Jazz - your definition


PDA

View Full Version : Jazz - your definition


Gabuydachk
11-15-2005, 04:57 PM
all of a sudden I've been noticing that jazzers (not only the purists) are limiting jazz. they're saying "this is jazz, this isn't." Isn't jazz supposed to be the genre without limits?
Here's my definition: Jazz is a genre of music characterized by improvisation. All improvised music is jazz to me. Tell me if I'm wrong. So, what's your definition of jazz?

AllPlayDead666
11-15-2005, 05:03 PM
music with no emotion

Evil_Empire24-7
11-15-2005, 05:26 PM
good theory and ^ about emotion go listen to wes montgomery or joe pass.

HendrixEdge
11-15-2005, 05:34 PM
music with no emotion

Shall I crucify him first or shall I leave it to the veterans of this forum? ;)

Fintann
11-15-2005, 05:43 PM
Anything you want it to be.

musicftm
11-15-2005, 07:06 PM
nah, not all music with improv is jazz, theres lots of improv in blugrass and blues and rock...

sirpsycho85
11-15-2005, 08:21 PM
Shall I crucify him first or shall I leave it to the veterans of this forum? ;)

feel free, i think. that brilliant comment deserves whatever it gets. nothing posted on this site gets to me as much as people talking about their favorite form of music having more emotion and other styles not having it.

there are certainly aspects that make up a jazz song, from certain chords used, certain scales in soloing etc, the swing rhythm in a lot of it. obviously the improvisation being very important, as well as the fact that it's often not so climactic and resolving like blues or rock, but tries to be a little less rhytmically and harmonically predictable. it doesn't need to have all of those things, but something that's rooted around a good number of traditionally jazz ideas i would call jazz, even if its not real hot and fast.

now whether or not i would enjoy that jazz is another thing...while i personally don't like for example most fusion, or the more atmospheric stuff like some of pat metheny's stuff, it's still jazz, just not my thing.

enfilade
11-16-2005, 01:49 PM
"A style of American music that originated in the South, started by African Americans; it is characterized by a strong , prominent meter; improvisation; and dotted or syncopated patterns."

i think there have been times where its range is fairly limitless, all the jazzheads in the 60s went crazy for hendrix saying the experience was the best jazz band ever, cream were also a jazz band but they just didnt tell clapton, it has close relation to the blues

gothikchile13
11-16-2005, 02:11 PM
Jazz - n. A type of music characterized by tons of theory and chord progressions that don't make any sense.

--Jon

Gabuydachk
11-16-2005, 07:45 PM
nah, not all music with improv is jazz, theres lots of improv in blugrass and blues and rock...
my point of view is that jazz is a categorization not related to genre, like "pop" music

that's just me though

RhoadsSRV8290
11-16-2005, 09:21 PM
Shall I crucify him first or shall I leave it to the veterans of this forum? ;)

Behold, for you do not have to leave it to the veterans...

Thee who has pronounced jazz as unemotional has already crucified thy self.

Steve Cropper
11-16-2005, 09:30 PM
It can be classified as a genre. You know it when you hear it. Purists are just scared that the original vision and tradition of it will be lost as some things are in the sands of time.

power freak
11-18-2005, 04:01 PM
You know it when you hear it.
Exactly!

Jazz just sounds like jazz period. You don't need to follow these rules or these rules just do whatever! Lots of people say that jazz is "complicated" this is not true in my eyes. Many of the "standards" are SO simple you wouldn't believe it but they don't get ridiculed because they don't follow the 5-1-2-6-4-9-1 progression.

:cheers:

Resiliance
11-18-2005, 04:23 PM
^Pretty much.

TI_Bryan
11-18-2005, 05:27 PM
Jazz - n. A type of music characterized by tons of theory and chord progressions that don't make any sense.

