LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  April 2013

ARSCLIST April 2013

Subject:

Re: revisiting an old thread -- jazz anthologies

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 5 Apr 2013 06:41:28 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (108 lines)

Hi Dave:

Wow, this new discussion is the ULTIMATE of historical revisionism and political correctness.

JAZZ or Jass, as has been known as a distinct music for over a century now, is definitely NOT just a
"black" musical form. It's an amalgam of long-standing European scales and chords, march tempo and
other elements, plus European instrumentation, combined with African rhythms and the same African
elements that formed field chants and then the blues. Jazz and blues, especially in the early years,
borrow liberally from each other, and continue to influence each other to this day.

Yes, the first practicianers of early jazz were mostly black and creole (which is in itself a "mutt"
just like jazz is "mutt" music, which is what makes it so distinctly American, from a country of
"mutts"). But almost immediately the music was embraced and mastered by white musicians. The first
recordings were by white musicians if you count ODJB as the first band to record. Most of what Cary
and I were complaining about, ignoring the Hot-Jazz Revival musicians and ignoring Latin-jazz stems
from racial politics. Injecting new racial politics into the study of jazz would be a big mistake.

I can't understand why people just can't embrace the whole spectrum of jazz and celebrate it as
AMERICAN music, the "mutt" that is in, the product of a "mutt" country. We should all strut the
mutt, as our local dog shelter says on its banners. More importantly, appreciation of those who were
great jazz musicians and those who moved the music in new directions shouldn't depend on their skin
color. Jazz is one of those areas that, from early in its history, it was a meritocracy. It broke
down silly and arbitrary skin-color barriers (aside from the fact that mixed-race bands existed from
the early times forward, anyone can study the lives of folks like Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong,
Benny Goodman, John Hammond, Norman Granz or Fletcher Henderson and form the same conclusions).
Leave it to the PC crowd today to re-erect barriers!

As for slicing and dicing jazz into "micro-categories" -- why??? The beauty of the music is that it
ebbs and flows in so many directions, it's massive and varied like the country of its birth. I think
there may be academic bones to be made (ie publishing rather than perishing) from slicing off tiny
sub-genres and writing too many words rather than letting the music speak for itself, but I see no
other purpose to over-classify any type of music. That's the main beef about many of the
well-known/well-regarded anthologies and the Burns documentary -- the definition was too narrow from
the get-go. So why narrow things further?

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lewis" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] revisiting an old thread -- jazz anthologies


>I note that in 2009 someone noted that "discussion of jazz is finally
> coming out from under the shadow of Ken Burns' 'Jazz.'" One direction the
> discussion is now taking is the idea that the word
> 'jazz' itself is inappropriate to identify the central core of the music,
> as it is shackled to a milieu of colonialism and slavery. The term "Black
> American Music," or BAM, or #BAM has been suggested
> as an alternative by trumpeter Nicholas Payton, who cites that musicians
> such as Duke Ellington disliked the term "jazz" and Louis Armstrong stated
> that in New Orleans in the early days the term
> was not used.
>
> I've met Nicholas Payton, a long time ago, and I liked him very much
> personally. But even he has said that he is not the same person that he was
> 15 years ago when we met, and in all fairness, neither am I.
> I will not link directly to his manifesto of thinking on this topic because
> I think the foul language and content of the piece would tend only to
> enrage many of the people here. Below my sig I have a link to a
> (mostly negative) article about it, which does contain a further link
> to Payton's statement, for those who dare. You've been warned.
>
> I do understand how such a designation, or one like it, might help to
> separate out the desirable core from music that was either already around,
> or also evolving, circa 1916-22 that is either distantly,
> or not, related to it, all of which is called "jazz" in historical
> advertising and other sources. But if you look at its history, what we
> commonly call jazz covers a lot of territory that develops swiftly and
> overlaps.
> In just the years 1945-50 alone, we have bebop, progressive, the decline of
> swing, sweet things like Marjorie Hughes vocal on Frankie Carle's "Oh! What
> it Seemed to Be," Buddy Clark's last recordings,
> Frank Sinatra's first solo outings, the rise of Latin Jazz. All different
> things -- some may say Marjorie Hughes doesn't fit, but what she did is not
> far off what we regard as jazz singing from other singers
> who have reputations for that sort of thing. So you take BAM out of that,
> and all of the other stuff goes flying off into other directions
> category-wise. And there's a bit of a problem in separating the
> Latin Jazz and the bebop, as they are clearly related in this period. And
> most listeners at the time couldn't tell the difference between bebop and
> progressive; it was all modern jazz, and many people then hated it.
> Which brings up the question as to how important historically derived
> categories are; it appears that we adopt some and reject others with no
> traceable lineage as to why we determine that some are not
> useful.
>
> So my main question is; are we all ready to redesignate such individual,
> past styles into microcategories, much as has been done with popular music
> of the last two decades? I do not know the difference
> between Darkwave, Screamo or Slowcore, but they are all out there and are
> recent. If we have to develop new authorities, who's going to make the
> call? Are there folks on this list who already have devised such
> smaller categories in their own systems? I can see at the library/archival
> level where the idea might be desirable. But I do not see how we would rid
> ourselves of the word 'jazz" in regard to the past,
> and I can't say that getting rid of it altogether because "it is holding on
> to an oppressive idea" is reason enough. If you want to be rid of it in
> regard to what you are playing now, then I guess I don't
> have a problem with that.
>
> http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2012/01/10/call-jazz-call-black-american-music/
>
> Uncle Dave Lewis
> Lebanon, OH
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager