the recent music snobs got me to thinking...
at what point did jazz become something seperate than pop.

i had always viewed jazz and rock and roll as two seperate
branches of music, and each one split off into different branches.

but duke ellington doesn't sound much like
weather report, and miles and cannonball aderly.
what's more, what i think of as jazz laid some of the foundations for funk.
(again, the music snobs pointed out that "so what" and "cold sweat" were similar
grooves... which blew my mind for some reason).

then i realized that most of my favorite music from the 60s came
from musicians that played jazz too (funk bros, p-funk)
and that jazz, although not the sound of young america anymore...
was still very much present. even early EWF albums were heavy on jazz,
and the later ones could be fusion albums if it wasnt for the vocals.)



so here's my question.
is the term jazz just a marketing gimmick?
even more troubling... was it just a word used to marginalize black music (and black ppl?).

i always thought jazz was just an approach ppl had to songwriting and playing.
but now, i'm wondering if it's just another word for "music by and for jungle bunnies."
and i always thought it was somehow seperate from pop.
but now, i'm realizing that might be a misconception as well.



please help.

...the general perception is that jazz became something different from pop partially due to bebop and partially because of the more "sophisticated" Big Band music becoming more "classical" and appreciated by high-brow listeners (think Ellington's "Black,brown&Beige" which is essentially a symphonic suite that was premiered at a concert hall and everything).

However, in regards to bebop, it was still very much a "social", "club"-form of music but in a different way than earlier jazz; the audience was initially primarily black but it was not a "pop"-audience but more of a sort of connoisseur crowd (NOT a high-brow art crowd) in new york. Additionally, bebop gradually became associated with the hipster/beatnik/heroin-type scenes and more white people were drawn into it as fans and they weren't the pop-crowd either but again not really high-brow even if poets and painters started to flock to the clubs; more like hipster/underground. Bsically, bebop was still part of popular culture but in a different, non-populist way, like more like, say, east-coast boom-bap or more "edgy" forms of rock from what I understand where the crowds were more elitist and "connoisseur" but still not wholly removed from pop.

As where to draw the line for when jazz became divorced from pop, that is very difficult because some forms of jazz-think Jimmy Smith's organ-jazz or the more commercial/"soul" hardbop-managed to become successful on the R&B charts at least well into the 60's and some cool jazz became genuine hits ("Take 5" by Dave "overrated" Brubeck most obviously), Shit, I think even Coltrane's "My favorite things" was a minor hit, it was at least issued as a 7".

And then you have fusion in the 70's which was often quite pop (read:funk or rock or soul) with many successful acts even if it again wasn't really pop in the hit-singles sense, more like pop in the album-rock/soul sense if that makes, um, sense (my english... *SMH*)

Regarding jazz impact on the earliest forms of R&B, the riffs of big band jazz was all over the music of guys like Louis Jordan; early R&B was essentially a hybrid between swing-jazz and blues and boogie-woogie and perhaps gospel as well (not too sure about that, I don't know much about gospel at all) and while I guess the jazz got increasingly weeded out during the 50's, stuff like the "gutbucket" (is that an offensive term?)-sax solos could very well be viewed as examples of the continuous impact of jazz and saxophonists like Ben Webster on R&B... Again, it's hard to tell where one begins and one ends until you reach a certain point but it's like a gradual shift. I'm sure other posters here can give more specific early examples of where you can say OK, this song is REALLY R&B with no blatant jazz-influences. Obviously, guys like Bo Diddley didn't sound very jazz at all, at least not to me whereas other contemporaries like Roy Brown still had some swing-jazz in there.

Sidenote:Am I the only one who thinks that James Brown's music would have sounded even cooler if *that* saxophone sound would have been in at least some solos? Nothing against Maceo and his other hornmen in the late 60's-early 70's but a roaring, scratchy 50's R&B-styled tenor would have sounded even doper to me. Or maybe not but in *theory* it would...

that helps a lot.


and i think the answer to your question is, yes.
JB could have had some horn solos and not taken away from the funk.

woulda been cool to hear.

It's more that gravelly 50's R&B tenor-tone as opposed to the more nasal alto tone I think would have made it even doper. It was kind of played out then though and I susåect it was considered a bit old-fashioned and unsophisticated. There are lots of soul- funk and R&B tunes with sax-solos but after the early 60's or so, it never has that sound but more of a smoother one...

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

>JB could have had some horn solos and not taken away from the
>funk.
>
>woulda been cool to hear.

"Maceo won't you blow" ring a bell for you?



http://twitter.com/collazo

>Sidenote:Am I the only one who thinks that James Brown's music
>would have sounded even cooler if *that* saxophone sound would
>have been in at least some solos? Nothing against Maceo and
>his other hornmen in the late 60's-early 70's but a roaring,
>scratchy 50's R&B-styled tenor would have sounded even doper
>to me. Or maybe not but in *theory* it would...

http://youtu.be/n7pu6lb6zDw?t=2m1s

EDIT: or this http://youtu.be/mXcdpPDHzlM?t=1m25s

I know that's not it exactly but it's pretty much the closest I could think of.

James (and/or his arranges) did some pretty interesting things on the records he produced for his proteges. It was not often on a mainline James Brown record that you'd hear some semi-abstract soloing like on here:

http://youtu.be/MqhOta94gjU

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

...those are more free-jazz inspired with a lot of post-Ayler/Sanders/shepp stuff going on. I was simply thinking more of the type of basic, asskicking tenor-solos you'll hear in a Little Richard tune or Esquerita or King Curtis as lonesome_d mentioned. *That* sound seems to have died after the early 60's even if some garage/frat-rock bands like the Sonics kept it alive a while longer.

this might be closer

http://youtu.be/MFfo6F_nkUg

though the playing is probably still a bit too jazzy to be really gutbucket.

Or this? http://youtu.be/zmlmZzAhGMo

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

I'm familiar with both those tunes but had to play them back for the gutbucket-factor and the first sax-solo cuts it...arty has maceo ripping old school phrases on his alto but it's not the same thing.

Overall though, that the alto and-yuck!-soprano sax are generally used outside of jazz for sax-solos in the past decades is kind of sad to me; *Connie Francis* had a gutbucket-solo on "Vacation" (great tune, I like it more than "Hey jude"-MUCH more...) back in the day, if someone that white-bread can use it, it's strange to me that more cutting-edge artists don't use it; I guess it's just too tied up to it's era...

Oh well, I can even give a pass to the most ridiculous vintage frat slop like this because of the sax-solo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AtPr5i4J4s

To be honest, I would have dug it even wihout the solo-unrelateable lyrics aside-but that's me...

Really the only stricture.

Pop and rock aren't improvised.

further to that, jazz is about the pursuit of artistry, the dedication to mastery, the neverending journey of learning and discovery. it probably sounds pretentious but it's true. and those qualities just don't gel with what is considered pop music today. although if you take away those elements and marry it with pop music then it's easy to see how kenny g came about

--

MARK de CLIVE-LOWE | @MdCL
http://MdCL.tv

>further to that, jazz is about the pursuit of artistry, the
>dedication to mastery, the neverending journey of learning and
>discovery. it probably sounds pretentious but it's true. and
>those qualities just don't gel with what is considered pop
>music today. although if you take away those elements and
>marry it with pop music then it's easy to see how kenny g came
>about
>
>

and i'm a fan of great pop music... i just dont hear the majority of pop music in this generation being of that class. lennon/mccartney, MJ, classic prince... exceptions rather than the rule imo

i fully subscribe to great pop being a mastercraft unto itself and that jazz has in almost every stage of its evolution had the extremes of pandering band wagon jumpers and explorative purists.

when i see younger listeners go out and lose it to a sick improvised band/vibe, it's a reminder that the energy and what that translates doesnt belong in any one time or place

--

MARK de CLIVE-LOWE | @MdCL
http://MdCL.tv

That sounds nice but jazz has historically been VERY trend-conscious, well after it ceased to be pop. And I'm not even referring to Miles Davis, no, even in fucking *free-jazz*, you can clearly notice that the music changed from a more post-Coleman approach to a post-Coltrane approach as the 60's progressed with "everyone" just happening to become "spiritual" and droney-sounding and interested in eastern mysticism and the music as a healing force. Is it just a coincidence that all those artistic people happened to go in that direction at the same time? Or that the Blue Note guys had a tendency to put one groovy, dance-jazz tune on records after the Sidewinder hit (seriously, listen to Herbie's admittedly stellar "Empyren isles" and tell me that "Cantaloupe island" doesn't sound out of place amongst all the advanced post-bop)? Or "everyone" jumping on the fusion-trend including people who had previously expressed scorn at amplified music?

I love jazz as much as possible but that whole "they are pure artists playing themselves"? I never bought it really...

...including written parts for each musician. Sure, they took improvised solos but so does rock/soul/funk-musicians. Since big band was very popular and in many ways the "peak" of "real" jazz as a commercial form of music not to mention the first things that comes to mind when people say "jazz" for many people of the older generations (I guess they are dying out now though), I'm not sure it's that simple...

there were solos, of course.
but that's not what makes big band sound like big band.

the band, as a whole, has to swing.
and they did it by having folks follow their charts and sheet music.


also, and this is kind of a reach, i know...
but in a way the funk bros. were sort of improvising those motown songs.

smokey or holland dozier or holland would show them the
chord progression and melodies, and then the funk bros. would
work out the rhythm parts and basically have improvised jam sessions
to get the song to fall into place.

they even had jazzy solos in the breakdowns, which is sort of in
line with how big bands would work solos in.



improvosation is important for sure.
but i guess what i'm saying is... those session musicans were
doing more than a little bit of improvising.

and also, jazz is more than just improvising.

>and also, jazz is more than just improvising.

Much more, obviously. But the core is, and was from the very beginning, improvisation.

To be sure, there is highly written jazz, such as swing. And ragtime. And a lot of fusion. And smooth jazz. But you should understand all of those as logical outgrowths of what came before. Basie's and Ellington's emphases on composition makes sense if you place Euro/classical influences in the tradition of Louis Armstrong's improvisational bands.

Jazz has always adopted the conventions of other genres. It's a big tent.

>>Basie's and Ellington's emphases on composition makes
>sense if you place Euro/classical influences in the tradition
>of Louis Armstrong's improvisational bands.
>

...relationship between repetition and commercial appeal.

Generally speaking, the degree to which jazz is improvised is inversely proportional to its mass popularity. Improvisation is by definition unpredictable (or should be, given a competent soloist), and unpredictably isn't what the masses want. You can't hum along to a 12-minute extemporaneous exploration of all possible modes of F#, but you surely can with jazz that features strictly composed, regularly repeating patterns and recognizable structures.

Swing featured the latter, and was danceable to boot. You mentioned Weather Report...those guys played arenas in the late '70s, because Birdland et al. are essentially pop songs.

On the other hand, variant like hard bop and free jazz are loved only by aficionados, with a few exceptions.

Here are the best-selling jazz records of all time: http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Rifugium/best_selling_jazz_albums_of_all_time__riaa___or_theres_no_money_in_jazz/

That's a few Miles, a few Coltrane, and a whole bunch of highly composed mongrels.

>...relationship between repetition and commercial appeal.
>


that's why i didn't like reply #3.
because jazz records use hooks.

hell, even free jazz has hooks.
they don't repeat particularly often, or that many times,
but they have moments that make you wait for what's coming next.

pop music distills the essence of creating a hook down to a
science... but melody is melody.
i'd put MJ's or Lennon/McCartney or Jaggger/Richards' songcraft up against anybody's.
not that pop needs comparrison to other genres to be valid... but the idea that attention to craft is only at it' height in jazz music is ridiculous to me.

and like you said, the most popular jazz albums have hooks.
and it's not a case of those not being great records, either.

great hooks are always critical.
lots of great hooks creates a classic.



>Generally speaking, the degree to which jazz is improvised is
>inversely proportional to its mass popularity. Improvisation
>is by definition unpredictable (or should be, given a
>competent soloist), and unpredictably isn't what the masses
>want. You can't hum along to a 12-minute extemporaneous
>exploration of all possible modes of F#, but you surely can
>with jazz that features strictly composed, regularly repeating
>patterns and recognizable structures.
>
>Swing featured the latter, and was danceable to boot. You
>mentioned Weather Report...those guys played arenas in the
>late '70s, because Birdland et al. are essentially pop songs.
>
>On the other hand, variant like hard bop and free jazz are
>loved only by aficionados, with a few exceptions.
>
>Here are the best-selling jazz records of all time:
>http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Rifugium/best_selling_jazz_albums_of_all_time__riaa___or_theres_no_money_in_jazz/
>
>That's a few Miles, a few Coltrane, and a whole bunch of
>highly composed mongrels.

A jazz-solo can contain literally hundreds of dope phrases; alternatively it may only contain a few but the way the musician gets from "dope phrase A" to "dope phrase B" is appealing in itself.

However, regardless of how dope a phrase/melody-line is, it really must work in repetition to become a great pop-tune (and numerous shitty pop-tunes pretty much proves that!).

Like you can artificially create a pop-tune from a jazz-solo by zeroing in on the "money"-phrases and then repeat them. However, will it work when you cut out all the information contained between? I'm not so sure because the nature of the phrases in a jazz-song is-outside of the theme-not really the same as the phrases in a vocal melody.

It's like a guitar-riff (a riff=a melodic phrase that ideally work in repetition); several of the most famous guitar-riffs ever would have sounded utterly retarded if they were instead sung with lyrics and shit as a topline vocal melody-try "smoke on the water" or "Back in black" for example. They are too choppy whereas phrases in vocal-melodies generally have a more "smooth" feel with stepwise melodic motion along a scale in a pretty even (square?) rhythm as opposed to larger intervals and a more percussive feel.

The phrases in jazz-solos meanwhile has-at least since bebop-taken on a melodic/rhytmic form that is quite different from your regular pop-phrase and in the case of someone like Coltrane for example, it isn't even so much about the strength of the individual phrases IMO as it is about the *combined* impact of them.

Basically, writing a great pop-tune and playing a great (modern) jazz-solo are two different skill-sets that IMO don't have much in common beyond ideally grabbing the listener and thus, it's a bit hard to compare...

i've been saying it for years, too.
nobody challenged me on it until now.


withdrawn.

...I got too caught up in the melody thing. Whatever, my point still stands; very rarely will you find a pop-spng that contains a continuous flow of melody as opposed to repetition of bar-long (or 2 or 4) fragments and even the most "singable" jazz-solos (/the ones that would work as a vocal melody) rarely contain the amount of repetition a pop-song does. I guess something like Beach Boys "Good Vibrations" *could* be used as an example but still, I think it works more as classical than jazz structurally. Besides, Wilson's failure to finish "smile" makes it clear that someone who is perfectly capable of writing a perfect pop.song (something Wilson obvioulsy (?) could) might not be able to write a continuous flow of melodic ideas. And by the same token, very few jazz-musicians have been able to write genuine pop-hits even if at least Herbie Hancock succeded with "Rockit" but I'm not sure that one counts...

so much improv and jazz mentality went into the rhythm section tracking. that organicness is what makes is so full of flavor for me

--

MARK de CLIVE-LOWE | @MdCL
http://MdCL.tv

because the earliest jazz really was not "improvised"... not in the sense that we understand the word today, anyway. It was kinda like... like pre-written freestyles that are stored in the bank to be whipped out at the appropriate moment in a cipher.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

Technically, Buck is right that improvisation *was* the basis of jazz right from the beginning, even if it was not improvisation in the way we think of it now.

Today, we think of "improvisation" as meaning formulating a melody on the spot and never playing a song the same way twice. Back in the day it was not necessarily so. All performed music was generally based on stock arrangements and improvisation (or "faking" as it was then called) was basically deviating from the sheet music, even if that deviation was not arrived at extemporaneously.

So in the sections where the musicians would solo, they would work out their solos beforehand. And once they had created their "faked" solos, they would play those solos every time they performed the piece. But it was still thrilling to audiences because it was music that was not written down, that had not come from the composer. It was something that the musician had come up with himself and inserted into the familiar piece, and that in itself was something new.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>All
>performed music was generally based on stock arrangements and
>improvisation (or "faking" as it was then called) was
>basically deviating from the sheet music, even if that
>deviation was not arrived at extemporaneously.

It can't be understated what a far departure this was from the musical establishments at the time. Of course it wasn't new to music per se, particularly when you take most folk music into account improvisation was happening around the world. But at the time even folk music was regulated as an outside music beneath the standards.

This again goes to my era of the player comments in that before that it was all about the composer. The players were inconsequential. A player playing something which wasn't on the page as he was conducted to play (it should be noted that conductors did deviate in their interpretations of the page) was grounds for dismissal. The leading soloists were those who played with the clearest tone exactly what the composer had written. The composer was king.

Even with these stock improvisations they were recomposing what was on the page, and in essence that is what lie at the heart of jazz. The page is only the springboard for the multitude of ideas that can flow from it, either via arrangement (and by this i don't simply mean instrumentation arrangements), player interpretted solos, or tru free improvisation. Ultimately you can trace jazz through the years on the freedom that was being given to the player to interpret all the way to the point where you have a free jazz and there's nothing left to interpret.

This is why for me the culmination of jazz theory is the head, where a composition isn't necessarily a full blown out song but a head or series of heads which players practice to hit and then utilize to springboard new performances. This is a stark contrast to say a Wynton who fears this is a slippery slope toward total freedom which disregards composition. It also in his view marginalizes someone like Duke who was real strict with his players and when and how they solo'd so that there was still the adherance to the page. But for me all of these embody the play with the page that he was enjoying from the way these spring boards were creating new ideas. If you've ever heard Duke play and solo (get that Money Jungle) it's perfectly clear how he had so many compositional ideas spring up from just his playing. By leaving it open one can go in any direction be it all out freedom or complex composition. All the seeds of incredible music are born from that openness.

