Talk:Jazz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Jazz is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 21, 2004.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Jazz (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject United States / American Music / Louisiana / New Orleans (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American music (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana - New Orleans (marked as Top-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject African diaspora (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Media (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon Jazz is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

Modern Jazz?[edit]

How come there is not one reference to Modern Jazz? 84.189.6.118 (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The term is problematic: What would you say "modern jazz" means? Where would you draw the line as to what is modern, and why? And what does that make other kinds of jazz? See related discussion at Talk:Contemporary jazz. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the section on jazz post-1980 is particularly poor, especially w/regards "traditional" or "straight-ahead" jazz. First off it needs great expansion. Futhermore, I don't think what's already there adequately portrays the current state of the music. Particularly, to talk about a "traditional-experimental divide" and to claim that the jazz community "split" doesn't seem (to me) to be accurrate. Much as Wynton and his critics may seem to play into this idea, I think many fans are equally interested in "both sides" of the "divide". Furthermore, the distinction is difficult to sustain with many (most?) contemporary musicians, who have adopted both traditional and avante-garde elements in their music (are people like Keith Jarrett, David Murray or James Carter "traditionaists" or "experimenters?" The fact is that they are neither, or rather they are both). Also, calling musicians "traditionalists" seems to imply a lack of creative development, which I think is also unfair and perpetuates the myth that ridiculous myth that jazz has stayed still since the 70s. I think it makes more sense to talk of jazz post-1980 in terms of pluralism and hybridity rather than taking the segregationalist approach the article does in its current state. (Figaro-ahp (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC))

Problems with Lede[edit]

These do not seem to be helpful -- I doubt any serious work on Jazz would deny that Jazz originated, at least primarily, in African-American communities in the South and that 19th and 20th century American popular music was based upon (with, of course, further developments) European music.

