The late pianist, radio dj, educator, radio host etc. Dr. Billy Taylor originated the phrase: "Jazz is America's Classical Music." It was the topic of his thesis. On Apr 5, 2013, at 11:20 AM, David Lewis wrote: > For the time being, Ken Burns' Jazz is rather solidly entrenched as a tool > in jazz studies courses curricula as "there is simply nothing better about > the subject." And for ten years, it basically > silenced most other prospective film projects that might have dealt with > jazz topics. Some got through, including a docu about free jazz called > "Inside Out and in the Open" which was made > as a reponse to Burns' rejection of that style as irrelevant. It appeared > in 2008; I don't think it has been very widely seen. > > I once attended, in high school, a demonstration by singer Kathy Wade in > which she said that "the blues led to jazz and jazz is America's classical > music." It was a program designed to reach > kids and this phrase was repeated several times like a mantra, despite the > fact that it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue and is anti-historical. It > is pretty easy to document how separate blues > and jazz are in terms of development and where they connect, and how the > blues as understood by jazz players really isn't the same music as what > Charlie Patton played. This idea was being > advanced, though, in 1978 as I saw it. Kathy is a lovely lady and a fine > singer, but I would like to know where this comes from and why it is > important to promote it. > > Naturally, the problem with jazz being "America's classical music" is that > America has classical music already. Roll over Aaron Copland; tell John > Knowles Paine the news. I have issues with > any agenda that works on disenfranchising or discrediting some other kind > of music. From that stems the notion that you only ever want to listen to > the best, as listening to discredited music > is like investing in a delisted stock; it might seem attractive, but really > isn't a good idea. However, music is not like that: if you enjoy Erroll > Garner, what would keep you from enjoying the side > of Carmen Cavallero that is close to that sound? > > I do have a partial answer: there seems to be at work a conservative black > agenda behind a lot of this, one that not many folks of my shade are even > familiar with. Nick Payton elsewhere on his > blog states that he does not support President Obama and is glad that he is > relatively powerless, as it just shows that the old white power structure > is still in control. And this does echo some of > the attitudes that I have heard from other friends of mine who are > conservative African-Americans. I believe that their perspective matters, > but I don't think it should be regarded as the only one > that is regarded with any validity on these topics; it's too limiting. They > may hate ODJB and Paul Whiteman, but I recently joined a Paul Whiteman > facebook page that is far more active that I ever > expected one would be; it's almost too much, and I may drop it. What to do > with all of the 'discredited' people, listening to 'discredited music'? I > don't know, but one thing for certain is that they will > remain silent. > > UD > Lebanon, OH > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Wolf, James L <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I've been appreciating this discussion a lot. Sounds like its about time >> for a solid historiography of jazz, meaning a critical evaluation of the >> different ways in which jazz history has been constructed. >> >> One term for jazz that's always bugged me is "African-American Classical >> Music." To me, this speaks volumes not so much about racial identity but >> about class identity. By trying to claim to the golden ring of class status >> in music, certain jazz historians and musicians assume that European >> classical music actually occupies some throne of music and that jazz needs >> to "raise" itself by association. Both of these assumptions are absurd and >> unnecessary, IMO. >> >> Jazz's history is as complex as America's history, and that's how it >> should be. So I hope a lot of this reaction to Ken Burns gets taken up by >> academics and makes its way into the general populace. >> >> James >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto: >> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carl Pultz >> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:09 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] revisiting an old thread -- jazz anthologies >> >> Fascinating discussion - thank you, all. >> >> I recommend a book I recently read: "Where the Dark and the Light Folks >> Meet: Race and the Mythology, Politics, and Business of Jazz" by Randall >> Sandke. As with any study of such a complex subject, it should not >> represent a definitive or final judgment on the history of the music. It >> does reflect the experience of musicians I've known, for whom the late 60s >> and early 70s were a heart-breaking time of exclusion and distrust. It gets >> at some very uncomfortable things. >> >> The research also makes the Burns series dominant model of two racial >> tracks, parallel but isolated, appear that much more absurd. But, it is PBS >> and it is KEN BURNS, both brands that have a lot invested in mainstream >> consensus and pretty pictures and golden memories, calculated to liberate >> the check-books of "viewers like you." >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto: >> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don Cox >> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 4:13 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] revisiting an old thread -- jazz anthologies >> >> On 05/04/2013, David Lewis wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> Jazz is certainly not the same thing as "black American music". >> >> Do we have to define it ? >> >>> 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-b >>> lack-american-music/ >>> >>> Uncle Dave Lewis >>> Lebanon, OH >> >> I would divide jazz into N categories, where N is the number of jazz >> musicians. >> >> It is more like a network of relationships than a stack of boxes. Modern >> wiki-style databases make it easy to show cross links from any one person >> to others. >> >> One odd feature of jazz is the rarity of family links - there is nothing >> like the Bach family in jazz. (The junior Brubecks are not really great >> musicians.) >> >> Regards >> -- >> Don Cox >> [log in to unmask] >>