Rambling again...

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

>Today, we think of "improvisation" as meaning formulating a
>melody on the spot and never playing a song the same way
>twice.

I suppose some think only of that. There is also rhythmic, harmonic, and compositional improvisation.

>There is also rhythmic,
>harmonic, and compositional improvisation.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

and it was the cornerstone of Jass.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

that what was being played was being improvised on the spot when in fact it was a well rehearsed solo, just not written into the original composition.


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

You seem to be suggesting that there is a fundamental difference between the techniques you're ascribing to early jazz players and, for example, contemporary players.

What is that difference that you see?

when i am learning a song on piano,
i typically come up with a rhythm pattern for the main chord changes on my left hand,
and then come up with at least a loose melody line and a loose solo part
that i can play on my right.

when ppl hear me play and say to me, "i have a jazz style,"
i never know how to take it.

because 1: i don't really listen to jazz. but i do listen to a lot of
jazz influenced stuff (Marvin's "here, my dear" album, for instance)

and 2: i can't follow jazz changes when i hear them on a record.
but if i play a pop song on piano, i do tend to "jazz" them up a bit
because block chords sound boring to me usually.

but to me, that's not jazz playing because i can't make those substitutions
on the fly... i have to write the arrangement and then play it over and over again
until i have muscle memory.

if i had to sit in with a band, i'd get a cymbal thrown at me
because if they modulated to another key, i'd be lost...
hitting clams... couldn't pick up on the shit quickly enough...
and told to get lost.

i know that because it happened when i tried to sit in with some
folks at my church. but that was when i was a kid...
maybe i'd be better at it now lol.



>>There is also rhythmic,
>>harmonic, and compositional improvisation.
>

you already have the ear

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

I think the reason people perceive it that way regarding modern jazz and its improvisation has more to do with the background than the solos. Basically, the New Orleans dudes might have been collectively "improvising" but they were doing it on top of a pre-set chord-progression.

In the context of modal not to mention free-jazz, the "background" is not preset so it might give the perception that it is all made up on the spot since there is no previously established progression to hang your ears on.

However, while the solos might not be note-for-note identical or the phrases appear in exactly the same order or whatever, there is still a clear cutinfra-structure there that seems to be run across alternative takes and live-performances and so on; shit both a lot of free-jazz and modal stuff quoted the themes wholesome in the solos and spent a good deal of time with thematic variations.

Basically, the nature of the background plays a very big part in how a solo is perceived IMO.

>the recent music snobs got me to thinking...
>at what point did jazz become something seperate than pop.

My general answer is that autos bit of everything is true; there's no simple answer to a question like this, so the best recourse is to search for watershed moments.


>i had always viewed jazz and rock and roll as two seperate
>branches of music, and each one split off into different
>branches.

You're right, but the evolution omf music is a lot like natural evolution. It can be hard to recognize momentous shifts at the time, but in hi Deighton we have to go back and be paleomusicologists to pie e it all back together. Both 1st person and 3d person narratives can have heat value, but neither is likely to contain the whole truth, the more perspectives one can entertain, the closer one may get.

>then i realized that most of my favorite music from the 60s
>came
>from musicians that played jazz too (funk bros, p-funk)
>and that jazz, although not the sound of young america
>anymore...
>was still very much present. even early EWF albums were heavy
>on jazz,
>and the later ones could be fusion albums if it wasnt for th>vocals.)

The driving force of music in America is cultural miscegenation. While the concept of racial music has always existed here, the blending of styles, regions, cultures has always been what's pushed it forward.
The idea of genre in popular so g only really came to prominence in the second half of the 20th c.
Listen to the blues queens of the 10s & 20s, and it sounds like a jazz band playing blues songs, not what we think of today as blues.
Listen to John Hurt, or Leadbelly, lonnie Johnson, or the Memphis Jug Band and tell me what genre you hear ; the answer will likely change from song to song.

This is of course an oversimplification with an eye pointed toward rural styles, but hopefully serves to drive the point that to so e degree the advent of
Music geekdom is responsible for the fracturing of the landscape.

>so here's my question.
>is the term jazz just a marketing gimmick?

Yes, but no

>even more troubling... was it just a word used to marginalize
>black music (and black ppl?)

Possibly (see the theoretical linguistic origins of the word 'jazz'), but later, no.
>
>i always thought jazz was just an approach ppl had to
>songwriting and playing.

Yes, and no. Like everything else. How finely do you want to parse it? It's like physics! There are truths which aRe universal - but then under a microscope of certain power, those truths start to fall apart.


>and i always thought it was somehow seperate from pop.
>but now, i'm realizing that might be a misconception as well.

So how in light of this would you describe Frank Sinatra? The classic Louis & Ella vocal duets? The Girl From Ipanema?

Hope this helps put it in a few different perspective gives... B/c one is 't really goin g to get you anywhere.

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

No knock to AFKAP (I don't have to tell him that he knows where I stand) but jazz isn't really his strong suit. It's not lonesome's either but he's good on the etymology of music (lol at 'etymology').

I'm just talking shit because as big of a jazzhead as I am it's only because this is the Lesson where jazz is only half heartedly appreciated. And since I'm doing all this tangential rambling before getting to the heart of your request (and cause it's come to mind so much recently) for a band that came in the door on some jazz shit, The Roots (and by The Roots I mean 15... oh I should also mention I'm drunk posting...lol) don't never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever talk about jazz at fucking all. Literally the only jazz I can associate 'em with is Roy Ayers. Ain't that some shit!! I don't even think 15 likes jazz.



But yeah I want to refer back to my Cool Jazz post while we're still tangenting. Nothing in particular just go check that ish out - http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2883015&mesg_id=2883015&listing_type=search

Alright now the buzz is kicking in, let's get to chopping.

>the recent music snobs got me to thinking...

First of all I've never listened to them. What exactly did they say?

>at what point did jazz become something seperate than pop.

Okay let's call the hub of pre-WWII pop music the Tin Pan Alley sound, Gershwin, Porter, et al. Tin pan Alley is turn of the century. I always mark jazz as Sidney Bechet which is like 1910ish. Now Tin Pan Alley was hot but classical still going. Black music was the blue, gut bucket, unsophisticated nigger shit. Then Bechet went to europe and crushed buildings. Literally. It's important to note it was the overseas exposure that pushed it over the line. Which is to say the music was happening before but it was that pivotal moment. And what Bechet brought to the table was improvising. That's what Europe took note of. The jizz. And make no mistake it was the taboo of the negro and their primal energy that made shit blow. And make no mistake it was exciting pheremones.

It was the fluidity of improvisation which was then adopted into classical composition, and Tin Pan Alley songwriting. But being negros the inverse also happened, specificially with tin pan alley, as the jizz bands started playing all of Tin Pan tunes, but with the jizz arrangements, and that free improv spirit.

Mind you this is all the 20's. It's so crazy with jazz, we all have these pictures of what it is that stem from things that came out of it decades later.

Duke on the other hand was like not only can we kill the Tin Pan stuff we can fuck with these classical composition shit too.. Big band era, there was money, and folks was doing it lavish. And people was loving it, from the dance halls doing the lindy hop, to the sophisticated music halls with gloved handclaps and intermissions.

But concurrently there were always the after hours spots where the players just went to play. And in essence that's what kept jazz alive. So when the money fell out and there weren't any more big bands touring, it was these after hours jook joint bands that started keeping the essence of jazz alive which was not playing to what was considered pop per se but just playing.

be-bop grew out of this aesthetic in many ways. The real jazz not the show that was being put on for the audiences. Of course these were their own types of audiences as well. And with the whole hep cat movement and the culture of the beats and counter cultural things, those audiences kept shit going.

Til it started burning out, and when that happened it was back to the jazz renditions of the pop forms. So there's always been that balance until I'd say the 80's by which point the gutteral jazz had completely lost out. Cool jazz or the pop jazz won.

>i had always viewed jazz and rock and roll as two seperate
>branches of music, and each one split off into different
>branches.

They are.

>but duke ellington doesn't sound much like
>weather report, and miles and cannonball aderly.

Uhhhhhhh yeah they do. I know what you're trying to mean, but really they do. Whole other post though.

>what's more, what i think of as jazz laid some of the
>foundations for funk.
>(again, the music snobs pointed out that "so what" and "cold
>sweat" were similar
>grooves... which blew my mind for some reason).

LOL!!! I'll leave that alone.

>then i realized that most of my favorite music from the 60s
>came
>from musicians that played jazz too (funk bros, p-funk)
>and that jazz, although not the sound of young america
>anymore...
>was still very much present. even early EWF albums were heavy
>on jazz,
>and the later ones could be fusion albums if it wasnt for the
>vocals.)

