I swear this is one musical number that stays in my head for days after I see it, and it’s one of those parts of a movie that I can’t turn away from if it shows up on TV.
OK, I know it’s not jazz or even close to it. It has a very strong rhythm, and the choreography emphasizes that. If I try to break it down into its component parts everything seems uninteresting. But as a whole, it is mesmerizing (to me).
What’s up with that, say you?
Roddy
I asked that question to an expert once. She said she “don’t know whether it’s morning or night, only know it’s sounding right”. Then she finished cleaning my room and left.
The original number from the moviefor anyone unfamiliar.
And by Julie again, live on Broadway.
And by Kurt on GLEE. (Be glad you aren’t seeing the video- it’s awful staging and costuming.)
Notice that the original is almost objectively the best.
Curious why you felt compelled to put this disclaimer. Have bullies who you believe have more Jazz “Cred” than you made fun of you for liking this song?
I have no complaints calling it a Jazz song. It’s dressed up with a Broadway style arrangement, there are other influences besides Jazz, but it’s a Jazz song as far as I’m concerned.
I think Sampiro’s housekeeper (chambermaid? mother?) has the best take on it. If it’s fun, it’s fun.
I don’t personally love this one. I kinda think songs about music devolve into self-parody: I love The Carpenters but I hate “Sing”, I love ABBA but I hate “Thank You For The Music”. Somehow, it’s often (but not always) o.k. to have a Rock song about Rock n’ Roll, and it seems like every Zydeco song is about Zydeco, but beyond that I don’t love songs about music.
I will give credit to “Le Jazz Hot” for being a way better song than “Now You Has Jazz” from High Society. Speaking as a huge Cole Porter fan, I have no problem saying “Now You Has Jazz” totally sucks.
I just wanted to say that Victor/Victoria is one of my favorite movies. It would be interesting to see the German film Victor und Victoria That the Andrews version is a remake of.
Generally speaking, “music experts” cannot say why you especially like a particular song.
However I can tell you that the songs that resonate the most with any indiviual do so because frequencies and rhythms in the music align in some way with those that exist within you.
It’s why some people are “Deadheads” and others don’t understand the appeal of the Grateful Dead’s music.
Yeah, I agree with that. I’ve never heard this song before and, listening to it, it just seems like a fun number. Nice rhythms, good melody, nice musical build. It’s not my usual cup of tea, but what’s not to like about it?
I only agree with that in the most metaphorical sense.
I love this movie. I find myself singing the other one “Shady Dame from Seville” more often though.
I love Robert Preston’s version of that song. “You bitches!”
I love Robert Preston in that movie generally.
“Were you ever in the army?”
“Oh, once or twice.”
Regards,
Shodan
Curious why you felt compelled to psychoanalyze my innocuous remark. The only bullies I listen to are my internal ones.
By the way, I didn’t say it isn’t a jazz song (I wouldn’t know how to define that anyway) just that this arrangement and performance only discuss jazz, they do not represent it.
Having said that, I can see that I have apparently asked a stupid question. Or maybe not. There are people who have studied the effect of different musical styles and arrangements on emotions; such factors as time signatures, rhythmic accompaniment, and so on. I was hoping for some input on that level.
Lacking that, I have decided that it is a combination of the driving rhythm, the arrangement of the percussion accompaniment, and the choreography that do the most for me.
Thank you, Sampiro, for the link (if not the snark), I should have included that myself.
Roddy
[QUOTE=Roderick Femm]
Thank you, Sampiro, for the link (if not the snark), I should have included that myself.
[/QUOTE]
Snark is a contraction of “snide remark”. By definition it is intentionally offensive in nature.
If you took personal offense from the above, I sincerely apologize- I was going for smartass but inoffensive with a mild aftertaste of absurdity to which add a pragmatic purpose and contribution and not an intentionally or personally insulting intent- but I also suggest you’re too sensitive by far for SDMB.
It’s not a jazz song. It’s musical theater, it’s cabaret, it’s broadway… and it’s derived from the sound of jazz. It has the swinging rhythms of jazz, the harmonies, the colorful chromaticism, but it’s not jazz. If you got a bunch of people together who identify as jazz musicians, they probably wouldn’t suggest playing this.
I loved this film since I was a kid. I’ll agree The Jazz Hot stays in my head too. That may be because it’s a showtune, but it’s got amazing aria and jazz motifs that grab the moment.
If you got a bunch of people together who identify as rock musicians, they probably wouldn’t suggest playing “Back in Black”. I’m going to be bold here and suggest nevertheless that “Back in Black” is a rock song.
Music genres are not neatly separated nonporous baskets that conveniently separate one musician’s contribution from another. There are varied influences that make up this particular arrangement and performance of this particular song. If a listener connects with “the swinging rhythms of jazz, the harmonies, the colorful chromaticism”, the listener is enjoying Jazz.