I agree that blue notes and swung notes (which are derived from ragtime) are not of West African origin, although certainly improvisation, syncopation, etc. are (and have other, independent, origins) -- this section should be rewritten, but West Africa should not simply be eliminated as a place of origin Editor437 (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) There are many jazz scholars who argue that the music arose in a variety of locales, and some of these scholars are covered in the source cited. (2) American popular music has roots in African, Indian, and Latin American musics as well as European. It's misleading to single out one contributory stream. (3) Most jazz historians distinguish between "ragtime" and "swing" as two different concepts. (4) The source cited states that "...musical practices in the US cannot be traced to specific populations in Africa with any degree of certainty" (p. 7). Since most of these elements have other origins in addition to Africa (which is also addressed in the cited source), it's misleading to attribute them to Africa alone. In general, the lede section should be strictly accurate, and should maintain strict NPOV on issues that are disputed in the scholarly literature.Verklempt (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing the cite to a source that conforms to the statement hardly solves the problem. In fact, that is downright dishonest. When there is not scholarly consensus, then the article's lede should not take sides, per NPOV.Verklempt (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you are edit-warring to remove sourced material on this point. Naturally there has been discussion on these antecedents, but there is scholarly consensus, and this should be reflected in the lead. It is your edit which has difficulties with NPOV. I believe you have been told this many times in the talk archives of this page.
If you wish to have minority views mentioned in the origins section, or, even more appropriate, a footnote, that would be acceptable, probably desirable in fact, for the sake of completeness. But your edit-warring on this point is untenable. 86.44.27.87 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
First, I restored the citation that had been blanked, and conformed the lede to what the cite actually says. That is good editing, not "edit warring". Second, the new cite you added does not support the disputed contention any better than the old cite. Third, you cannot simply wave your hands and claim "scholarly consensus", especially not on the basis of one falsified citation. There are many recent scholars who describe the older jazz history as mythical -- including Shipton. As long as there is controversy, for the lede to take sides is a violation of NPOV.Verklempt (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
What you did was make an edit to make the article conform to your POV—of which the talk archives are already full—and then when I changed your edit, reverted it to your version. I call that edit-warring. That you were busy reverting to your version before I even got here is merely more grist to that mill. We now have a lead to our jazz article which doesn't mention black people or Africa. Shall you now get to work on the word "African" that still survives? Will we have to bear more arguments on the level of your "there were no pianos in the Sahel"? Who is doing the handwaving here?
I don't know why I have to put up with your saying I falsified a cite. What's your evidence for saying this? Had you even read Shipton when you made this claim? It sounds to me like you just read a gloss on him. Do tell.
Gunther Schuller's Early Jazz: Its Roots and Musical Development (1968) offered a chapter studying in detail intrinsically African elements in early jazz (endorsed by Shipton). Paul Oliver summarizes extant jazz texts in Savannah Syncopators (1970): "[certain studies in Dahomey, in Ghana and in Haiti] amply supported the contention that the rhythmic character of New Orleans jazz, the multi-lineal structure of its instrumentation and the melodic-rhythmic nature of jazz improvisation were essentially 'African' in origin. These contentions could be borne out and can be explained readily enough in terms of enculturation and acculturation", while the New Grove Dictionary of Jazz (2nd. ed. 2003) defines jazz as "A music created mainly by black Americans in the early twentieth century through an amalgamation of elements drawn from European-American and tribal African musics."
Shipton is indeed careful in inspecting evidence and history. He re-examines the "political" context commonly attached to the development of bebop, for instance. And he expands the range of influences acting on the formation of jazz, by looking at songster repertoires, string bands, familiarity of early figures with European classical music etc. A measure of his caution can be seen in his treatment of call-and-response. He depreciates the idea of it as an African trait informing the formation of jazz because, it exists in sea shanties (dating back at least to 1493), shanties and worksongs were connected to the African-American tradition by dint of the slave trade itself, and early jazz does not show a call-and-response influence to a significant degree. This despite his noting its parallels in African work song and griot practice. But excepting this, he states clearly that there is a consensus view on African traits that he does not depart from. Shipton:
"blue" notes, and their accompanying syncopated rhythms, are the most obvious elements of what the Grove definition calls "tribal African musics." In most jazz literature they are referred to as "African retentions", that is, survivals from the indigenous music of West Africa that was transplanted into the United States and kept alive among the African-American population during and after the era of slavery.
...
There is a consensus among historians that by the end of the nineteenth century, three distinct forms of African-American music had started to emerge: ragtime, blues and jazz. All of them shared a similar patrimony: the cross-fertilization of African musics to different degrees with various European forms.
...
The outline presented above is broadly incontestable. There are few precedents in Western music displaying the basic ingredients of jazz, notably polyrhythmic and polytonal ensembles, a strong accompanying rhythm that emphasizes what (in European music) are regarded as the "weaker" second and fourth beats of a four-beat measure, the microtonal flattening of certain pitches of a scale, and collective improvisation over a regularly repeated pattern. These are intrinsically African contributions to the mix.
Later: all the examples i single out are undeniably present in African music
That two or three musicologists may have pointed out that say, improvisation existed in some other tradition, flattening of pitches in yet another, and so on, do not outweigh overviews like these. Like many POV-pushers you by fault or will do not understand WP:NPOV and are trying to force the article to conform to your own. I don't consider you a good faith contributor here and hope that other editors will deal with you. Falsification indeed. 86.44.26.152 (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Try to abstain from ad hominem, and instead focus on the issues at hand. Specifically: (1) the "West African pedigree" statement. No one disputes that blue notes and certain rhythmic elements derive from African survivals. However, the lede goes much further than those commonly accepted assumptions. For example, whether or not these elements can be traced directly to a specific African locale or ethnic group is disputed in the literature -- the cite you deleted being a prime example. Furthermore, the other elements of jazz in that list are not all attributed solely to African retentions in the literature -- call and response being a prime example. The lede should not take a side in unsettled scholarly debates. (2) The assertion that jazz began solely in New Orleans or any specific locale has been disputed by many historians -- including Shipton. I think that citing Shipton in support of a geographically specific origins hypothesis is a falsification of Shipton's position. I have recalled Shipton from the library to double-check, but what Shipton says exactly is besides the point. The central issue here, once again, is that the lede should not take a side in an unsettled scholarly debate, and it should certainly be scrupulous in representing the contents of the sources cited. I personally agree with the New Orleans-centric hypothesis. I have been advocating deleting the position that I agree with, in order to improve NPOV here -- which rather invalidates your ad hominem accusations of "POV-pushing". (3) No one disputes the primacy of African American contribution to early jazz, but there is an extensive literature examining the multicultural nature of the early jazz community. To attribute the invention of jazz to AAs *exclusively* is inaccurate, and replicates the outdated approach to jazz history that is generally rejected by most contemporary jazz historians. Again, the lede is not the place to address this complex issue.Verklempt (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Commenting on the nature of your edits to the article and the talk pages is not ad hominem. You could do with some focus yourself, as precious little of the above post has anything to do with the edit you reverted and claimed was a falsified cite. Is it your view that West Africa is too specific a locale? I must say I find that an extraordinary objection. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
(1) Yes, "West Africa" is too specific, given that slaves were imported from all over the continent, and given that the literature is unsettled as to the significance of any specific African locale's contribution to jazz. (2) You still haven't addressed the problem with assigning the origins of jazz to the US south, given the objections to that in the scholarly literature. (3) You still haven't addressed the problem of assigning the origins of jazz to "African American communties" alone, given the objections to that in the scholarly literature. (4) If you don't see the relevance of these three issues in the edit I made, then what is the nature of your objection to these edits? (5) Accusing editors of "POV-pushing" and lacking good faith is an ad hominem argument, and it is unproductive. Again, please focus on the issues I raised.Verklempt (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I contented myself merely with rebutting your claim that i falsified a cite. As you can see, the elements attributed to west africa are correctly sourced.
Given the importance of the Ashanti, Dahomey and Oyo kingdoms to the transatlantic slave trade and the studies of Dahomey musics, this doesn't surprise me.
Who exactly, besides you, objects that west africa is too specific? Please give correct representation rather than quotes that may not give the overall shape of the argument presented. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
(1) The quote that you distrust is from the cite you deleted. Pay attention! (2) You still haven't addressed the other issues I raised.Verklempt (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there some problem with taking your issues one at a time? Forgive me if I am more interested in the point where you claimed that I falsified a cite before all others.
You're talking about "...musical practices in the US cannot be traced to specific populations in Africa with any degree of certainty" (p. 7)? This is one partial quote from Chapter One of the Oxford Companion to Jazz. I'd be interested in what the rest of that chapter says, since the cite was to the entire chapter. But taking that quote in isolation, it clearly doesn't support your argument, especially in light of the stuff I patiently typed up for you. Who exactly, besides you, objects that west africa is too specific? 86.44.20.40 (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
What, basically, have you to suggest we should overturn Shipton's In most jazz literature they are referred to as "African retentions", that is, survivals from the indigenous music of West Africa that was transplanted into the United States and kept alive among the African-American population during and after the era of slavery 86.44.20.40 (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
One of the passages you quoted from Shipton makes the salient point: that the call-and-response aspect of jazz cannot conclusively be attributed to African cultural retention, much less a specific region in Africa. There are many other authors who also interrogate various elements of the received origins myth, including call and response, blue notes, the false dichotomies "black/white" and "African/European", etc. A few samples from the extensive literature on the topic might include (besides the cite you deleted): Tagg, Philip, 1989, “Open letter: Black music, Afro-American music and European music”, Popular Music, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 285–98; van der Merwe, Peter. 1996. “The Italian Blue Third”, in Hautamäki, Tarja and Tarja Rautiainen (eds), Popular Music Studies in Seven Act. Department of Folk Tradition, Tampere University and Institute of Rhythm Music, Seinäjoki; Martin, Henry and Keith Waters. 2001. Jazz: The First 100 Years. Thomson Wadsworth; Martin, Denis-Constant, 1991, “Filiation or Innovation? Some Hypotheses to Overcome the Dilemma of Afro-American Music’s Origins”, Black Music Research Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 19–38; Low, Augustus and Virgil A. Clift, editors. 1984. The Encyclopedia of Black America. New York: Da Capo. Pp. 591-596; Palmberg, Mai, ed. 2001. Encounter Images in the Meetings Between Africa and Europe, Nordic Africa Institute.Verklempt (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I've read Tagg and van der Merwe (for interested readers, Tagg's letter is online here). "The Italian Blue Third", "... Some Hypotheses to Overcome the Dilemma of Afro-American Music’s Origins", these are exactly the kind of discussions I've already referred to. They don't change the fact that there is a consensus position outlined by Shipton.
(Call-and-response isn't in the lead, btw) 86.44.20.40 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You're still not addressing the issue at hand: the lede should not take sides in a scholarly dispute. There is no question that a consensus jazz origins narrative was developed in the first half of the 20th century, that most jazz histories replicate that narrative, and that elements of that narrative are still common even in more recent scholarship. However, it should also not be controversial to observe that many elements of that origins narrative are crumbling in the face of recent scholarship, and that many jazz historians today (including Shipton) are crafting new, more complex narratives of early jazz history. These are all issues that should be addressed in the body of the article. However, the lede should not take a concrete position on these unsettled questions. You are claiming that a scholarly consensus exists, when I've given you a number of cites that demonstrate the opposite, and could easily come up with more of the same. The existence of such counternarratives in recent scholarship proves that there is no settled consensus today, and that the received narrative has been undergoing extensive revision over the past two or three decades.Verklempt (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
As the article stands now, my view is that these discussions merit a footnote or a parenthetical comment in the body. If you want to expand the Origins section or spin it into a sub-article to explore these issues further, I would encourage that and help with that. It's an interesting topic. But since Shipton is aware of these discussions and has already summarized the consensus position for us and endorsed it to the extent it is as in the lead, there is no problem there. The lead is the article in summary, and it gives the correct weight to things. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
We've already established that the old consensus position has been undermined by recent work. For further evidence of this, see the cite you deleted, pp. 41-42: "If recent scholars have refuted many of the established jazz myths, they have not yet replaced them with a cohesive story of thier own." Also see Terry Teachout, Commentary, March 2007: "By 1950, “legendry” had hardened into a widely accepted narrative not unlike a creation myth. In the baldest form of this myth, jazz was created at the turn of the 20th century by a group of black New Orleans musicians descended from slaves who “Westernized” the polyrhythms and microtonal melodic inflections of their African ancestors, thereby bringing into being a new form of improvised folk music played by small instrumental ensembles [...] Virtually all of the earliest general histories and analytic studies of jazz—including Robert Goffin’s Aux Frontières du Jazz (1932), Wilder Hobson’s American Jazz Music (1939), Frederic Ramsey and Charles Edward Smith’s Jazzmen (1939), Hughes Panassié’s The Real Jazz (1942), Marshall Stearns’s The Story of Jazz (1956), and Martin Williams’s The Jazz Tradition (1970)—took the broad accuracy of this myth more or less for granted. Even though it simplified and misrepresented history in any number of significant ways, the absence of serious primary-source research into the origins of jazz made it inevitable that “legendry” would get the better of fact. Indeed, to this day the creation myth continues to be espoused (albeit in a more subtle form) by amateur historians like Stanley Crouch and Ken Burns." Teachout goes on to describe the more recent revisionist scholarship. Shipton is not the last word on what the current consensus is, since there really is not yet a new consensus position, per the quotes above. I've demonstrated this repeatedly, with multiple cites.02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
<------outdenting>
We're lucky. We have an extremely recent (1st. ed 2005, 2nd ed. 2007) book on the history that does our synthesis for us. Discussions leading on from Tagg and van der Merwe merit a footnote. 86.44.17.205 (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Shipton's synthesis is contested by the two cites in my last comment. We are starting to go in circles here. You claim there is a consensus in the literature, based on your single cite to Shipton. I have provided multiple cites that demonstrate there is not a consensus -- and could easily provide even more -- and your response is to cite Shipton once again. You are not being responsive to the argument at hand. How about we put Shipton in the footnote, and write an really good encyclopedia article, one based on the entire range of primary scholarly works instead of on one amateur synthesis of dubious validity? Isn't it better to represent the entire range of recent scholarship, instead of just the one guy you prefer? Isn't that what NPOV demands?Verklempt (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
How many of your cites are basically discussions of Tagg and/or van der Merwe? How many are from major works? How many making an argument? How many presenting an overview? How many doing both? What weight is given to these discussions in any overviews you cite? Read WP:UNDUE. 86.44.17.205 (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
(1) Are you saying that you cannot be bothered to obtain and read the cites yourself? How can you take an informed position if you're not willing to study the literature? I have pulled the cites you gave me, and I am rereading them now. If you're not willing to do the work necessary to educate yourself on these issues, then stand back and let people who are better informed than you are edit the article. (2) Re WP:UNDUE, your argument that there is a consensus position is based on a single cite to Shipton. My argument that the old consensus is in flux is based on two cites: one to a standard reference work published by Oxford University Press, and one to a synthesis by the New York Times music critic. If anything, Shipton is the outlier here.Verklempt (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
lol. Surely you're not referring to Teachout? He's the music critic for Commentary (also the drama critic of the Wall Street Journal), perhaps you were confused? And however radical his take may be, he's not referring to the Grove, to Shipton, to Oliver, or even to Schuller. Shipton seems to be as careful in reviewing the received wisdom as anybody, certainly he makes the point often enough. Presumably Teachout is riffing off Tagg and van der Merwe as with the Nordic Africa Institute paper, and the Oxford Companion takes into account the same to a more moderated degree.
My questions were more intended to suggest a need to put these discussions in perspective.86.44.17.205 (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Teachout -- he writes for the NYT as well as the other pubs, and is clearly a mainstream source, not at all "radical". Schuller and Oliver are fine, but they are representative of the old consensus that has been reexamined over the past few decades. Shipton is okay, nothing special, and hardly the last word on any topic. And then there is the cite that you deleted from the article -- the Oxford Companion. I agree that these issues need to be put into perspective, which is why the lede should not take sides in unsettled matters.Verklempt (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Without even reading the whole discussion, let me assert that ragtime is normally played in straight eighths/sixteenth, as it originated from the cakewalk. Swing originated from African American slave songs (from which the blues derives as well), such as "Wade in the Water". The concept of playing ragtime in swing feel came much later, influenced by stride piano. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A Serious Proposal to Deal with Problems with the Lede[edit]