--Jon
Fact is, it never truly has to make sense. it's just got to sound GOOD

coffeeguy9
11-19-2005, 12:22 AM
"Man, if you have to ask, you'll never know."
~~~Louis Armstrong

Shoestick
11-19-2005, 07:49 PM
Jazz is...



















wierd.

When I think of jazz, I think of beautiful music. Its like a musical painting.

TI_Bryan
11-19-2005, 09:20 PM
Musically, it's a form of music that's more based on controlling tension than traditional western classical music. it's also the only truly american musical genre ( meaning it originated in america)

Steve Cropper
11-19-2005, 10:37 PM
Jazz pretty much always follows a standard cadence of some kind. They have just found so many variations that you never run out of possibilities.

Siciliano
11-20-2005, 10:46 AM
The sounds your guitar makes when tuning is brilliant jazz!!
Seriously, I enjoy playing it more than listening to it. I've listened to CDs the greats playing various instruments and I often thought "this is complete crap." The only artist I really like is Thelonious Monk on the piano. He'll take you for a journey on each song.

Gabuydachk
11-20-2005, 05:01 PM
Jazz pretty much always follows a standard cadence of some kind. They have just found so many variations that you never run out of possibilities.
but that's where my point of view comes in. what about free-jazz? to me jazz is basically whatever you make it. if you want to be traditional, be just that. if not, then don't. it's all about perspective. take Ornette Coleman or even Fred Frith. they're nowhere near conventional jazz. it's whatever you want it to be.

HendrixEdge
11-20-2005, 09:11 PM
Behold, for you do not have to leave it to the veterans...

Thee who has pronounced jazz as unemotional has already crucified thy self.

I?m happy to hear that especially when said sentiment is combined with such biblical language. ;)

zebrahead234
03-21-2007, 06:32 PM
to me, jazz is kind of like a musical equilibrium

right between emotional tension and nothing

kind of like peace

VR2005
03-21-2007, 06:54 PM
Way to revive a two and a half year old thread.

fenderfrk10
03-22-2007, 02:32 PM
Jazz to me is really about losing your ego. So just dig it, vibe it, and let it exist as it is. Detach yourself from it, once it's out of you, it simply is. Whatever you create is perfect at being what it is.
:golfclap:

heaven's gate
03-22-2007, 07:34 PM
this is jazz: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ypZbagxgxIo

bassmaniac101
03-22-2007, 09:43 PM
music with no emotion


:haha

Saything that jazz has no emotion is like..... Well, I really don't know. But it is full of emotion. I agree and disagree with threadstarter about improvosation. It's a major part of jazz, but not what jazz is based on, in my opionion. To me, jazz is a style of music based on 'swing'.

fendermalmsteen
03-22-2007, 10:12 PM
music with no emotion

:haha

Saything that jazz has no emotion is like..... Well, I really don't know. But it is full of emotion. I agree and disagree with threadstarter about improvosation. It's a major part of jazz, but not what jazz is based on, in my opionion. To me, jazz is a style of music based on 'swing'.
The "emotion" is entirely in the player and the listener, never in the music.

The player feels emotion as a natural reation to what he plays. The listener feels emotion as a natural reaction to what he hears. Sometimes the two respective emotions are similar to the two respective individuals, but on the other hand, sometimes they are completly different. It all depends on your own personality. So if you complain that a particular song/artist/style/genre has "no emotion", it is entirely your fault for not percieving a reaction to it. Not that thatt's a bad thing, but you just have no right to complain.

Case in point, emotion does not exist in the music itself, but the people experiencing it. Therefore one cannot, and can never "put emotion into" music.


Now on to the topic. I guess you could define jazz as the aural art of tension and release. Anything less broad than that would surely place an unneeded and unwanted limit on the art form.

zebrahead234
03-23-2007, 03:15 PM
^ very nice

bassmaniac101
03-23-2007, 10:04 PM
The "emotion" is entirely in the player and the listener, never in the music.

The player feels emotion as a natural reation to what he plays. The listener feels emotion as a natural reaction to what he hears. Sometimes the two respective emotions are similar to the two respective individuals, but on the other hand, sometimes they are completly different. It all depends on your own personality. So if you complain that a particular song/artist/style/genre has "no emotion", it is entirely your fault for not percieving a reaction to it. Not that thatt's a bad thing, but you just have no right to complain.

Case in point, emotion does not exist in the music itself, but the people experiencing it. Therefore one cannot, and can never "put emotion into" music.


Now on to the topic. I guess you could define jazz as the aural art of tension and release. Anything less broad than that would surely place an unneeded and unwanted limit on the art form.

Well said. Obviously music itself does not have emotion, as it does not have a mind and cannot think/feel emotions. But you can generally feel emotion through the artist, especially in jazz. Like the way he/she sings, the style, speed, and in what keys, help you feel the emotion.

What I was trying to get at when I said that was that in jazz music you can really feel the emotions of the artist, but not the emotions of the actuall music.