Genres are a continuum of grey. Some performances are so very removed from the characteristics of a specific genre, that it’s easy to say “Ella Fitzgerald’s performance of ‘Miss Otis Regrets’ is not a Ska song” other performances blend enough of different influences that it is just ridiculous to dismiss conflicting but reasonable genre evaluations from different listeners.
Wait. What? “Back in Black” would be exactly the type of song I might expect. I mean, I guess I see your continuum argument, but “Back in Black” is pretty much right smack dab in the middle of “rock,” whereas “Le Jazz Hot” is on more on the fringes, more likely to be called “jazzy” than “jazz.” I completely understand what Roderick and Moe are saying. No rock musician is ever going to argue that “Back in Black” isn’t rock, but I can totally see picking nits about “Le Jazz Hot” among jazz musicians.
Well, I’m a full time Jazz musician and I don’t have any problem calling it Jazz. The word Jazz has been around since the 1910s. It’s been spelled Jaz, and Jas. It means what it means only in context. Ragtime is Jazz, Dixieland is Jazz, the Pop music of the 20s is full of examples of Jazz. It didn’t mean the same thing in the early part of last century as it does now.
The movie was set in the 30s, and I’d say that, in the context of a stage show, that piece was as much “Jazz” as the songs from “Jesus Christ Superstar” were Rock.
Jazz has come to mean music which contains a lot of improvisation, and is based on chord changes which often feature recognizable motifs with added altered chords and passing chords. In the context of the 30s, the word has fewer constrictions.
I’ve played in pit orchestras with sheet music that allowed for improvisation within the score, mostly when the music resembled 20s or 30s Jazz. It’s not a good example of 30s Jazz, but it wasn’t meant to be … it was meant to be (as far as I can tell) a tribute to the Jazz of the time, as composed by a writer working within the limitations of a stage show featuring dancers, and not for an after hours Jazz club.
Limiting the definitions of words that are as “big” and full of ideas as Jazz is a mistake, IMO. Better to add additional adjectives (Soul Jazz, Smooth Jazz, Jazz Rock)
I was just picking on Moe for trying to support his point by claiming that jazz musicians “probably wouldn’t suggest playing this”. As if that disqualifies the song from being classified as jazz.
Gather together some rock musicians and ask them if “Back in Black” is rock and they will probably say yes. Ask them if they like “Back in Black” and I am sure most of them would say yes.
On 100 different occasions, gather together a whole lot of rock musicians into 100 different groups. Note what songs they suggest playing. There may possibly be no such instance of any one of those groups ever suggesting “Back in Black”. By Moe’s logic, we could then say “Back in Black” isn’t rock.
I was just pointing out that he really wasn’t doing anything to support his argument with the assertion that jazz players probably wouldn’t suggest playing “Le Jazz Hot”.
Sure. I was taking his example a little more loosely.
This is kind of interesting, as the “Jesus Christ Superstar” example is exactly the analogy I was going to make for rock, but then didn’t feel like muddying up the conversation. I would say “Le Jazz Hot” and “Jesus Christ Superstar” are analogous in the same way to jazz and rock.
The funny thing about this is that I teach private guitar lessons and I’m currently working on Back in Black with not one, but 2 different students who chose that song to learn rock. Me thinks there are some flaws in your example.
I don’t believe I’ve ever claimed otherwise. That doesn’t mean there aren’t boundaries. Maybe Back in Black is jazz?
Well, admittedly I can’t out-credential you here. I’m a composer and professional musician who’s played in jazz bands, but I’m a mediocre jazz musician at best. Would you consider Milhaud’s “La Creation du Monde” or Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” jazz?
It’s interesting to me that you wrote above
Jazz, like other genres, is a living and breathing art form. I’ve composed fugues in the style of Bach (or at least that was my goal), but I wouldn’t say I was composing Baroque music, because wrapped in the genre are not only the notes you hear, but the time period and culture and performance practices that led to those notes being chosen.
I do agree with your last sentence. I’m actually very hesitant to define the boundaries of what I consider jazz, and I think I take a very broad perspective of it. I agree that Ragtime and Dixieland are “jazz”, along with Ornette Coleman, 70s Miles Davis fusion, and Bela Fleck’s bluegrass infused sound. Superficially, these examples sound worlds apart, but they have more in common with each other in terms of the artistic process and skill set involved in creating the music than “Le Jazz Hot” does with any of them. I’m happy to call it Musical Theater Jazz, or Cabaret Jazz, or whatever, but I’d question the usefulness of such a label. I’m not saying there’s not a ton of overlap between jazz musicians and musical theater musicians, but there are differences in the skill sets involved.