So, based on Verklempt's criteria for exclusion, the article should open with something like the following:

Jazz is a American form of making sound which originated around the beginning of the 20th century or late 19th century from a confluence of sound-making traditions.

  • Can't say it is music -- some older writers of "serious" music call it noise -- by Verklempt's standards "music" is replaced by the NPOV "making sound"
  • Cant say it originated just in the beginning of the 20th century -- some sources call ragtime "jazz", so we add "late 19th century"
  • As Verklempt has argued, we can't talk about influences, so we just say "traditions"
  • Can't talk about styles -- Is "acid jazz" a style of jazz or rock and roll - there is disagreement here; is ragtime jazz or its own form - again, disagreement

Editor437 (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure you didn't mean a modest one? 86.44.17.205 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course - Judging from the discussion here and User talk:Verklempt (an example: "Thanks for the "warning", but such nonsense still doesn't substitute for reason and evidence. Try to learn to construct an argument, and perhaps you'll do better in school"), it seems silly to try to engage in a serious conversation with someone who is trying to push an agenda. Everyone would hate the lede if changed per my proposal, but they will find no factual errors to argue about.Editor437 (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

john altman - jazz musician[edit]

please check my piece in talk page of John Altman as latter article devoted to british actor whereas the musician of same name is huge and of course huge-r. thanks

check this out: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0022903/ and also this: http://www.jazzcds.co.uk/artist_id_8/biography_id_8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.84.1 (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jazz Fusion[edit]

Wouldn't it make more sense to just mention Weather Report rather than saying Zawinul, Shorter and Pastorius? 71.12.169.10 (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but Zawinul and Shorter were the founders and the only steady members, while Pastorius was the most influential figure besides them. Therefore, it makes full sense. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Race[edit]

Race is definitely a big issue when it comes to jazz. I was wondering if there are any artists of the past who have strong reputations in the African-American community but never became particularly popular among whites. Thanks. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a very interesting question. The jazz audience has always been majority "white", and so "white" tastes drive the recording industry and major concerts. Once you get into the "smooth jazz" of the past two decades, the "AA" audience becomes more significant. But whether it outnumbers the "white" audience? I don't know but I dooubt it.Verklempt (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I have always known it as the other way around, and have always been told by my superiors, Smooth Jazz = White. Way white. But they may have just been using that as a metaphor for "unhip." 24.197.158.170 (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that patrons of jazz clubs and people who buy the records tend to be largely white.The musicians and creators of this music were and continue to be mostly Black. I have been a recording and live performing jazz musician for the better part of 45 years and I can tell you that among musicians race matters less and less the older we get.Oldpanther (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

On Race (responding to above discussion) -- and spirituality and politics in Black jazz[edit]

I can't say whether there are Black jazz artists who are more popular among Blacks than they are among Whites, since from a purely demographic standpoint, there are more Whites than Blacks who buy and listen to jazz, because they simply outnumber Blacks with access to the music and the money to patronize it -- not because jazz is not popular among Blacks. And while jazz is, of course, less popular among the youth -- and that is true across ethnicities -- like much of African-American music, regardless of genre, jazz influences/extensions are ubiquitous throughout today's popular music.

