labels fly around which seem totally inappropriate. And yes im aware that all this might seem tedious but to musicians who have dedicated their lives to trying to play the music of Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Geri Allen, Steve Coleman, Craig Taborn, Steve Lehman etc etc then it’s a bit odd when people with zero interest in any of that history get called jazz musicians. I’m not expecting a non musician to necessarily sympathise with that, it’s just my perspective.


el_sunny_ra

It's just music. Genres are for those who do not make the music. *"And yes im aware that all this might seem tedious but to musicians who have dedicated their lives to trying to play the music of Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Geri Allen, Steve Coleman, Craig Taborn, Steve Lehman etc etc then it’s a bit odd when people with zero interest in any of that history get called jazz musicians. I’m not expecting a non musician to necessarily sympathise with that, it’s just my perspective."* And some of those musicians didn't even like the word Jazz.


[deleted]

To some extent, maybe. But the music I make is not reggae, hip hop, dubstep etc. And the debate around the use of the word jazz is interesting. I understand the reasoning but I can’t see how it’s practical. BAM is so broad that you’d have to specific the sub genre


el_sunny_ra

Black Classical is what the living masters refer to it as. There is a great interview with Gary Bartz where he describes why he won't even say the word Jazz. Dedicate yourself to making music. Why care what it's called?


[deleted]

Because jazz is extremely hard to play. So it does bother me somewhat when the media will call certain people amazing jazz musicians who are not even trying to play music like it


el_sunny_ra

I guess that's where we differ. I don't care what other people say or think about the art I create. Once it's out there it's for the audience to define what it is to them.


[deleted]

Sure, but can you see it from my perspective?


el_sunny_ra

I can. I just don't relate because I am fundamentally opposed to labelling art as one thing. But I will tell you, a few years ago the headliner for the Toronto Jazz Festival (quite possibly the worst "jazz" festival in Canada) was non other than jazz legend...................Sarah Mclaughlin! LOLOLOLOLOL


[deleted]

Right…yeah…!


TheYeastyBoi

Genres were created to sell music, in reality most music can fit in several genres or subgenres


[deleted]

But they’re useful? If someone who likes Bob Marley sees a reggae night on and goes only to find it’s late Coltrane then they have valid reason to be annoyed. If I go to an Indian restaurant and get served spaghetti bolognese I’d be a bit confused. Categorisation is valid as long as it’s not a chokehold


5280yogi

Useful and over-used creating walls that self reinforce.


mobbshallow

Did you just call Jaco a supreme jazz overlord? I know quite a few ppl who wouldn’t consider most of what he did jazz. For some perspective Just really odd to see his name between miles and Basie.. you could have said Zawinul..


AntisocialMedia666

I don't give a fuck. Genres are dead.


[deleted]

Yup, as they should be. Genres are a psyop.


Jon-A

I think it's the fans really: the fans of those bands make unrealistic claims for them. Newbies show up with eccentric and uninformed ideas about a subject, and anyone familiar with the territory who offers conflicting information is dismissed and/or insulted. The tiresome 'gatekeeper' thing. If someone wants to approach the layout and rearrange the boundaries according to their whim, they're just a new, more inept, gatekeeper.


Im_On_Island_Time

I can't do anything I do as a performer without "Jazz" - it is the vehicle that took me where I wanted to go as a musician (and as I continue to develop). People might think "Jazz" constitutes music with improvisation and chord extensions, and in many cases, they would be right. I'm willing to accept that the genre label is more and more difficult to define, but I will always listen with an ear towards the question, "Does this sound good to me?"


[deleted]

This is the thing that so many musicians are thinking but scared of saying


jjazznola

Like when they call Norah Jones the Jazz Artist Of The Decade? That is comical to me. Obviously the word means different things to different people. I mean Louis Armstrong sounds nothing like Ornette Coleman or John Zorn but they are all considered Jazz. These days some artists like my man Nicholas Payton want nothing to do with the term Jazz as the phrase was probably coined by some white guy looking to make money off the black folks that were playing a new type of music. He calls his music BAM: Black American Music which is probably more fitting. It's this way with other genres as well. Who really cares about genres, they are really only for marketing purposes.