I think I said it in another post, era of players. Jazz was the pinacle of playing, and as such the players are associated with jazz. But remember these are folk 50-60 years after the birth of jazz. It's the equivilent of all jazz players in the early days knowing how to play the blues.

>so here's my question.
>is the term jazz just a marketing gimmick?

Yes.

>even more troubling... was it just a word used to marginalize
>black music (and black ppl?).

Jizz. Absolutely.

>i always thought jazz was just an approach ppl had to
>songwriting and playing.

It was/is.

>but now, i'm wondering if it's just another word for "music by
>and for jungle bunnies."

But that music was different. Just like Race Music wasn't just the pop tunes sang by black folk, until it became Soul musicians singing Beatles tunes but that's another topic.

>and i always thought it was somehow seperate from pop.
>but now, i'm realizing that might be a misconception as well.

I think it's interesting because of your perceptions of pop. that's all I'll say for now. need to refill this drink.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

I've just rarely indulged them here because (as you have rightly pointed out) this is not really the place to discuss jazz and on a deep, realistic (as opposed to mythological) level.

(Really, most of the music that I listen to in general is stuff that I can't really discuss here. And I'm fine with that... I don't feel the need to belabor it by making posts about it and then getting mad when nobody replies. That's why it's annoying when I certain asshole who stalks me on this board always claims that I talk about stuff I don't like and not the shit that I *do* like. It Is what it is, though)


Will come back to this post tonight.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

...by using you and l_d JCM was setting up the post to be this reductionist jazz thing, where it's just this general american pop thing marketed for its negritude. It was awkward for me.

>I've just rarely indulged them here because (as you have
>rightly pointed out) this is not really the place to discuss
>jazz and on a deep, realistic (as opposed to mythological)
>level.

I actually hope folk challenge the shit I be posting, to cut that shit down to size. That's actually the meat of my 15 comment. Like I'd love for him to be dropping jazz jewels, but I swear it never happens. It's wild that he can induct hall and oates, but can he hold his own on Blakey? I've never even heard him mention jazz drummers. And when you hear him play it makes a lot of sense. But here in the Lesson the whole nuance of that is missed for all his other awesome traits. Not a knock (even if I may wish more) just kinda how it is.


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

>...by using you and l_d JCM was setting up the post to be
>this reductionist jazz thing, where it's just this general
>american pop thing marketed for its negritude. It was awkward
>for me.
>
>>I've just rarely indulged them here because (as you have
>>rightly pointed out) this is not really the place to discuss
>>jazz and on a deep, realistic (as opposed to mythological)
>>level.


J\k for real, you know I've missed rapping with you when I've started talking on The phone to my Soundcloud peeps from Brooklyn... I mean it's cool but it ain't tge same.

You know my stance on this and it's strengths /weaknesses at this point... Would love to engage you & U. if you have some time on this, though I agree calling me out in the subject is a bit out of my league.

Also, I've had a few.
T
Last night, as well. Hope I didn't embarrass myself.

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

>>at what point did jazz become something seperate than pop.
>
>Okay let's call the hub of pre-WWII pop music the Tin Pan
>Alley sound, Gershwin, Porter, et al. Tin pan Alley is turn
>of the century. I always mark jazz as Sidney Bechet which is
>like 1910ish. Now Tin Pan Alley was hot but classical still
>going. Black music was the blue, gut bucket, unsophisticated
>nigger shit. Then Bechet went to europe and crushed buildings.
>Literally. It's important to note it was the overseas exposure
>that pushed it over the line. Which is to say the music was
>happening before but it was that pivotal moment. And what
>Bechet brought to the table was improvising. That's what
>Europe took note of. The jizz. And make no mistake it was
>the taboo of the negro and their primal energy that made shit
>blow. And make no mistake it was exciting pheremones.

I don't know... I sort of take exception to the use of the term "jizz"... I know it's a fairly common etymology to get behind these days, but in the early days the music was known as "Jass."

And the funny thing is that the earliest appearances of the word "jazz" were usually used in a sports context as opposed to a musical one. But even as the music became widely known as "Jazz," some of the leading musicians in the field actually rejected the term. Bechet himself maintained until his death that his music was actually ragtime. Here's a quote from his autobio, published in 1950:

"Jazz, that's a name the white people have given to the music. When I tell you ragtime, you can feel it, there's a spirit right in the word. It comes out of the Negro spirituals, out of Omar's way of singing, out of his rhythm. But Jazz--Jazz could mean any 'damn thing" high times, screwing, ballroom. It used to be spelled -Jass-, which -was- screwing. But when you say ragtime, you're saying the music."

>It was the fluidity of improvisation which was then adopted
>into classical composition, and Tin Pan Alley songwriting. But
>being negros the inverse also happened, specificially with tin
>pan alley, as the jizz bands started playing all of Tin Pan
>tunes, but with the jizz arrangements, and that free improv
>spirit.

I'm not 100% sure of what you mean here, but something tells me I'm not going to agree with it lol


>Duke on the other hand was like not only can we kill the Tin
>Pan stuff we can fuck with these classical composition shit
>too.. Big band era, there was money, and folks was doing it
>lavish. And people was loving it, from the dance halls doing
>the lindy hop, to the sophisticated music halls with gloved
>handclaps and intermissions.

I don't think Duke was trying to "kill" anything... Duke was a big fan of Paul Whiteman and viewed him as an influence. And most jazz musicians had to be fluent in classical in the early days.

>But concurrently there were always the after hours spots where
>the players just went to play. And in essence that's what
>kept jazz alive. So when the money fell out and there weren't
>any more big bands touring, it was these after hours jook
>joint bands that started keeping the essence of jazz alive
>which was not playing to what was considered pop per se but
>just playing.

Did the after-hours jamming keep jazz alive, or did it serve to begin the slide towards jazz's death (in the popular consciousness, anyway)?

People were still dancing to the big bands... they didn't seem tired of that at all.

And then when Louis Jordan began to introduce a smaller, though heavier form of the big band sound, folks loved dancing to that also.

But the bebop guys were less interested in playing for the dance floor... and that was one of the things that led to jazz losing its relevance in the "pop" sphere.

>>i had always viewed jazz and rock and roll as two seperate
>>branches of music, and each one split off into different
>>branches.
>
>They are.

Separate branches, but the same tree. If we're going to think of rock & roll as being a development of rhythm & blues... and R&B was originally small-combo swing with a more driving rhythm (and of course more emphasis on blues and boogie boogie)

>>but duke ellington doesn't sound much like
>>weather report, and miles and cannonball aderly.
>
>Uhhhhhhh yeah they do. I know what you're trying to mean, but
>really they do. Whole other post though.

He's right... they don't. But yes, whole other post!

>>what's more, what i think of as jazz laid some of the
>>foundations for funk.
>>(again, the music snobs pointed out that "so what" and "cold
>>sweat" were similar
>>grooves... which blew my mind for some reason).
>
>LOL!!! I'll leave that alone.

Pee Wee Ellis has testified that the riff of "Cold Sweat" was inspired by "So What," and when you listen to it, you can actually hear it.

(I tried to find a video of him describing it but I can't locate it...)

"Cold Sweat" is a fragmented (or what I would call "Cuban-influenced") reduction of "So What"... James Brown's style as a whole was definitely influenced by Afro-Cuban music, but every time I've said that in the Lesson, I've been shouted down on some "you hate Black Americans so much, you don't want us to have ANYTHING!" shit.

I mean, "So What" itself is rooted in Cuban rhythm, with its tense pauses. I've mentioned before that the song was clearly inspired by a rhumba composition by Ahmad Jamal:

http://youtu.be/ZmvwCTMO1Lg

http://youtu.be/q9eUqMbxWBs

Pee Wee basically played it in a more fragmented fashion, utilizing the "honking sax" style that had come to characterize R&B.

Did I mention that the "honking sax" itself has its roots in Cuban-influenced music? You know that Dizzy Gillespie's early bebop experiments were fueled by his relationship with Cuban musicians like Mario Bauza and Chano Pozo and his idea to play jazz with the repetitive rhythmic tumbao of Cuba, which each instrument functioning as a drum:

http://youtu.be/IMipw5NWSZk
http://youtu.be/s2Tt6W-TxXs

and there is where you start to find the roots of what we today call "Funk."

I've pointed out before that a lot of James Brown's approach to rhythm was informed by Cuban rhythm. I know I've illustrated before how James Brown's earliest moves towards "Funk" were directly derived from New Orleans-style "mambo-blues" as popularized by, say, Professor Longhair:

http://youtu.be/0UWBO4r11AY

or Eddie Bo:

http://youtu.be/q-LdVVfIdgc

and then from there, we can check out how that sound influenced Duke Jenkins:

http://youtu.be/108NtlpJkY8
http://youtu.be/bGxVpY2PLtg

and Ray Charles

http://youtu.be/xPP8w0wMRgQ

and then James Brown takes a stab at the sound:

http://youtu.be/B1wOK9yGUYM

and the rest... is history.