Perhaps, the gap between Black and White supporters of Black jazz artists likely was more pronounced during the Black Arts Movement, when Black nationalist and Afrocentrist themes preoccupied many artists across expressive media. The same may hold true today, but likely to a lesser extent. It seems natural that specific works that are decidedly more overtly Black nationalist in their musical themes and political bent would have less appeal to White than Black audiences.

Certainly, however, the reverse can be said about White musicians, generally, with regard to fan base. I agree with User: OldPanther that musicians themselves seem to care most about virtuosity than skin color -- but there is, overall, a vast gap between the way Black and White jazz buffs regard White musicians. In my experience, Black audiences tend, generally speaking, to patronize Black and Latino jazz artists more than White ones. Many White and Jewish musicians, rightly or wrongly, tend to command less respect and often are perceived as lightweights or copycats -- but not just because of skin color. If they are, say, a Kenny G. or others of his ilk, it is because they represent a departure from straight-ahead jazz into a less respected genre, "smooth" jazz. That Kenny G. is Jewish and not Black only exacerbates the contempt (perhaps too strong a word; "disregard" may be more accurate) with which he tends to be regarded among many Black jazz aficionados. Still, the issue of perceived cultural appropriation is a real one, and particularly with Jews and Black music, historically. Lots of Black folks prefer to hear the "real thing," as opposed to a White or Jewish "imitation." In my experience, African-Americans, generally will patronize talented Black and Latino artists before even, perhaps, equally talented White ones. My jazz collection -- and those of the Black jazz lovers I know -- contains probably less than a handful of White artists, unless they are sitting in on sets with Blacks or Latinos. And while some of us also listen to and enjoy some White/Jewish artists there are simply too many jazz masters' works out there we don't have; too many artists whose music may have more substance or resonance with us, culturally or politically; too many struggling artists of color, domestic and internationally, who need support. For us, listening to Kenny G. do jazz is like listening to James Taylor cover the Drifters' "Up on the Roof." It's just weak, listless, impotent. The fact is jazz remains seminally an African-descendant art form; the most recognized jazz innovators and masters have been virtually all people of color. And even when White artists are compared, Black audiences generally don't toe the line of White/mainstream hype. Ask any Black person who was the superior clarinetist, and the so-called "King of Swing," Benny Goodman, simply doesn't measure up to Artie Shaw. He could play circles around Goodman.

One important thing (related, perhaps, to differences in the appeal of certain artists among ethnic groups) this article fails utterly to address is the deep spirituality of Black jazz artists and how that spirituality is consciously, deliberately expressed in the music. Thelonius Monk, Duke Ellington, John Coltrane, Leon Thomas, Pharaoh Sanders, Charlie Parker, Hubert Laws, Archie Shepp, Sun Ra, Nina Simone come immediately to mind -- and on and on. This may be true (but to a lesser extent) with White artists as well. John McLaughlin's Mahavishnu Orchestra comes to mind, but that is more specific to that group and not -- to my understanding, at least -- a pervasive and constant thread in White/Jewish jazz through the decades, across ensembles/soloists, as opposed to as is the case with Black jazz. You simply can't write effectively about Black jazz and not mention spirituality. And then there are the politics of Black jazz -- both thesis topics in and of themselves, cartainly are ones that deserve at least some treatment herein. deeceevoice (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Up until the last paragraph, I'm not sure what this has to do with improving the article. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Funny. (Not really.) I don't see you objecting to the entries that prompted my response. Delete everything but my last paragraph, or give it a rest. deeceevoice (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Major Omissions[edit]

Art Tatum has been described as one of the greatest jazz pianists of all time by many top rank musicians and critics, yet he is not even mentioned in this article on jazz. While he bridged the swing and the bebop eras, Tatum was sui generis and not representative of any particular genre of jazz, having developed a unique style that combined many stylistic elements, which makes him difficult to categorize. See the Wikipedia article on Tatum for more. 96.242.113.198 (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Kolef88


Seriously, no mention of Tatum? How can you take a summary of Jazz music website seriously when it omits people like Michael Brecker, Wes Montgomery, and George Benson? This is what happens when musicians do not participate in the process. And btw, it makes very little sense to put down "smooth jazz" in the form of an opinion... by a music critic, who's never had to support his family with music. It's ironic that most professional jazz musicians play "smooth jazz" today... Everett Harp, David Sanborn, Kirk Whalum... seriously good players earning a living playing the music that people want to buy. Parker died poor, while Miles played watered down jazz and made his money, but I don't hear people putting miles down. And while we're on omissions, why doesn't someone actually listen to what's out there... toss in Scott Henderson, Larry Carlton, Alan Holdsworth, Otmaro Ruiz, the Yellowjackets, ... they're the musicians of today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.121.228 (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Music and Society[edit]

Beyond discussing genre and form in a chronological fashion, this article is devoid of sociological perspectives on the relationship between jazz and white society. We need more on mainstream white perception of the evils of jazz in the early twentieth century, Pat Robertson's recent odd comments, its adoption by universities and NPR, etc. In the comments above, there's a little bit on race, but let's keep going. Music is far more than form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.112.205.63 (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

please consider a jazz website to link to[edit]

Thanks very much for considering www.jerryjazz.com as an external link on the "jazz" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.242.210 (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger of List of jazz standards[edit]

Hi, I've proposed a merger of the different lists of jazz standards into List of jazz standards. You can comment on the merger on the article's talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical opposition to jazz by conservatives[edit]

It would be interesting if the article could document the historical opposition to jazz by various groups of conservatives. For instance, archbishop Louis-Nazaire Bégin made vehement condemnations of modernism, jazz music, dancing, and cinemas and the frivolous fashions of women, which he described as offering serious dangers, if not approximate occasions, of mortal sin.[1][2] ADM (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Lester Young not a bebop musician[edit]

I see Lester Young listed as a bebop musician.