Resiliance
03-24-2007, 04:58 AM
Well said. Obviously music itself does not have emotion, as it does not have a mind and cannot think/feel emotions. But you can generally feel emotion through the artist, especially in jazz. Like the way he/she sings, the style, speed, and in what keys, help you feel the emotion.

What I was trying to get at when I said that was that in jazz music you can really feel the emotions of the artist, but not the emotions of the actuall music.

I disagree. Of course you're inclined to feel that way, because we all knows jazz kicks ass :p:, but I just find it very arrogant to say something like that. You can't know the emotions of the artist. All you know is what you're given, so please, let's not assume jazz is somehow special in that you can recognise the artist's emotion more than in other forms of music... It's not.

But it does kick ass ;)

MaltedMilk
03-25-2007, 02:05 PM
Does anyone know what I mean when I say that Jazz is almoost like 'pure music'. It's music that has been stripped down to the raw ingredients of harmony, melody and rhythm. I reckon if you got a bunch of people who had no musical influences and taught them to play, they would create something like Jazz.

VR2005
03-25-2007, 03:33 PM
I have to disagree with that. I believe jazz is combination of refinement and raw emotion, but the refinement had to come from somewhere and I believe a lot of classical music influenced that and the raw emotion was from the blues. It may be "pure" music, but to me it's not in the sense. Though we can all have our own opinions and I'm not saying you're wrong I just have a different opinion on things.

"Tele" Steve
03-25-2007, 03:43 PM
music with no emotion

No, I believe you're thinking of Yngwie Malmsteen and Steve Vai.

"Tele" Steve
03-25-2007, 03:45 PM
Does anyone know what I mean when I say that Jazz is almoost like 'pure music'. It's music that has been stripped down to the raw ingredients of harmony, melody and rhythm. I reckon if you got a bunch of people who had no musical influences and taught them to play, they would create something like Jazz.

In my opinion, the blues is even more stripped down. Jazz always seems a bit more complicated.

Resiliance
03-25-2007, 04:45 PM
No, I believe you're thinking of Yngwie Malmsteen and Steve Vai.

Do you realize what kind of an absolutely stupid, ridiculously narrowminded statement this is?

I spit on that post, and your mindset.

"Tele" Steve
03-25-2007, 05:50 PM
I spit on guitar masturbation, fret-wanking, noodling scales, whatever you want to call it. I've listened to enough of Vai and Malmsteen's music to know how robotic it all is to my ears.

fronkpies
03-25-2007, 06:57 PM
I spit on that post, and your mindset.

:haha

fendermalmsteen
03-26-2007, 12:35 PM
I spit on guitar masturbation, fret-wanking, noodling scales, whatever you want to call it. I've listened to enough of Vai and Malmsteen's music to know how robotic it all is to my ears.
You obviously haven't listened to either of them.

Resiliance
03-26-2007, 01:13 PM
You obviously haven't listened to either of them.

Don't waste your time. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Tele" Steve
03-26-2007, 04:19 PM
You obviously haven't listened to either of them.

Yes, I have. We just obviously have different tastes. I believe that someone like John Lee Hooker can say more in one note than Malmsteen can in a hundred but that's just me.

sirpsycho85
03-26-2007, 05:20 PM
hehe i'll stay on the sidelines bc i don't enjoy much shred or blues. out of the three mentioned i'd take Vai though, if only for Tender Surrender.

As for defining jazz, you can't give a simple definition bc of how it's broadened out, but you can probably give a bunch of characteristics, that in some combination will provide a decent idea of what jazz is: improvisation, polyrhythms, common rhythms such as swing or bossa nova, extended chords, numerous seventh chords besides just V7, syncopated rhythms, blues, etc.

al_
03-26-2007, 09:48 PM
Jazz has no emotion???

I know this has been pretty much straightened out but..

please go listen to Part 4 - Psalm off Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" and tell me jazz can't have emotion.

The National D
03-27-2007, 09:03 AM
Was it Miles Davis or Charlie Parker who hated the word jazz?

Baroque_and_Rol
03-27-2007, 09:35 PM
The sounds your guitar makes when tuning is brilliant jazz!!
Seriously, I enjoy playing it more than listening to it. I've listened to CDs the greats playing various instruments and I often thought "this is complete crap." The only artist I really like is Thelonious Monk on the piano. He'll take you for a journey on each song.
I like playing more too, when your actually involved its alot more fun.

Baroque_and_Rol
03-27-2007, 09:40 PM
I spit on guitar masturbation, fret-wanking, noodling scales, whatever you want to call it. I've listened to enough of Vai and Malmsteen's music to know how robotic it all is to my ears.
ignorant prick

Quoteman
03-27-2007, 10:20 PM
In my opinion, the blues is even more stripped down. Jazz always seems a bit more complicated.

Jazz is a baby of the blues, like Rock & Roll. Anyone who actually plays jazz (like myself) will tell you it is without question one of the most complicated genres in existence. IMO jazz has the soul of the blues and the complexity of classical. I'm still a blueser at heart though :)

The National D
03-28-2007, 05:16 AM
Jazz is a baby of the blues, like Rock & Roll.

I'd say that jazz is the americanisation of cuban music... but such an argument is impossible to resolve.