Explain jazz to me. Please!

True, not all jazz is created equal. For example, I understand where Ornette Coleman was coming from; I just wish he’d gone back there much sooner. :wink:

Personally, I’m a huge, huge fan of the late Sarah Vaughan, and have a respectable collection of big band music of the '30’s and '40’s as well.

Kenny G, OTOH, sucks the sweat off a dead man’s balls. :cool:

Joshua Redman. Now thats good Jazz music

Here ya go:

“If you have to ask what Jazz is, you’ll never know.”

–Louis Armstrong

OK, OK.

“That’s one small note for a man, one giant leap for music”

No, wait. Ah here it is:

“Man, if you have to ask what it (jazz) is, you’ll never know…” – Louis Armstrong
[and if I may say so, you could do worse than listen to some of his music for a more accessible start to jazz]

This isn’t really a question with a cut-and-dried answer, so I’m going to move it to Cafe Society, where people can theorize and debate to their hearts’ content.

Oh, and Joshua Redman? That’s NOT good jazz music.
– Uke, listening at the moment to Dizzy Gillespie’s band live at Newport, 1957, Benny Golson soloing on tenor on “Cool Breeze” right now, which IS good jazz music.

I’m definitely not a jazz afficianado - tastes run more to blues, but I really haven’t been too terribly into any music lately.

One thing that confuses me a bit about “jazz” is that it covers so much. I recall my college roomate enthusing over an album - Circle Orange? To me, it was unlistenable noise. And much of what I like best of an artist such as Miles fans consider his least interesting work.

I really like big bands. But I’m not sure whether I like jazz, swing, R&B, or just bands with horns.

And I love the piano behind Charlie Brown and Mr. Rogers.

On a recent trip to New Orleans, I was not thrilled over the prospect of the music. But I spent a wnderful afternoon in Jackson Square listening to a fabulous band - 2 trumpets, 2 tubas, trombone, 2 banjos, an incredible clarinet, the most beat-up upright bass I’ve ever seen, an American Steel guitar, a bass drum, and a washboard.

Some more adventurous jazz I equate with some modern symphonic compositions. At best, it seems to me to be an acquired taste. Personally, it impresses me due to technical brilliance, but provides little if any aesthetic enjoyment value. Almost like a mathematic exercise.

Well, I guess I doidn’t have much to add to this discussion! :rolleyes:

I suspect Satchmo said what he said because he already explained it in the proper format. I refer you to the first song on the album On the Road, “I Love Jazz,” an excerpt of which can be heard here.

A-well you take some skin
Bah-dump, dum-dum
Jazz begins

Take a bass
Doo-doo-dah-doo-dah
Now we’re gettin’ someplace…

And dead men don’t sweat, but that doesn’t keep Kenny from trying.

I know next to nothing about Jazz, but when I was in High School, I knew even less.

I played Trumpet and Cornet in Marching Band and Symphonic Band. One day someone invited me to play in Jazz Band.

So we’re playing along to our sheet music, and I suddenly notice that there’s a Big Black Bar across the staff, with “17” written above. I thought there was a 17-measure Rest.

Imagine my surprise when we hit that musical roadblock and I stop playing, but everybody else keeps going. I was thoroughly confused. Where the heck were they getting this from? What means “vamp”?

I never showed up again.

I always thought Louie’s song was called “Now You Has Jazz”–it’s a duet with Bing Crosby, no?

"Take a spot…one that’s hot
Now you has jazz, jazz jazz…

…If you sail across the sea
Take my tip, they’re all molto hip in Italy.
As for France, believe it or not,
The Frenchmens all prefer what they call ‘Le Jazz Hot.’"

I can’t quite see that anyone has really answered the question posed by Hayduke Lives!!, which is basically "can anyone help me understand jazz?

Let me give it a shot. Take an art form that has a clear set of rules. At first, over time, have artists who violate, or at least play with, at least one of those rules. Then keep building on that, breaking more and more rules, until the artists more consciously realize they are breaking rules and explicitly look for more rules to break - the act of rule-breaking becomes the expression unto itself. Sure, there will be movements to restore some of the rules, etc., but there will be a stream of progression.

That’s what has happened with art - think of the rules: Paint in a representative manner, use perspective, layout the picture on the canvas a specific way, respect the boundaries of the canvas, focus on religious/mythological imagery, etc. You get the idea. As you know, as we have moved from Impressionism, through Cubism, Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism, etc. each of the basic rules was violated, sometimes piled on top of each other.

Same thing with music, and jazz specifically. Think of the rules: melody, harmony/chord construction, rhythm/meter, etc. As jazz evolved, it played with or broke rules associated with each of those components. And, like people have mentioned, the musicians began to (for the most part - there are always exceptions) place more weight on being able to improvise real-time, as well as push on anything to outshine the others - if what was cool was playing fast, they tried to play faster, etc…

If you truly want to understand jazz, you might be well-served to:

  1. understand the basic evolution (or at least movement) from New Orleans/Dixieland jazz, through swing jazz (which moved into both Big Band jazz and jump blues, a personal fave), be-bop (a small combo response to bigger swing bands) to hard bop, to cool jazz, through free jazz ( completely inaccessible to 99% of the world) - I totally oversimplified but you get the idea.

  2. Start with the more accessible stuff and move through to the stuff that plays with and breaks more rules. The easiest way would be to watch Burns’ Jazz documentary and listen to the soundtrack. I have to get back to work, so I don’t have time to try to list examples of each style.

Hope this helps.