But as Maceo has said, he and many of the other members were frustrated jazz heads, so they tried to bring bebop's complexity to the music. Which is why the signature sound of Funk involves extended chords like 9ths and 7ths and 11ths. But the funk musician plays in a more fragmented, reductive voicing... driving rhythm over complex harmony.

For example: http://youtu.be/gF1d227_4ac (long video, but very interesting if you watch it all)

Or: http://www.redbullmusicacademy.com/lectures/leroy-burgess--boogie-on-burgess (start at 52:07)

So funk was (among other things) really a kind of broken down, more danceable form of jazz.

(Damn, did I ramble past the point?)

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>I don't know... I sort of take exception to the use of the
>term "jizz"... I know it's a fairly common etymology to get
>behind these days, but in the early days the music was known
>as "Jass."

Definitely, but the use of jizz makes the meaning behind it more relevant contemporarily. If you say jass, and say jass meant fucking, you almost have to remind folk of the implication at every mention. Jizz drives home the point of the naming to modern ears. You hear jizz and you know what the connotation is.

>And the funny thing is that the earliest appearances of the
>word "jazz" were usually used in a sports context as opposed
>to a musical one. But even as the music became widely known as
>"Jazz," some of the leading musicians in the field actually
>rejected the term. Bechet himself maintained until his death
>that his music was actually ragtime. Here's a quote from his
>autobio, published in 1950:
>
>"Jazz, that's a name the white people have given to the music.
>When I tell you ragtime, you can feel it, there's a spirit
>right in the word. It comes out of the Negro spirituals, out
>of Omar's way of singing, out of his rhythm. But Jazz--Jazz
>could mean any 'damn thing" high times, screwing, ballroom. It
>used to be spelled -Jass-, which -was- screwing. But when you
>say ragtime, you're saying the music."

Yeah but that's also an attempt to hold it into the NO lineage, which I don't blame him for, but doesn't capture the whole picture of what it had become by then. I've said it before and I'll say it again, in the period in between the influence of Kansas City Stomp which is clearly not ragtime is what helped carry the music forward.

(I'll just note here that forward for me is always going to mean on to new musical achievements not audience achievements, so when we're talking about the death of it we'll be talking about different things below)

>I'm not 100% sure of what you mean here, but something tells
>me I'm not going to agree with it lol

Jazz bands playing the songbook. Songbook composers writing different. White big bands playing in the vein of jazz. Etc... the ebb and flow of that.

>I don't think Duke was trying to "kill" anything... Duke was a
>big fan of Paul Whiteman and viewed him as an influence. And
>most jazz musicians had to be fluent in classical in the early
>days.

I meant kill in the hip-hop ebonics shit not adversarial. It was because of his appreciation of the music that he was able to kill it.

>Did the after-hours jamming keep jazz alive, or did it serve
>to begin the slide towards jazz's death (in the popular
>consciousness, anyway)?

Referring back to my parenthetical above we are of two minds on this. For me the death of jazz is independent of the public opinion of it, but more the result of its inability to push music making in new directions. I should echo your comments here that a lot of people didn't like the term jazz. There's a miles quotes post I put up with him going to town on the label and wanting to just be called contemporary music (i think, maybe modern, something other than jazz). But one important thing I think the term does is unite a trajectory over nearly a century of music making. And for the greater majority of that period there was constant innovation happening in form. The death of that to me is when there are no new forms arising which is why I cite the 80's. Of course it was way out of favor by then but even in the 70's there was still plenty of form pushing happening.

>People were still dancing to the big bands... they didn't seem
>tired of that at all.

Yeah but money wasn't what it used to be.

>And then when Louis Jordan began to introduce a smaller,
>though heavier form of the big band sound, folks loved dancing
>to that also.

Indeed. Also worth noting was the west coast cool response to the be bop was strong. Be bop wasn't necessarily the dominant. But it was the one pushing and that's my angle.

>But the bebop guys were less interested in playing for the
>dance floor... and that was one of the things that led to jazz
>losing its relevance in the "pop" sphere.

And its also how you get to some of the most beautiful and intricate jazz composition. Try to imagine if Mingus was playing to pop audiences. I don't even want to.

>>>but duke ellington doesn't sound much like
>>>weather report, and miles and cannonball aderly.
>>
>>Uhhhhhhh yeah they do. I know what you're trying to mean,
>but
>>really they do. Whole other post though.
>
>He's right... they don't. But yes, whole other post!

I'll just refer to the comments about Duke I made elsewhere above which were indicative of what I meant here.

>>>what's more, what i think of as jazz laid some of the
>>>foundations for funk.
>>>(again, the music snobs pointed out that "so what" and
>"cold
>>>sweat" were similar
>>>grooves... which blew my mind for some reason).
>>
>>LOL!!! I'll leave that alone.

Just to start out I love that you bring the cuban origins to the discussion, and always have, but you *can* overstate them.

>Maceo has testified that the riff of "Cold Sweat" was inspired
>by "So What," and when you listen to it, you can actually hear
>it.
>
>(I tried to find a video of him describing it but I can't
>locate it...)

Don't doubt you but wish you'd found it.

>"Cold Sweat" is a fragmented (or what I would call
>"Cuban-influenced") reduction of "So What"... James Brown's
>style as a whole was definitely influenced by Afro-Cuban
>music, but every time I've said that in the Lesson, I've been
>shouted down on some "you hate Black Americans so much, you
>don't want us to have ANYTHING!" shit.

But I've always supported you. Remember that.

(Hey I'm not checking the links right now. I know you're on point with that, I just want to be able to finish this reply)

>I mean, "So What" itself is rooted in Cuban rhythm, with its
>tense pauses. I've mentioned before that the song was clearly
>inspired by a rhumba composition by Ahmad Jamal:

I think one of the things your argument lacks is the internal dynamics of cuban music. What's the difference between rhumba and son? Is the influence from rhumba or son? My cuban composition mentor (in cuba) basically has the same debate we're having here and says it's all son, going so far as to say it's all inversions and rearrangemnts of the one clave motif. So What can be counted off as 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, with triplets in the first three count. But that 1, 2, has a dancers pace. I'm trying to think of the words to express what I'm trying to say about those.

There's a general free nature of rhythm in cuban music which begins from the drum flowing into the dancers. When we talk about the sacred rhythms especially. LOL!! The irony of this is not going to be lost on me. The drummer brings forth the orishas but once the orisha mounts, it is the dancer that gives the drummer their time. And so when I say dancers pace it flows fluidly from the movement not from the rhythm per se.

It's repeated into the head for So What a la jazz, similarly ballroom dancing repeats these and calls them moves that have to be hit with the precision of timing, but what they stem from is a far more loose interpretation of spirit.

Pre-embargo cuba was a hotbed for music, *BUT* in a very segregated way. So that audiences might only see the showroom forms with precise tight timing and never the sacred origins. Even the jazz musicians though I think there are some accounts of that with dizzy. So what you get is this reloosification but within it some refinements of something that was loose to begin with and then refined.

Bah I'm getting ahead of your comments....

>http://youtu.be/ZmvwCTMO1Lg
>
>http://youtu.be/q9eUqMbxWBs
>
>Maceo basically played it in a more fragmented fashion,
>utilizing the "honking sax" style that had come to
>characterize R&B.
>
>Did I mention that the "honking sax" itself has its roots in
>Cuban-influenced music? You know that Dizzy Gillespie's early
>bebop experiments were fueled by his relationship with Cuban
>musicians like Mario Bauza and Chano Pozo and his idea to play
>jazz with the repetitive rhythmic tumbao of Cuba, which each
>instrument functioning as a drum:
>
>http://youtu.be/IMipw5NWSZk
>http://youtu.be/s2Tt6W-TxXs
>
>and there is where you start to find the roots of what we
>today call "Funk."

So yeah that last paragraph is directly tied to all of this ^^^ and most of this vvvv

>I've pointed out before that a lot of James Brown's approach
>to rhythm was informed by Cuban rhythm. I know I've
>illustrated before how James Brown's earliest moves towards
>"Funk" were directly derived from New Orleans-style
>"mambo-blues" as popularized by, say, Professor Longhair:
>
>http://youtu.be/0UWBO4r11AY
>
>or Eddie Bo:
>
>http://youtu.be/q-LdVVfIdgc
>
>and then from there, we can check out how that sound
>influenced Ray Charles:
>
>http://youtu.be/xPP8w0wMRgQ
>
>and Duke Jenkins:
>
>http://youtu.be/108NtlpJkY8
>
>and then James Brown takes a stab at the sound:
>
>http://youtu.be/B1wOK9yGUYM
>
>and the rest... is history.
>
>But as Maceo has said, he and many of the other members were
>frustrated jazz heads, so they tried to bring bebop's
>complexity to the music. Which is why the signature sound of
>Funk involves extended chords like 9ths and 7ths and 11ths.
>But the funk musician plays in a more fragmented, reductive
>voicing... driving rhythm over complex harmony.