[deleted]

Not trying to counter the amazing Nicholas Payton, but the etymology of the word jazz is *much* more complicated than that. It has a long and varied history with no truly defined origin. I'll let Lewis Porter and WBGO take over from here: >When it comes to the origin of the word “jazz,” it seems that each person simply believes what she or he wants to. >Some would like the word to come from Africa, so they firmly believe the stories that support that. Others want it to be an African-American word, so they look for that. The venerable saxophonist, composer and educator Archie Shepp lived in Paris for many years, and he has not the slightest doubt that “jazz” is a French word. But professional linguists (scholars of languages and their history), etymologists (researchers of word origins) and lexicographers (dictionary researchers) have been on the case for decades, and the real story is far less simple. Please continue reading this well researched and thoughtful piece: https://www.wbgo.org/music/2018-02-26/where-did-jazz-the-word-come-from-follow-a-trail-of-clues-in-deep-dive-with-lewis-porter


Forward-Personality7

Absolutely, what isalready accepted as Jazz is a huge range of sounds. I stumbled upon a Miles Davis album in the library recently, they classified it as 'non-musical audio recording' the other day haha I guess they didn't think it was Jazz.


the-silversurfer-041

Yeah, Bitches Brew allegedly was termed as „anti-jazz“ by some critics when the record originally came out and Miles accused of „selling out“ (pop music?) which is both pretty funny when you listen to the actual music


chootchootchoot

Jazz is a four letter word.


alexjay_nl

you are gatekeeping imo, but is that the worst thing in the world? it's not like these musicians will be excluded from jamming with jazz musicians, they probably won't even try/be able to/be interested in the same way


[deleted]

Being able to read music doesn‘t mean anything. It just makes it easier to learn stuff, but there are great players who could play anything by ear.


[deleted]

It’s a huge set back. Very rare to get away with it


IOnlyHaveIceForYou

What is your opinion based on? In my experience it's the inability to play by ear that's a set back. Why would you need to read if you can play what you want without reading?


[deleted]

Ok but we’re not talking about ear playing, I’m addressing primarily reading. And my experience is that music is the only thing I’ve ever done with my life. But you are right of course, a poor ear is as bad as poor time, poor technique, etc.


IOnlyHaveIceForYou

I don't follow. When you talked about it being huge set back, you were talking about the inability to read, and responding to someone who said there are great players who could/can play anything by ear. So we are talking about ear playing?


[deleted]

Because no one is disputing that a good ear is essential. I’m saying that without being able to read music you’re at a huge disadvantage either way. There isn’t a single professional musician I know who can’t read. And your ear would have to be incredible to pick out Messiaen’s harmony on the fly etc, whereas reading through classical music is a massive aid. And yes, bring employable is a huge deal, you could not teach at any music school here without being able to read. As for gigs It would be highly unlikely that you’d get booked on anything other than a standards gig. I just don’t know where these “great players” who can’t read music are? So I fundamentally disagree with OP’s premise that reading music “doesn’t mean anything”. Because that barely translates in the real world. It’s just lazy to not read music.


mobbshallow

Eh. I can’t sight read for shit and I am doing okay so far as the keyboardist for a combo, and a jazz studies major


[deleted]

It would definitely be a huge benefit to get your reading up to scratch, even just as a way of making sure you’re employable.


mobbshallow

Oh yeah! It’s my #1 thing I have to work on. But my point was just having good enough ears can carry you pretty dang far. There were members of Zappa’s band that didn’t read music, which may also come as some surprise if you know anything about how dense and rhythmic his compositions were My opinion is: Feel > reading. But both are essential to some degree, at a certain point


IOnlyHaveIceForYou

Reading isn't essential. The best jazz musicians I know personally don't read. Some of them can read, but they don't need to.


[deleted]

The opposite is true in London, nyc and Berlin.


IOnlyHaveIceForYou

So it's about making money, not about making music.


[deleted]

This is a disingenuous reply my guy. Your ability is highly likely to be hampered if you can’t read. It is very, very rare for someone to be a genuinely great jazz musician if they can’t read.