Unless there is a good reason for this to persist, I intend to remove his name from that section and move it to swing and kansas city jazz.

Young was an extremely sophisticated player harmonically. In fact, Charlie Parker studied Young's music intensely and it's fair to say that to a degree Parker is sped up Lester Young, but I know of no justification for classing Young with the bebop movement. Except for an occasional big stage, all star extravaganza he never shared a stage with Parker, Gilespie, Powell, Monk, etc. Too bad he didn't, it would have been marvelous, but it never happened.

Historically, Young was a veteran of the Kansas City territory bands, played with Count Basie, and peaked commercially during this period. Artistically, he was productive long after that of course, but I know of no authority that lists him as a bebop musician. Nor should he be. Side issue: Because his formative years took place in Algiers, LA (across the river from New Orleans), a case can be made that he's yet another brilliant product of that's city's fantastically prolific music culture. Nolatime (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

OK. I believe I have given enough time (a week) for comment and since no one has posted contrary information, I will delete Lester Young from bebop and put him in the swing category.

I came across this long sampling of Young's music from the 1930s to the 1950s and there is not a shred of bebop in it:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=58DD5DFEE4493431

This is not to diminish is musicianship. As I stated early it's well known that Charlie Parker studied Young's harmonically and rhythmically sophisticated solos intently does not make Young a bebop musician. Nolatime (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

Incorporating a few of the Jazz sub genres listed as "Fusion genres" into the main article.[edit]

I think that some other jazz genres, in particular "Modern Creative", should be included in the main article. After all, if it is necisary (and I would agree that it is) to include musicians (which most of us probably despise) like Kenny G or Jamie Cullum, surely we should include some more artisticly inclined musicians from the 80s-90s period such as John Zorn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P-we Joplin (talkcontribs) 16:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Etymology of Jazz" section seems cramed in.[edit]

The Etymology section seems to interupt the flow of the article. I don't think it should be put inbetween the "Origins" section and the "1890s-1910s" section. It should be placed somewhere else, perhaps inbetween the "Definition" section and the "Origins" section. However I am relatively new to wikipedia and do not know how to move sections.I didn't want to try and move it myself incase I ruined it. If the only way to move it is to retype it completely then I am willing to do this, but only if a few people here agree with me (I don't want to ruin the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by P-we Joplin (talkcontribs) 17:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Screw it I changed it anyway[edit]

The etymology of the word "jazz", which is cited, is not connected with the acutal usage of the word in the area of music. The music of the South, before going North, was called "jizz", in addition with "dixie-land" and "rag-time", initially as a cultural reference toward the environment in which it developed. Jizz being a substitute for the word sperm was symbolic. When a man and woman "party"[sexual intercouse rituals], jizz[sperm] can put life in the party. The word "jazz" was simply a "socially acceptable" version of the word "jizz", which simply was a referecne toward "party music". Period! Party music is all it has ever been. On mans symbolic "tongue in cheek" reference toward the "hoochi-koochi" music of his day! The music jargon talking man, who was influencial in the early twenties, Louis Armstrong. The "scat[shit]" talking and singer/player loved playing with words. In what is called "polite" company, "jazz" was not an offensive word.

Professor Eliyah Currie THANK YOU THANK YOU for the above statement, when I was growing up in New Orleans in the 50s all the old cats talked about "JIZZ" music became "JAZZ" when it got respectable. These were mostly musician s who had been playing since the turn of the century and had witnessed the move from ragtime to jazz.Oldpanther (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

i wanted to add a tidbit regarding etymology, which would be that i have heard old Germans (with no knowledge of Jazz as a musical form) using "Jass" as slang for eclectic/eccentric/absurd/nonsense behaviors/actions/statements/things, and would have normally assumed that Jazz comes from the labeling of improvisational/"unstructured" music accordingly. can't prove it, but maybe it might help discover the etymology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.188.15 (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, as the "j" (as in jump, joke etc.) is uncommon in German (outside of loan words like job and jackpot), which normally pronounces it as a "y" (e.g. Jahr, jung). Unless "jass" is pronounced "yass"? You said yourself you can't prove it (and please see WP:SELFCITING, so I'm not sure how this helps us. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Somebody should really edit the article in this connection, and replace the prudish understatements there. Some random notes:

  • My father, who grew up in South Carolina in the 1930s & 40s has told me that he remembers being told that jazz was a bad word.
  • The original lyrics to the song, "Six or Seven Times" refer to "a certain thing" which a woman demands of her man "six or seven times."
That certain thing I mean is daddy jizz.
  • In William Faulkner's Sanctuary a former prostitute vows that she won't go back to jazzing for a living.
  • Many white men first experienced jazz music when they heard it in brothels, where they went to jazz. This recapitulates the history, from an earlier generation, of the popular name for the music white men heard in brothels when it was rag-time at home.

Jdcrutch (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent history[edit]

Judging by this article, one would assume the history of Jazz grinded to a halt about 15-20 years ago. Does anybody know what's been going on in Jazz since the mid 90s? Because it would be a useful thing to have in the article. Zazaban (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a bit on punk Jazz, but I feel it could be a bit shorter. Zazaban (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
And I've cut it a bit, feels more concise now. Also expanded the smooth jazz section, leaving something of an orphan paragraph describing in brief acid jazz, nu jazz, and jazz rap. May move it into the period intro, but it doesn't fit there either. May expand it. Zazaban (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed Jessica Williams from the short list of 'well-established jazz musicians who continue to perform.' I think that this might have been inserted as an self-advertisement, honestly I have been playing and studying jazz for a long time and had never heard her name before I came across this section. She doesn't warrant placement with those other names on that listing, unless it was an exhaustive list of well-established jazz musicians, which it is not.--CGBass (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I intend to put together the bossa nova stuff into one paragraph, rather than split between two as it is now. However, I am too tired right now. Will do it in the morning. Zazaban (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Acid jazz, nu jazz & jazz rap[edit]

I've just created this section, and it is messy and way, way too big. I will work on cutting it down, probably down to about two smaller sized paragraphs. Zazaban (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The section is WAY too big, as is "Punk jazz and jazzcore." I propose merging them (into a section titled "Contemporary styles influenced by jazz" or something similar), and cutting the resulting section into one concise paragraph. These quasi-jazz modern styles take up over five times the space in the article than the "Hard bop" section, which represents the innovations of Miles, Blakey, Horace Silver, Brown and Roach, etc.BassHistory (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Taylor quotation[edit]

The quotation near the top has been vandalized and restored so many times that it would merit a quick check for accuracy by someone who has access to the cited reference. - Special-T (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit to "Smooth Jazz"[edit]

The following was removed for the main article: "Music reviewer George Graham argues that the “so-called ‘smooth jazz’ sound of people like Kenny G has none of the fire and creativity that marked the best of the fusion scene during its heyday in the 1970s”.[1] yea" STOP

When Wikipedia starts submitting opinion pieces on this topic, then it should go back in. Kenny G may play with an absence of soul, but defaming an entire genre over on person's opinion on one artist within a genre only hurts the Jazz art form as a whole. I wasn't a fan of Ornette Coleman, and many other musicians of his time weren't either, but I don't see any of his detractors crying foul over his approach to jazz. Besides, as long as there are people buying smooth jazz, jazz musician will play it... it's called earning a living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.121.228 (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a blog - yours or anyone else's. I'd guess that most editors of this article have opinions about jazz, since they wouldn't be interested in it otherwise. If you have reliably sourced additions that can improve the article, please do so. Anyone can edit, but your edits to this talk page are just your opinion. See WP:OR, WP:CITE, WP:NOT, and WP:SOFIXIT - Special-T (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Given a comment from the same IP address elsewhere on this page ("This is what happens when musicians do not participate in the process"), I would also add WP:SELFCITING to the list of suggested reading. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Smooth Jazz section has turned into a big ball of uncited opinion and POV. I'm preserving it here and heavily editing the article. - Special-T (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In the early 1980s, a lighter commercial form of jazz fusion called pop fusion or "smooth jazz" became successful and garnered significant radio airplay. However, it's Wes Montgomery who is credited with being the founder of the smooth jazz approach to jazz, with the release of his album Bumpin' (1965), which blended bop lines with contemporary arrangements of pop songs. Wes Montgomery's baton was picked up by George Benson who's release of Breezin' reintroduced jazz to the American mainstream audience. Smooth jazz saxophonists include Grover Washington, Jr., Kenny G, Najee, Kirk Whalum, Everette Harp, Boney James, Gerald Albright, David Sanborn, and Michael Brecker. Smooth jazz received frequent airplay with more straight-ahead jazz in "quiet storm" time slots at radio stations in urban markets across the U.S., helping to establish or bolster the careers of vocalists including Al Jarreau, Anita Baker, Chaka Khan, and Sade. In this same period of time Chaka Khan released Echoes of an Era, which featured Joe Henderson, Freddie Hubbard, Chick Corea, Stanley Clarke and Lenny White. Chaka Khan also released her album What Cha' Gonna Do for Me, which featured the song And the Melody Still Lingers On (Night in Tunisia), which had Dizzy Gillespie reviving his classic solo break from Night in Tunisia. In general, smooth jazz is downtempo (the most widely played tracks are in the 90–105 BPM range), layering a lead, melody-playing instrument (saxophones – especially soprano and tenor – are the most popular, with legato electric guitar playing a close second) over a backdrop that typically consists of programmed electronic drum rhythms, synth pads and samples. [citation needed] However, smooth jazz drummers have included artists like Steve Gadd and Vinnie Colaiuta, so the idea of smooth jazz being predominantly programmed drums is an outdated perception that was likely precipitated by Herbie Hancock's Rockit. In Stanley Crouch's, Newsweek article "The Problem With Jazz Criticism" [3] Crouch accused Miles Davis's selling out of jazz, in playing fusion, as a turning point that created smooth jazz. But smooth jazz musicians who make up the majority of working jazz musicians would argue that the history of jazz, beginning with people like Louis Armstrong and leading up to Duke Ellington played music that was appreciated by mass audiences, while artists like Charlie Parker died poor and greatly unappreciated by an audience that had lost interest in jazz post World War II. [4] In Aaron J. West's introduction to his analysis of smooth jazz, "Caught Between Jazz and Pop" he states,

"I challenge the prevalent marginalization and malignment of smooth jazz in the standard jazz narrative. Furthermore, I question the assumption that smooth jazz is an unfortunate and unwelcomed evolutionary outcome of the jazz-fusion era. Instead, I argue that smooth jazz is a long-lived musical style that merits multi-disciplinary analyses of its origins, critical dialogues, performance practice, and reception." [5]

M-Base[edit]

RepublicanJacobite, please read a bit or ask before you destroy my work – or take just a look at the box on the right side of the Jazz-article: Here you find M-Base as one of the subgenres of Jazz!

Many essential musicians of Jazz history (e.g. Duke Ellington, Miles Davis) refused the term “Jazz”. Steve Coleman follows this tradition and doesn’t call his music “Jazz”. He also have “never considered the music of people like Duke Ellington, Don Byas, Charlie Parker, Art Tatum, John Coltrane, Muhal Richard Abrams, Henry Threadgill – I have never considered this creative tradition ‘Jazz’.” - There are good reasons to do that. But if we would follow Steve Coleman’s diction we had to delete the most important parts of this Jazz article here. We don’ want to do that!

Steve Coleman also said: “Anybody who really had ears could clearly hear that what I'm doing is a derivative of what Bird [Charlie Parker] did. He's one of my main influences. Actually, I probably think he's my biggest influence. But for most people, if you're not copying somebody note for note, verbatim, then as far as they're concerned, you're not influenced by them. They don't listen for content. They're just listening for the surface. I don't know how to describe it, it's just the dressing on top. If they don't hear you playing "Donna Lee" or something like that, then as far as they're concerned, that's not what you're doing. That says more about our culture to me than anything else. In America, things are very surface oriented. We're very much into the quick fix and the quick this and the quick that. People very rarely go into anything on any level, into any depth.”

Most other participants of M-Base accept the word “Jazz” as a term of music business to prevent from starving – as most other Jazz musicians did in the past. Mampf-new (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You have said nothing here that is persuasive. What would be persuasive are references, which you have not provided. What you should be doing is improving the M-base article, which is a travesty, before adding information about it here. Anyone who clicks on the link to the main article will be treated to an unreferenced article which says M-base is not a form of jazz. What you wrote here reads like a brief promotional essay for a music form of minor notability. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Okay. I’ll try to improve the M-base article first. Some years ago I did that in German Wikipedia and my contributions are well accepted since years: Jazz article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz#M-Base M-Base article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Base My native language is German. So it’s hard for me to do it in English. Maybe someone (you?) can help a bit.Mampf-new (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can cite a quote by Steve Coleman about his own work as a verifiable reference. I think this level of detail is better suited for the article about M-Base. My $0.02, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Redux, March 2011[edit]