There was plenty of frustration because it wasn't connecting with the people directly and what they did definitely had that effect, but as you imply was only possible because of where they were bringing it from.

>For example: http://youtu.be/gF1d227_4ac (long video, but very
>interesting if you watch it all)
>
>Or:
>http://www.redbullmusicacademy.com/lectures/leroy-burgess--boogie-on-burgess
>(start at 52:07)
>
>So funk was (among other things) really a kind of broken down,
>more danceable form of jazz.
>
>(Damn, did I ramble past the point?)

Off track but on point. I'd only tack on though that funk too fell to placating the audiences following the cool jazz motif. And it is probably thanks to hip-hop that that whole line was able to find another medium. Unfortunately hip-hop too fell to placating audiences following the cool jazz motif.

There's a bit of necessity to it, for sustaining power even if that power doesn't last indefinitely but where there isn't the balance thats when the lineages are threatened. When there's a champagne soul without a funk, a cool jazz without a hard bop, a swinging jazz without a be-bop...that's how you get to the type of stagnancy we lament about today (though I don't think that's all valid).


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

>>Maceo has testified that the riff of "Cold Sweat" was
>inspired
>>by "So What," and when you listen to it, you can actually
>hear
>>it.
>>
>>(I tried to find a video of him describing it but I can't
>>locate it...)
>
>Don't doubt you but wish you'd found it.

http://youtu.be/h_sO5e5xhfo?t=5m41s

I originally said Maceo and edited it to say Pee Wee almost immediately after but it seems you had already started replying haha

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>http://youtu.be/h_sO5e5xhfo?t=5m41s

I'm still going to have to fall back on my previous stance that you may be stretching the scope of influence a bit far in this example. To me this would be the equivilent of a two note sample being categorized as taking the heart of the source material. It's taking a riff no more and no less. You can even tell in the way that Pee Wee plase the phrasings. It's not the complete riff it's just the last two notes, and they aren't even bing articulated the same.

Of course there's influence but it isn't the form just the riff and that's the discrepency. Again not even saying that jazz isn't an influence on the funk, but in this example the influence is a riff not the form, and so it can't be utilized as an example of how jazz influenced the funk as a form.

I hope the distinction I'm making is clear.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

those chord voicings he uses, those are "jazz chords."
and switches up the voicing every time he plays the lick,
and does it in a way that's very much jazz.

in fact, if you slowed down his rhythm guitar parts, they might BE jazz.
(i dunno because i could never play funk guitar, so i couldn't try it.
but i am sure somebody in this post could prove it).

so if nile roger's funk playing is any indication,
jazz and the funk DO take a lot from each other.


that's what i noticed a lot of my favorite r&b songs have...
a certain harmonic complexity that i pretty much only associate with
jazz.

i mean, hell-- when jimmy jam and terry lewis' gave janet an updated
version of the funk, they had her singing layered background vox
with crazy extensions... i think all that came from jazz.

you don't notice it because, it's pop...
but i think if you trace it back... it's probably jazz.


EDIT: i know you can't give one genre credit for chords...
but that level of harmonic complexity wasn't prevelant in
most rock or even most soul. it's all over the place in jazz though.

so i think it's more ths taking the last two chords of a riff.
more like an overall approach to harmony.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

Great clip btw. Thnx AFKAP.

>those chord voicings he uses, those are "jazz chords."
>and switches up the voicing every time he plays the lick,
>and does it in a way that's very much jazz.
>
>in fact, if you slowed down his rhythm guitar parts, they
>might BE jazz.
>(i dunno because i could never play funk guitar, so i couldn't
>try it.
>but i am sure somebody in this post could prove it).

The thing that he's trying to articulate is that he can slip them into the pop context because they are truncated into the rhythm playing rather than expanded out as harmonic chords. It's the rhytmic affect, and AFKAP speaks to that above as a nod to the cuban percussive use of instruments, hides what the chords actually are to the average pop listener so that it's not too sophisticated.

>so if nile roger's funk playing is any indication,
>jazz and the funk DO take a lot from each other.

I was never trying to make the point that they weren't related. I was just saying So What as the groove basis for Cold Sweat was a huge stretch to make the point.

>EDIT: i know you can't give one genre credit for chords...
>but that level of harmonic complexity wasn't prevelant in
>most rock or even most soul. it's all over the place in jazz
>though.

It actually comes from jazz trying to fuck with classical initially and then the jazz that was inspired by that (ala Duke and his influence on Mingus). To look for it in rock ans soul is backwards though. Jazz preceded them and as such if you don't find it in them it's either a reductonism (ehhhhh) or because they took more direct from the blues than jazz (I'd say this).

>so i think it's more ths taking the last two chords of a riff.
>
>more like an overall approach to harmony.

This may be so but it simply is not exemplified in the So What / Cold Sweat connection.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

>The thing that he's trying to articulate is that he can slip
>them into the pop context because they are truncated into the
>rhythm playing rather than expanded out as harmonic chords.
>It's the rhytmic affect, and AFKAP speaks to that above as a
>nod to the cuban percussive use of instruments, hides what the
>chords actually are to the average pop listener so that it's
>not too sophisticated.


Since he recently died, I'd argue that Horace Silver was definitley pointing towards chords used more as a percussive sound-thing as opposed to a neccessarily functional harmonic tool even if he was still very much rooted in that tradition.

However, my favorite Cecil Taylor DEFINITELY started to use complex chords more as a sound/percussion-device than a harmonic sophisticated thing in the 60's; I don't want to stretch it too far and get ridiculous but listen to his comping during the solos on a song like "Bulbs" (EDIT:"Pots", NOT "Bulbs"!!!) from 61; James Brown is not too far away even if the groove is missing; the chords are percussive sound-stabs that happens to be complex because of how they are voiced but the voicing itself isn't really about providing harmonic complexy to feed the soloists but more about sheer rhythmic sound for its own sake and the same can be said about most of his music after 61; the critics interpreted it as uber-complex because they came from a classical, chord/scale-relationship background but even a total tool like me who still has a decent ear for music and some memory of studiying can hear that *function* wasn't the main point; if anything his music became simpler harmonically regardless of how seemingly complex the chords were...

And what about the voici9ng in fourths-rather than thirds-in piano-playing during the so-called modal era? Wasn't the main idea that they could play vague, ambiguous progressions without getting in the way of the soloist freedom while still feeding material and being in key? Again, since the harmony was frequently static for long amounts of time, the chords were frequently amore about rhythm/sound within the mode than to provide a strictly defined harmonic background for the soloist that he was forced to meet as a "deadline", actually, i think that was a core idea behind modern jazz in that era...

Even a standard like Herbie's "Maiden oyage" which is strictly based on sus4 chords; that's not how you are *supposed* to use sus4 chords in classical tradition and the soloists don't exactly care too much for the harmony provided by *that* specific chord, it's more about a sound that sounds cool and sets a "mood" which is frequently how Herbie played...


Anyway, I don't want to sound like an asshole becauswe you are great but it seems like you are arguing for the sake of arguing here; "everyone" knows that various ideas from jazz was used in more "populist" contexts; from chord-voicings to riffs to solos to even tiny fragments like the So What-Cold Sweat thing which was always obvious as fuck to me; not because they have the same groove-which they don't-or some other bullshit but rather because that very interval placed like that was played by the horns on a jazz-album that practically every "serious" muscan in the 60's-from Maceo and the soul-session musicians to Jerry Grcia and Carlos Santana maaan/duuude-adored; no reason to make it more indepth than that; context man!!!

They did via other means which is why I said elsewhere that while I agree with AFKAP bringing it up I do think he tends to overstate it. We can't universally say that percussive playing in jazz comes from afro cuban influences. We can say the percussive playing of afro cuban music had a later influence on jazz. And to be fair it's not that he overstates it but here, he's had to defend it so hard it ends up coming off as an overstatement because folk want to deny the latter version because they only hear it as the former.

>Since he recently died, I'd argue that Horace Silver was
>definitley pointing towards chords used more as a percussive
>sound-thing as opposed to a neccessarily functional harmonic
>tool even if he was still very much rooted in that tradition.
>
>However, my favorite Cecil Taylor DEFINITELY started to use
>complex chords more as a sound/percussion-device than a
>harmonic sophisticated thing in the 60's;

Great call on both of those.

>And what about the voici9ng in fourths-rather than thirds-in
>piano-playing during the so-called modal era? Wasn't the main
>idea that they could play vague, ambiguous progressions
>without getting in the way of the soloist freedom while still
>feeding material and being in key? Again, since the harmony
>was frequently static for long amounts of time, the chords
>were frequently amore about rhythm/sound within the mode than
>to provide a strictly defined harmonic background for the
>soloist that he was forced to meet as a "deadline", actually,
>i think that was a core idea behind modern jazz in that
>era...

It's funny I was having a discussion of this thread with another jazz head offline and he brought up the relationship between modal jazz and the extension of the vamp. I really want to write something on vamp extension because man alive... as it relates here and with modal jazz as you're saying is that it allows the space for alternate harmonic relations to be explored.

>Anyway, I don't want to sound like an asshole becauswe you are
>great but it seems like you are arguing for the sake of
>arguing here;

That's my fucking MO Jakob. LOL!!

>from chord-voicings to
>riffs to solos to even tiny fragments like the So What-Cold
>Sweat thing which was always obvious as fuck to me; not
>because they have the same groove-which they don't-

This whole line of discussion started though because I LOL'd at the groove notion. That's the

>context man!!!

I wasn't trying to even go there but I'm actually glad it did because we were able to pull some great discussion from it, even if you did call me an asshole!


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

Because I think he did a pretty good job of demonstrating how a lot of funk was based on re-situating jazz harmony in a more urgent and danceable context. Of course it's different in form... nobody's claiming that it's the exact same thing or that if you pitch-correct "Night in Tunisia" it turns into "Mother Popcorn."

It's just that you had guys who were jazz players (or players who wanted to be jazz players) taking jazz harmony into R&B (which came from jazz to begin with a la Louis Jordan, Dave Bartholomew, etc). If you've ever played funk-style rhythm guitar (particularly of the James Brown/Jimmy Nolen variety), the first chord you learned was probably an Em9. Then you got into 11ths and dominant 7th, altered 9ths other fancy shit like that... those were not chords you typically employed in pop music back then. That kind of harmony was more associated with jazz.

Of course the rhythmic aspect is transmuted... that's what makes it more danceable. James Brown in particular really pioneered the notion of emphasizing the first beat, to the point where almost everything else is dropped.

So instead of

DA-da-da-da DA-da-da-DA --- (SO WHAT?)
DA-da-da-da DA-da-da--- (SO WHAT?)

you get

DA---SO WHAT!
da-DA---SO WHAT!

I mean, whether or not you think they sound alike, Pee Wee says that was his inspiration. I don't think he's lying; I don't see what points he gains by engaging in that kind of revisionism in this instance.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

To be clear though I'm not trying to deny the influence. I'm just saying that as an example it's less about the form, and as such isn't a leaping point to the broader point of the jazz links to the funk, even though I think those are really strong. I just think this is a week example.

Further this whole line of discussion stemmed from JCM (or the Music Snobs if its an accurate paraphrasing) that they had similar *grooves*. You really have to force that point because it's really just the end riff.

>Of course the rhythmic aspect is transmuted... that's what
>makes it more danceable.

Your forcing that on there. It's more danceable because james and co made dance music. This

>James Brown in particular really
>pioneered the notion of emphasizing the first beat, to the
>point where almost everything else is dropped.

... is what's driving the groove of the song, not anything brought over from So What. The thing brought over from So What is just the riff.
>
>So instead of
>
>DA-da-da-da DA-da-da-DA --- (SO WHAT?)
>DA-da-da-da DA-da-da--- (SO WHAT?)
>
>you get
>
>DA---SO WHAT!
>da-DA---SO WHAT!

All those Da's aren't related. You can force it but it's really not necessary to make a point that doesn't need to be made with this song. There's a ton of other stuff to work on like the Nile stuff JCM is mentioning above.

>I mean, whether or not you think they sound alike, Pee Wee
>says that was his inspiration. I don't think he's lying; I
>don't see what points he gains by engaging in that kind of
>revisionism in this instance.

Again I'm not trying to deny any of that just, not trying to have it go further than it has to.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

JCM referenced Nicholas Payton mentioning the inspiration, you appeared not to believe it, so I just offered confirmation that Pee Wee Ellis has indeed said it was so.

To be fair, I had not yet listened to the podcast at the time we started this discussion. Since then, I have checked it out and Nick's exact words claimed that "So What" and "Cold Sweat" were "the same groove."

I definitely don't agree with that.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>JCM referenced Nicholas Payton mentioning the inspiration,
>you appeared not to believe it,

nah my LOL was literally at the leap from riff to groove. but i was opting to leave it alone because at the end of the day it was a heresay argument that could have just been a misinterpretation or something.

>Since then, I have checked it out
>and Nick's exact words claimed that "So What" and "Cold Sweat"
>were "the same groove."
>
>I definitely don't agree with that.

Obviously neither do I and hopefully you can see why its a dangerously slippery slope. Thanks for the due diligence though.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

And
>most jazz musicians had to be fluent in classical in the early
>days.

In the big band era it became necessary for musicans to be able to read music for obvious reasons and the ability to read music is strongly connected with a classical background-as opposed to say folk or blues-but were the New Orleans guys fluid in classical? I don't think that is what the musicians really came from. They of course had frequently played marching-band stuff and shit but the fact is that there's a reason that a lot of New Orleans-era musicians didn't cut it in a big band context was simply because they couldn't read that stuff but instead had learned by ear.

Basically, the very *need* to find musicians who were well-versed in notation and shjt pushed jazz towards an emphasis on classically fluid dudes but I doubtr that was the case in the beginning.

In be-bop meanwhile, the musicans at least in the early days came from a background in playing in big bands so they had that and utilized it in different ways; like borrowing books from the library about complex relationships between various chords and scales and studiying Stravinsky etc. to make the solos more sophisticated (Charlie Parker was heavily into that and theory was actually genuinely hip in the bebop day).

It wasn't really until SOME branches of free-jazz that jazz-musicians got out of that bag and got more about *voice* and sound like in the early days as opposed to technique and complex chord/scale relationships

>I think it's interesting because of your perceptions of pop.


i do love pop more than most other ppl,
but i am wondering what you think is off, different, or interesting
about the way i perceive pop.

>>I think it's interesting because of your perceptions of pop.

>i do love pop more than most other ppl,

it really just boils down to this. you're a nerdist about pop. i respect that a lot but always have to take it into account because it's not your run of the mill whatever's hot stance, you really get it in with the pop shit. lol.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

i was out dancing last night, and the DJ dropped
Wham! "wake me up before you go-go."

no bullshit, that song swings. yes, i said it swings.
i suspect if it was recorded by count bassie or duke ellington by a big band,
it would be a standard.

but it was recorded by a teen pop group in the 80s,
so it's a song everybody pretends not to like,
even though it packs the dance floor everytime.




>>> you're a nerdist about pop.
>i respect that a lot but always have to take it into account
>because it's not your run of the mill whatever's hot stance,
>you really get it in with the pop shit. lol.
>
>█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
>Big PEMFin H & z's
>"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1
>thing, a musician." © Miles
>
>"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

That one and "Freedom", I never really thought of it as swing-jazzy, I'll pay attention next time I hear it...

i always thought "wake me up" was 60s motown, too.
and maybe it is, but it doesn't have the snare on every beat,
and also, there's no tambourine.

it didn't register until two ppl in the club started swing dancing.
then, maybe because i was still sorta thinking about this post,
i said... yeah, that makes sense.

probably explains why he put swing dancers in the video.

>That one and "Freedom", I never really thought of it as
>swing-jazzy, I'll pay attention next time I hear it...

"I'm Your Man" was more the Motown pastiche to my ears

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

Like Frankie Lymon & the Teenagers era.

And the "swing" I refer to is not the "high" swing era with Benny Goodman and Basie and the big bands... but rather the really late swing era, right before the Twist killed coupled dancing. Like this era: http://youtu.be/XToa4X7YEsc

(I know it's still lindy hopping but for some reason I associate that particular term with the WWII era)

Basically American Bandstand teenybopper music.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

will be back after I gather some thoughts...

-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>is the term jazz just a marketing gimmick?

that "Jazz" was an invention of Northern white people, and a commercial exploitation of his native NOLA ragtime (I'm gonna address that and "Kansas City Stomp," imcvspl... don't worry). He said this later in life, during the rock & roll era:

"Jazz is all the same--isn't anything new. At one time they was calling it levee camp music, then in my day it was ragtime. When I got up North I commenced to hear about jazz, Chicago style, Dixieland, swing. All refinements of what we played in New Orleans. But every time they changed the name, they got a bigger check. All all these different kinds of fantastic music you hear today--course it's all guitars now--used to hear that way back in the old sanctified churches where the sisters used to shout till their petticoats fell down. There ain't nothing new. Old soup used over."

>but now, i'm wondering if it's just another word for "music by
>and for jungle bunnies."

It's hard to say that definitely considering that the first groups to be described as "Jass" bands tended to be white and the first musician to be crowned "The King of Jazz" was the notoriously caucasian (and perhaps ironically named) Paul Whiteman.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

was desperate for relevance later in life. It was either attack mode or, there ain't nothing new under the son. It's one of those things I think just comes with being at the inception of a thing. It's difficult to see it grow beyond your influence even if your influence continues to echo throughout, so it becomes a reductionist, oh that's what we was always doing back in the day.