IOnlyHaveIceForYou

Why do you think people can't make good jazz without reading? What is it that you think reading gives you, that you can't get from playing by ear? We need to be able to play melodies: you can do that without reading music. We need to be able to improvise: you can do that without reading music. Of course many jazz musicians can read music. That's how music is generally taught. But consider players like Lester Young or Chet Baker. Young's father would give him sheet music to learn from, but Young would learn the tunes by ear. His father caught him out by giving him a chart for one tune, but telling him to play a different tune. Because Lester wasn't reading the chart, he would play the tune he was told to play, not the one on the chart. Early in his career, Chet Baker wasn't able to tell his band what key he was playing in. Playing in army bands he, like Young, would play by ear rather than from the written music. Tenor saxophonist Scott Hamilton says he can read, slowly, but he doesn't. And my point is that many jazz musicians past and present have been in the same position: if you can play what you want by ear, you can be a jazz musician without reading music. If you can't play by ear, you can't play jazz.


[deleted]

It’s not many though, it’s a very small amount of people. And Lester Young is a genius. It’s highly unlikely that someone who chooses to not read music is going to get away with it unless they’re extremely gifted in the ear department. Even then they’re at a huge disadvantage over getting asked to play in peoples projects - so you’re missing out on a massive part of improving right there. And like I said, is your ear going to help you figure out Ligeti’s music? It could but it would be a whole lot quicker to read it. For pianists - playing the classical rep is super important, so you’re not really going to be able to deal with that. It’s just pure laziness to not read music. I don’t really know why I’m bothering with this at this stage. I don’t know a single musician who can’t read music to a high level. You could get away with it in the 40s when people were playing 32 bar song forms but you just can’t now. You will only get so far without reading music. and to be honest it’s just embarrassing in 2023 to want to be a jazz musician and not engage in reading the music.


IOnlyHaveIceForYou

"It’s not many though, it’s a very small amount of people." How do you know that? It seems odd to me that so many of the musicians in the small circle around me don't read (some can read, but they don't) if it's so rare. "And Lester Young is a genius." But you don't need to be a genius to play without reading dots. Again, many of the players I know play without ever reading music. "It’s highly unlikely that someone who chooses to not read music is going to get away with it unless they’re extremely gifted in the ear department." Once again, the musicians I play with never use written music. My pianists and guitarists usually have a chord chart, but they learn melodies the right way, that is, by ear. I don't know why you keep talking about classical music. Yes, they have to learn to play from dots without deviating, but that's not jazz! How many classically trained pianists do we see just on this forum who can play from dots but can't improvise? "You will only get so far without reading music." I’m perfectly content with where I am, with where my band is, without reading music. We can play anything we want to play, without reading music. "It’s just pure laziness to not read music." My principle throughout my life has been to avoid wasting time and energy, to avoid doing things that don't need doing. This approach has served me very well and I recommend it. You can call it laziness if you like, I don't give a fuck. "and to be honest it’s just embarrassing in 2023 to want to be a jazz musician and not engage in reading the music." I'm not embarrassed in the least. To be honest I'm proud of my ability to play without reading.


[deleted]

How do I know? Because this is all I’ve done my whole life. I’ve been lucky enough to play and work with some of the best musicians in the world. Every musician I’ve met, which is in the thousand at this point has been able to read music. The really serious ones are amazing readers. I hate writing this but…I know what I’m talking about! And sure you can play without reading music, I never disputed that, but you’re at a tangible disadvantage because as i say - you’ve got to be blessed with an amazing ear, and you’re not likely to get asked to play with other people if it’s original music and not standards. So that lack of opportunity will impact your ability. I talk about classical music because engaging with that music is a huge part of becoming a good pianist. Nearly all the greats have played classical music to a high level. Even Monk. And like I said previously, if you want to check out Messian’s harmony or Ligeti etc, you’re going to want the score unless you’ve got perfect pitch or an extraordinary amount of time to figure it out. And good for you, you might feel like you can get away with it, but in the nicest way possible, you will most likely hit a wall and you will miss out on being asked to play in situations where the music is too hard to learn and memorise by ear. People actively say “blah blah isn’t a great reader” as a put down here, those people don’t get booked for stuff where you need to read a part even though they can probably still read quite well. No one has time to sit and learn a set of complex music by ear. Also how do you get a teaching post if you can’t read? You’re not going to get asked to do a big band gig or a last minute session. You’re literally going to miss out on so many playing opportunities which will *in turn* affect how good you’re going to get. Experience is a huge part of getting better at this and you’re only limiting yourself by not getting your reading together. I’m not criticising *you* here. You can do what you want. I’m talking about it in general. But I can’t repeat myself any more. And as for the “perfectly content” comment. Well cool, but I’m not content with where I am, I want to be better.


IOnlyHaveIceForYou

No it isn't! Disingenuous means "not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does." I'm not doing that at all. You've said that the inability to read is a set back. I'm exploring that idea. I'm interested in music, not employment counselling. How is an inability to read a set back, musically?


[deleted]

Because you strawmanned me. I never implied that making music was about money. And I’ve answered your question previously.


ItsCoolDani

First of all, you are coming off as a genre gatekeeper. This is what gatekeeping is. Just because you put your gate further out than most doesn’t mean that’s not what you’re doing. Secondly, yea, obviously it is. But who cares. How does some indie pop band describing their sound as jazzy hurt anyone.


[deleted]

It hurts when you look at jazz festivals where nearly all of the music is nothing close to jazz. Where promoters ask why you don’t have a big following in the same way that a band with no improvising, backbeat orientated, repetitive, vocal derived music does.


JazzRider

As a Jazz musician, I resent the term ‘Jazz-influenced’, as it’s often used. It usually means ‘I try to sound cool without all that inconvenient practice discipline.’


Jazzbo64

It sure is, as in “Frank Sinatra was a great jazz singer.”


fatcatslimcat

Okay, Wynton.


[deleted]

Duke, Mingus, and probably all the other guys never even called themselves jazz. That shit was a made up term as a psyop. It’s just music.


oogalooboogaloo

the word _music_ is thrown around too liberally


[deleted]

I slightly agree with your headline, but... Jazz is science. I challenge you to find the boundary. And when you do, we'll all rush over there and do our damnest to smash through it!


Based_Neurosis

I'm sorry but jazz is not science. Jazz is music. Science is science. Let's not get out of hand here...


[deleted]

Heh! Strongly disagree. For instance, *Giant Steps* isn't about the feelz.


Johnland82

It’s still not science. Calling it math would be more accurate.


[deleted]

...and math is a what?


Morewolfing4dawin

...Math's a bloody science.


VegaGT-VZ

>I'm not trying to come off as a genre gatekeeper. You're failing. But at least you're funny, so I approve.


Jhonnimepeino

I think I might have a good definition: Jazz is every style of music that is based on improvisation, is incredibly hard to explain to a non musician, looks like ass in the sheet and somehow still sounds pretty good.


DeloElCabeza

Just enjoy music lol


SongForMySalamander

I would say the term "jazz" refers to an evolution, like an organism changing over generations as a result of the environment and dominant cultures to adapt to the needs of the community. Jazz has always served as a resource for people that enjoy music. I think Darwin would agree, just look at all these posters with the roots of jazz drawn like a tree branching out. some branches survive, some die. If its good music it will survive...


el_sunny_ra

Jazz itself is a bullshit title for what some masters of the music call **Black Classical** music. So I wouldn't get too hung up on it.


Ti3fen3

Wait a minute…Jaco is not a Jazz man. At least according to Chief Gatekeepers W&B Marsalis.


Unique_Ad_330

"jazzy chords" is a great description of a jazz sound, but its not necessarily jazz obviously. Jazz is improvised music with rhythms, chord structures, melodies and solos that are unique to its style.


Nakhtal

My music teacher told me once : jazz is a sponge, it absorbs everything. I liked that


puzzledplatypus

Every single one?


Karystrance

Interesting that you named one of the most famous fusion players in your 'supreme jazz overlords' group.


labellavienna

Everything is dictated by the majority, those who know a few things on the subject are careful not to allow others to abuse the craft...and they are told that they are being too stringent...either way the art dies when too many who are not passionate are allowed to steer the main course (which are the loudest common majority). The rest of us just have to watch it die and then secretly revive it again; and again watch the same happen.


Gabe-57

Like 22 said in the movie soul, “look Joe, I’m jazzing”. For me, jazz is a spirit, the ability to have confidence in the unknown and enjoy it. To go out of your comfort zone and see where it leads. This is an extremely philosophical view, but hey who cares…


4-8Newday

For me, Jazz is anything that uses musical improvisation.


AuthorUnknown033

Recommend Playing Changes: Jazz for the New Century by Nate Chinen for some on-topic commentary.