There is a new "M-Base" section in the article and I have a few questions/comments: Firstly, what is meant by "refuse to entertain?" It doesn't appear in the cited reference. Does this mean the music does not entertain, or that the practitioners do not entertain questions, or what? The word "entertain" itself does not appear in the cited source. Second, I believe this section has a rather promotional tone. As a reader, the message I come away with is "Isn't Steve Coleman great!?" (No offense intended.) Finally, if these sections are arranged chronologically, I wonder if the entire "1980s–2010s" section needs to be re-arranged. It's difficult to establish exact timespans for these, but I don't believe that M-Base is the latest of these developments. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I’ll try to improve and come back later. Mampf-new (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)--
  • Nothing against Steve Coleman, nothing against M-Base, but please look to the overall balance of the article. The section that keeps being added is longer than the sections on Bebop, on Free Jazz etc. If Lester Young, Charlie Parker, Ornette Coleman etc are mentioned in one sentence, Steve Coleman's mention should be of no greater length. AllyD (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I fit in an improved version of “M-Base” section. As for the rest: “ENTERTAINMENT”: There are references but I deleted it because it should be understandable immediately, I think. “CHRONOLOGY”: 1. There is no newer important development. - 2. Coleman’s M-Base thing is more important than ever; I tried to work out this aspect more effectively. – 3. In this Jazz article, Jazz seems to be already dead (more and more commercial music; John Zorn said recently that he is rather a classical musician than a Jazz musician …). The M-Base movement has this spirit coming from Charlie Parker, John Coltrane etc. – this high cultural, spiritual, African-American thing. Thus, the M-Base chapter would be a good prospect to the future of a meaningful Jazz which is connected to the tradition. “PROMOTIONAL”: Now I tried to avoid it deliberately. However, “greatness” in one sense is involved in these concepts regardless whether one likes it or not. A high degree of skills is intended. This music is definitely not on the level of commercial Jazz forms. It includes a high culture approach. Coleman’s influence is heavy otherwise it wouldn’t be justified to single him out. I hope it’s okay. Mampf-new (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

  • The M-Base chapter isn’t longer than the preceding chapters about really important developments like “smooth Jazz”, “Nu Jazz” and “Punk Jazz” (no harm meant). I think newer developments need just a bit more explanation. Mampf-new (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree that recent developments need more emphasis - by all means link outwards to detailed main articles, but over-emphasis results in WP:RECENTISM problems for the article as a whole. Coming back to the specifics of M-Base, a couple of analogous examples might be Tristano and Russell: both are regarded as inspiring "schools" (in my opinion more influential than M-Base) and are covered here in one sentence each. (I'm also struck that Anthony Braxton goes unmentioned - indeed so too does the AACM as a whole - but I appreciate these can be resolved separately.) AllyD (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand. However, we have a sort of “canon” for the past (up to ca. 1970). That makes it much easier. But we don’t have any canon for the last decades, especially not for the present. We can not wait for 30 years, the more so as many people are especially interested in present things. Thus, we have to mirror the current discussion as seriously as possible. That’s my point of view. Mampf-new (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes to lede[edit]

No good reason or explanation has been provided by the anon. editor who has repeatedly changed the wording of the lede. The previous wording of the opening sentence

Jazz is a music genre that originated at the beginning of the 20th century in African American communities in the Southern United States from a confluence of African and European music traditions.

is accurate without being overwhelming. The anon.'s version

Jazz is a music genre that originated at the beginning of the 20th century in Louisiana, United States. It emerged from the complex circumstances of New Orleans early history, and the close mixing of its diverse ethnic groups; particularly French, Spanish, German, Irish, Cajun, and West African, as well as English, West Indian, Italian and Creole people. The multiculturalism of the city created distinctive traditions and festivals, and later the merging of various European and African music traditions, which would evolve into jazz.

adds entirely too much detail, and makes the argument that the origins of jazz can be traced directly, and specifically, to New Orleans, which is not supported by the ref. provided. Furthermore, the role of New Orleans in the development of jazz is covered later in the article, and any relevant information should be added there. The previous wording of the lede was accurate and gave a good outline of the article, as a lede is supposed to do. It should not be overburdened with details, especially details that are one-sided. This is why I have repeatedly reverted the edits.

Furthermore, the anon.'s edit summaries, such as: "This whole article is heavily biased and prejudice. It's a disgrace!" and "Opening line was awful, and so has been expanded (referenced) to be less bias sounding to one ethic/racial group, to what is taught at music colleges etc. The Art Blakey quote has been misinterpreted!" are merely opinions, and are not helpful. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just my $.02, but I agree. The existing lede is a model of informative conciseness. - Special-T (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "too much detail", especially when it is cited and written in a short paragraph. The reference does specifically support New Orleans as the birth place of jazz, if you contest this, how about finding an academic reference for it and not just stating your opinion. Did you go to university, study musicology or some other subject related to music and jazz? It would be very interesting to know who your professor was, and what he was teaching you.

I would like to know what "one-sided" means in your argument, and how the previous lede was "accurate" when there is no citation. Perhaps it was accurate to your personal view point and desires? As the previous (current) lede is very one-sided and not accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.46.229 (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The reference provided is from a government site, contributed by historians, and features a large amount of bibliographies. The same materials which are used in universities and music colleges. Where exactly is your information coming form? 220.253.114.232 (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the ref is reliable, but, as I said in my edit summary, any cited material from there would be more appropriately placed further down the article with some context given. Your version of the lede is rambling and not very grammatical. Also your insinuation on my talk page that there's some conspiracy against you is inappropriate, so please desist. - Special-T (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The following is from grove music online (Maybe it will help someone fix the current issues with the lede):
The term conveys different though related meanings [...] a musical tradition rooted in performing conventions that were introduced and developed early in the 20th century by African Americans [...] a style characterized by syncopation, melodic and harmonic elements derived from the blues, cyclical formal structures and a supple rhythmic approach to phrasing known as swing.BassHistory (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Modern Creative[edit]

A few days ago I nominated the Modern Creative article for deletion (see AfD discussion), for reasons I have given at Talk:Modern Creative. The "Modern Creative" section in this article fairly much says the same things and thus has the same problems. Briefly, "Modern Creative" does not appear to be an actual genre as much as a very vague category/descriptor, and does not seem to be in (notable) use outside the Allmusic universe. I had re-written the text from the Modern Creative article and incorporated it into the Free Jazz article (see "Legacy" section); I suggest that if the text is to appear in this article that it be re-written along the same lines. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the section in question. Again, I had already moved some text about "modern creative" to the free jazz article, where it is more relevant. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Placement of Art Blakey quote in lead section of the article[edit]

I've removed the following text from the article lead: "However, Art Blakey has been quoted as saying, "No America, no jazz. I’ve seen people try to connect it to other countries, for instance to Africa, but it doesn’t have a damn thing to do with Africa".[2]

Certainly, Art Blakey is a jazz master. His virtuosity in the music is indisputable, but his opinion about jazz lacking any ties to the "country" of Africa is not supported by any reputable musicologist and not by myriad other practitioners of the art form. It is without any real credibility. It doesn't belong in a section that has no other opinion , in a section that factually defines the nature of the art form. Of course, I -- as would any true scholar with any semblance of credibility -- disagree with Blakey. But simply as a reader, the placement of the quote is jarring. What immediately strikes me is that an editor with a dissenting opinion from the prevailing, factual information presented in the lead has decided to place the quote there as a thumb in the eye to the truth. And, indeed, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