>"Jazz is all the same--isn't anything new. At one time they
>was calling it levee camp music, then in my day it was
>ragtime. When I got up North I commenced to hear about jazz,
>Chicago style, Dixieland, swing. All refinements of what we
>played in New Orleans. But every time they changed the name,
>they got a bigger check.

You have to be able to see the huff in this. Refinements or revisions. We can give him origins (though of course that's debatable) but to imply that everything that happened after was just folk doing what they were already doing is bullshit. They all had their own style and flair, and then there was the traveling which caused these to intermingle and become new styles and forms. The results though they can always be traced back to the root are a departure from it, so there is the umbrella (jazz) and then those things that flew underneath it.

I understand the NO stance on it, as a Bronx head with that bullheadedness about hip-hop, but if you get to dogmatic about it you deny all the beautiful things that happen once the child is outside of your care.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

I've said it before but i think it is worht repeating in the context of this thread:

A lot of people say that jazz died because it got divorced from pop and became this difficult art thing. Well, I think it's the opposite:Jazz got :saved: by that.

Had it not happened to jazz, I suspect jazz today would have the same status as doo.wop or jump-blues or ragtime or 50's R&B/rock'n'roll or whatever: yet another popular style of black music only given respect because of what it later inspired rather than something (most) people younger than, um, 60 listen to on its own terms. People seriously believe that jazz-if remaining pop-would have managed to compete against rock'n'roll/R&B/soul/funk etc.? FOH!!! Fusion and soul-jazz before pretty much proves that it was forced to be assimilated in order to remain "pop"-relevant; the "pop"-people were digging big-bands in the 60's? No, they weren't...

And it's not just that; what type of giants of 20th dcentury "high brow, art"-music has *really* managed to make a general impact on people even if it's just music-dorks? Is it Terry Riley, John Cage, Stockhausen and other born from a classical establishment that goes centuries back?

No, it's Miles, Monk, Mingus, Trane etc.-practitioners of an art-form that said establishment inititially dismissed as primitive jungle music. Is that not pretty damn cool? I think it is. Apparently, some feel otherwise and I just don't get it...

this thread has been fascinating to me because
it's made me rethink about all of the music i've already heard,
and get excited about all the music i still need to hear.

i am pretty new to jazz, but when i think about what
kept me curious about it for so many years before i dove in to start listening...
it's basically what you said.

the fact that it had become this arty thing,
and so many of my favorite artists seemed to know so much about it
made me want to eventually get to the point where i could appreciate it too.

and it wasn't just idle talk from my favorite artists, either.
they incorporated elements of jazz into their music.
the thing is, though... when stevie did "sir duke,"
i thought i was enjoying "FAKE jazz."

but really, it was the real thing.

i thought EWF were doing fake jazz on the "open our eyes" album,
but when i go back and listen to their influences... some of those
tunes could have been recorded way back when.

this thread is making me realize that my exposure to jazz
was maybe a little bit more thorough than i previously suspected,
because jazz wasn't something that stopped happening... it
grew and morphed as a part of a CONTINUUM.
(continuum is in caps, because your favorite artist, John Mayer, has a classic
album with that name... and his intent, i think, was to pay homage
to the people before him that were links in that chain.)


so basically, in part because jazz became this smarty art thing,
and in part because great pop/ r&b/ rock musicians always kept
incorporating jazz into their work as a part of their secrect sauce...

jazz never died, and maybe i've been listening to it this entire time
and just didn't notice it.

and the reason i didn't notice it is because jazz-- as a word, a marketing concept--
never gave a sense of how broad that music really was.



sneaky.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>And it's not just that; what type of giants of 20th dcentury
>"high brow, art"-music has *really* managed to make a general
>impact on people even if it's just music-dorks? Is it Terry
>Riley, John Cage, Stockhausen and other born from a classical
>establishment that goes centuries back?
>
>No, it's Miles, Monk, Mingus, Trane etc.-practitioners of an
>art-form that said establishment inititially dismissed as
>primitive jungle music. Is that not pretty damn cool? I think
>it is. Apparently, some feel otherwise and I just don't get
>it...

The cut off for this statement to remain true is the 20th century, the player era. Again go back prior 19th century and it's the composers era. But moving forward now that we are in the 21st century the value of those giants of the player era are being diminished and indeed it is the echoes of Riley, Cage and Stockhausen that are having a resounding influence on this the machine era. I could say more but I'll just leave it at that.


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

I was talking about actually listening to the artists in question. And since you are obviously referring to todays EDM-era, I see absolutely no reason why that would change; the people most likely to look back are those most dissatisfied with the present. And the influence of the avantgarde-giants of 20th century "serious" music on electronic music is severely overrated (the music would be more interesting if it wasn't BTW); more than anything, the "influence" comes through in shared technology/concepts for music-making where the classical establishment was undeniably ahead of the curve. Once the technology was in the hands of the "people", it mirrored pop/dance/rock/whatever-forms more than classical; Giorgio Moroder for example is a bigger *direct* influence on EDM than any classical composer.

FUCKITY FUCK FUCK FUCK!!!. YOU WANNA SEE ME SPAS OUT!!!! BWAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAH!!! THAT SHIT IS INFURIATING HULK SMASH SHIT MAN!! DON'T DO THAT AGAIN!!

> And since you are obviously referring to todays
>EDM-era,

NO I AM NOT. AT ALL!! THE MUSIC OF TODAY CANNOT SIMPLY BE REDUCED TO **ELECTRONIC DANCE MUSIC** IT CANNOT!!! YOU'RE WAY TOO SMART FOR THAT SHIT JAKOB!! EVEN IF YOU DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ANY KINDA MUSIC MADE WITH ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS, DON'T FALL INTO THAT REDUCTIONIST SHIT MAN!! FOR FUCKS SAKE!!

> I see absolutely no reason why that would change; the
>people most likely to look back are those most dissatisfied
>with the present.

Let's be clear. You're talking about what folk are listening to and I'm talking about influence. I'm not sure what you mean about people listening to Mingus, Monk and Miles though, so explain that? Only people doing that today are people that lived during the 20th century and small nerdish niches. Now don't get me wrong, the only ones listening to Riley, Stockhausen and Cage are small nerdish niches as well, but those nerdish niches are much bigger than the jazz ones today if you omit the twencengen from the accounting.

>And the influence of the avantgarde-giants
>of 20th century "serious" music on electronic music is
>severely overrated (the music would be more interesting if it
>wasn't BTW);

No it's not overstated if we're talking specifically about the three that you mentioned. Those three that you mentioned echo throughout so much electronic music, and I'm not just talking about the EDM shit. Shit if you extend that to Eno as a twencengen bridge you gotta realize it's a progressively bigger influence.

>more than anything, the "influence" comes through
>in shared technology/concepts for music-making where the
>classical establishment was undeniably ahead of the curve.

Yes. Ultimately I'd say its more philosophical which is why I characterize the difference as the player era vs the machine era. It's paradigm shifting in the very approach of music. People aren't even approaching music like the three M's these days. Their whole approaches come out of that avant classical lineage.

>Once the technology was in the hands of the "people", it
>mirrored pop/dance/rock/whatever-forms more than classical;
>Giorgio Moroder for example is a bigger *direct* influence on
>EDM than any classical composer.

I'm going to pretend like this isn't the way you're going to continue debating this with me so that I don't have to address this.

LOL!! No offense Jakob, you know I luh ya!


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

The availability of " evewrything" easily today coupled with how easy it is to avoid the "pop" compared with earlier makes the whole idea of talking about "general" trends in music practically irrelevant. Sure, the majords almost exclusively focus on "cutting-edge" pop nowadays but it has never been easier to have no fucking clue about the lastest mainstream trends than now; like, I'm trying to think about the 80's and how I could possibly have avoided the SA&W franchise pr Simple Minds or U2 or Bon Jovi and I can't-noone could!!! Its not like that today at all and the whole idea of small, nerdish clicks is in itself outdated becuas that's like "everyone" who don't listen to the radio unless forced and that might be the majority

Now
>don't get me wrong, the only ones listening to Riley,
>Stockhausen and Cage are small nerdish niches as well, but
>those nerdish niches are much bigger than the jazz ones today
>if you omit the twencengen from the accounting.

Is that something you *reaqlly* belive? I like Riley and-to a lesser extent-Cage as much as the, um, "next" man (don't care too much for Stockhausen; he's ''interesting'' I guess...) but you are telling me that even *young* people (and yes, I'm ignoring the 20 century folks) care more for "music for prepared pianos" or "church of anthrax" than " alove supreme" or "Kind of blue" or "black saint and the sinner lady"? No offense but thatäs some bizarro world shit to me alternatively you have a very selective idea on the "who" that "matters"...

Not that I can prove it but I don't care, I think the burden of proof here is on you (and no, I can't motivate why I feel that way either; I just do)