Think of each instrument as a voice. Now imagine jazz as a conversation. Sometimes there’s agreement, sometimes there’s argument, discord, harmony, etc,etc…

It’s lack of structure is a bit intimidating, but if you listen to the background noise of a group all talking to eachother, a pattern eventually forms. Same can be said of free-form jazz.

To me, scat is silly and contrived, but I like the fact that a human voice can be used as an instrument. That’s what fascinates me about people like Bobby McFarin(sp?) and those human beat box rap guys. Anyway, I’m going off on a tangent now, sorry.

Give Jazz another listen. You might aquire a taste for it.

Wordman,

That was about one of the best explanations I have heard and I am a Jazz musican.

Wow - how flattering - thanks! What do you play - both instrument and style of jazz?

wordman hit it right on as a good description of jazz. If you really want to get a good taste of what jazz is I recommend getting a copy of Kind of Blue by Miles Davis. There is something in that album for everyone, from the professional jazz musician, to someone just looking to get their feet wet.

The original poster mentioned the jazz show on BET, from what I’ve seen on that show the musicians are just not that great and wouldn’t be a very good showing of what jazz is. Also Kenny G his pop style does NOT count as jazz, as a jazz musician I can tell you that in the jazz community he does not contribute to the art form. His musical ability is lacking, but he makes a lot of money.

Believe it or not there is a lot of theory and structure in most jazz, and to someone who doesn’t know what to listen for it can be intimidating. It has the depth of poetry, but to someone who doesn’t have the education to appreciate it will throw it out because it doesnt make any sense. Jazz takes time to learn and appreciate, it is a high art form that doesn’t seek to please the casual listener (unless of course you are Kenny G, but that’s not jazz :)).

Let me attempt to add something helpful:

With the possible exception of “free” jazz, there is a form that is being followed. Jazz is “advanced” music (nowadays, anyway) and sometimes the form is difficult to discern, but it is there.

When I first got interested in jazz, I was already a trained classical musician but even so, I could not hear the form at first. I believed, incorrectly, that they really were just making it up as they went along.

Not so. The improvisation is based on the rhythmic and chord structure of the “head” - the tune itself, usually played through once at the beginning and at the end. In between are the improvised choruses, which depart from the melody but retain the original chord structure. Each improvised chorus is exactly as long as the “head”, and the chord changes take place at the same points.

This may be nearly impossible for a beginner to hear, because chords are improvised on so freely, using harmonic extensions to the basic chord. Example: in classical music, a C major chord is just C-E-G. Jazz adds the seventh (B) or the sixth (A) for starters, then proceeds upwards from there, adding the ninth (D), the eleventh (F, usually modified to F# in a major chord) and the thirteenth (A again). Taken all together, these extensions add up to an entire jazz scale based on C major, which is what’s improvised on when the chord is a C. The beginner hears these extra notes as “outside”, but through repeated use they become “inside”, which is why postmodern jazz improvisers are always seeking to go further and further “outside”, using notes that sound clashy even to an experienced jazz listener. Personally, they lose me here: my harmonic tastes are solidified circa 1961.

The “sharp eleventh” - F# in a C chord - used to be a very “outside” tone that outraged the traditionalists in the 50s. Now, it’s practically banal.

Anyway, my main point is that they’re NOT “making it up as they go along.” (except in free jazz.) They know exactly where they are in the form - at any given point, the musicians could sing the melody that would be taking place over a particular chord - they “know where they are in the tune.”

As for rhythm - yes, it can be stretched and “random” sounding at points, but the underlying beat never changes. Everybody knows exactly where each downbeat is, even if it’s just implied and never actually played. A great example of this is the four classic Bill Evans trio records with Scott LaFaro - they hardly ever actually play on the downbeats, but they are in perfect agreement on where the downbeats are. They dance around them, because playing right on the beat is too “obvious.” Sorry if this sounds pretentious.

The form of the entire tune is preserved during improvisation. If the melody was 32 bars long, each improvised chorus will be 32 bars long - you could time it with a stopwatch, if you’re unable to actually count along.

Try listening to a jazz recording of a tune you know. Sing the tune multiple times while listening to the improv. You’ll find that it matches up; the improvisation goes with the melody, round and round and round. Of course this is not done too obviously; jazz players are always pushing the envelope.

Lisa Simpson: “You have to listen to the notes they AREN’T playing.”

Some Guy: “I could do that at home!”

Hayduke, Wordman’s explanation was right on the money. And I’d just like to suggest a little Duke Ellington.

And Keith Jarrett. Don’t forget him.

I don’t think I have much to add to the excellent replies so far but since his name keeps coming up I thought I’d add a link to what Pat Metheny thinks of Kenny G. He really starts to fly off the handle in the last 3 paragraphs. I’m not a fan of Metheny’s new-agey smooth jazz style but but he’s definitely got the chops unlike Kenny G.

My own love of jazz was inpsired by my grandfather, a pianist and arranger, who constantly played tunes by Fats Waller, Scott Joplin, Art Tatum, Duke Ellington, Teddy Wilson and others throughout my childhood. As I grew up, my listening progressed although I admit I still don’t quite get Ornette Coleman or John Zorn. As a non-musician, my understanding has always been somewhat intuitive and this often makes it difficult to explain what I see in jazz to non-fans so I definitely appreciate Wordman and masonite articulating their own thoughts so well.

Cheers,
Hodge (who’s currently listening to the excellent Pat Martino: Live At Yoshi’s)

Does swing-big band count? Like Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, the Dorsey Brothers?

Darn right! Don’t forget Artie Shaw or Count Basie.