That is not to say that it may not be credibly inserted into the article. I'm not looking at the article as I type this, but it seems to me the following section goes into the nature of jazz. That, it seems to me, is a more fitting place for the quote. In a previous permutation of the article some time ago, there was a quote by Wynton Marsalis characterizing jazz in or near the lead section; it was his opinion. And it was deleted. Any number of quotes by people of note about their opinions of jazz could be inserted in the lead section, but they would not contribute substantially to an understanding of what jazz actually is; it would simply be another opinion. And, certainly, one opinion begs the insertion of another, countervailing one. The fact is such material is more suitably placed elsewhere, leaving the straight facts of jazz -- as reflected by common, scholarly, professional (and even informed lay consensus!) -- up front. It simply doesn't belong. And even presented elsewhere -- again, a countervailing opinion also should be presented, noting also the bona fides of the source of that opinion. deeceevoice (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with deeceevoice regarding the inclusion of the quote. I think it's a valid opinion but a rather clumsy quote. (It's also missing a page number and has been previously removed on that basis.) I do disagree with Blakey, I would instead submit "no Africa = no jazz" and for that matter "no Europe (e.g. Western harmony) = no jazz." I do agree with (what I believe is) Blakey's basic premise that it is a distinctly American creation, however I also feel one has to kind of read between the lines to "get" it (and this is not something we should expect of the reader). Perhaps there's a better way to clarify with a better context? Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

African Influence[edit]

there are over 25 references in the Jazz article to Africa/n in relation to the origins of Jazz to the complete exclusion of almost all other origins. i find the article extremely propagandistic, inaccurate, and misleading in that regard. first, traditional African instruments, on the whole, are mainly percussive, and it makes little sense to put forth the notion, with over 25 African references, that Jazz somehow has its roots in a percussion based music from Africa. second, if a person is any shade of brown, they may have African ancestry, but they are mixed, and the constant references to Africa/African-American are again, very misleading, because nobody knows how much African ancestry any such individual may have. thirdly, to say that "musical roots" carried over the generations of from slave importation from Africa to the 1900s is absurd on its face. nobody with any common sense can say that they have inherited whatever musical style their grandfather may have had in his youth. fourthly, to pinpoint the origins of an evolving form of diverse improvisational music such as Jazz to a single group of people with African ancestry in America is also absurd. it is not factual, it cannot be authenticated or proven as fact, and puts Wikipedia in the business of "manufacturing reality". just because some Oxford scholar says something doesn't make truth or fact. and that is one of the main problems with Wikipedia that makes it irrelevant to those wanting "the facts". Wikipedia is allowing scholarly opinion to manufacture reality, regardless of how absurd it may be. people confuse themselves with origins and players of music. and they are not the same thing. essentially, i would like to delete all subject matter that cannot be proven as fact, without regard to "opinions", to avoid "manufacturing reality", and remove all references to "Africa/n" unless they are FACT, and not just assumptions and opinions of African propagandists. over 25 references to Africa/n in relation to Jazz, when their basics instrumentation is percussive is nothing but a farce. next thing you know, Wikipedia will have a section on how the Great Pyramids of Giza were built by blacks in Africa because of some "scholarly opinion". can anyone disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.188.15 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you are able to offer some sources to support your assertions? (Especially since you are proposing the deletion of attributed material, which I am going to suggest would be ill-advised.) You wrote, "just because some Oxford scholar says something doesn't make truth or fact." Perhaps not, but more importantly, it does make something verifiable ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true"). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Individual, uninformed opinion -- yours and others' -- really doesn't much matter when it comes to the writing of an encyclopedic article. The weight of informed opinion is clear with regard to the African origins of the jazz art form. Furthermore, your contention that "traditional African instruments ... are mainly percussive" is a common misperception; it is not based in fact. Africans in the U.S. developed the banjo, a New World version of a traditional African one. Many enslaved Africans were skilled musicians when they arrived. Their virtuosity on indigenous stringed instruments -- the kora and oud among them -- is what made them highly sought-after fiddlers and innovators in playing other European instruments. Black jazz musicians play/ed the cello (bass) differently than their White counterparts who played primarily European classical music; ditto in terms of technique on the guitar and banjo -- the European guitar having been introduced to Africa in the 1400s by the Portuguese. And African influence in the shaping of bluegrass/the music of Appalachia is widely accepted. African xylophones fashioned from gourds (corresponding to the vibes in jazz) and also thumb pianos (mbiras) are also traditional instruments. And as in many parts of the world, wind instruments are indigenous to Africa as well. You really should educate yourself so as not to advance assertions based on ignorance in support of an invalid/faulty premise.
Furthermore, what distinguishes jazz from other musical forms is not the instruments utilized in its execution, but its dynamics -- fundamentally, syncopation, swung notes, blue notes, improvisation, polyrhythms and (often) call and response -- all pervasive elements in traditional African music/cultures. deeceevoice (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Just read the comment about the pyramids. I'm looking forward to the day -- because they were, indeed, built by Blacks -- at the decree of Black pharaohs. But that's another topic ;) deeceevoice (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Just read this: "nobody with any common sense can say that they have inherited whatever musical style their grandfather may have had in his youth." Au contraire. No one who knows anything about culture -- and, in this case, African-American culture -- would deny the persistence and continuity of culture, even in the face of overwhelming odds (e.g., concerted efforts on the part of, first, slave "breakers" and slaveholders and then White society, generally, to de-Africanize us). The only way to truly exterminate a culture is to obliterate the people who carry/practice it. And we are still here. Jazz great Thelonius Monk often jumped up from his piano in mid set to shuffle, eyes closed, trance-like, in a circle counterclockwise. Any real student of African/African-American cultures would immediately recognize the resonance in the ring shout (practiced across the breadth of Africa and the Moments of the Sun) and its deeply spiritual significance. The cool aesthetic, asymmetry in aesthetics;, the juxtaposition of movement and stasis (in music -- jazz and music generally and in visual artistic expression and in physical motion); polyrhythms in music and visual artistic expression; get down (see also the discussion on get down here and follow the links: [[6]])/dance; AAVE; praise/religious practices; value systems and belief systems; body language/comportment; hairstyles and dress; food and foodways; our oral traditions -- all these things and more are myriad ways in which the cultures of Africa resonate today in African-American culture. The evidence of our African pedigree is ubiquitous in our lives -- if one opens one's eyes and knows where to look.
In your case, opinion is one thing. Informed opinion is quite another. deeceevoice (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I hope we agree that a discussion about the provenance of the pyramids has no place on the jazz article's talk page. One might assume that the whole point of mentioning the subject at all is merely to elicit a response from those with a differing opinion, but then one would no longer be assuming good faith. However, I am personally inclined to chuck good faith out the window based on an earlier edit from the same IP address. In any event the only appropriate comments here are specific recommendations for improving the article. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, well, duh. Didn't I already say as much? What a waste of space.... *smh* deeceevoice (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Jazz is the African version of European music[edit]

I would say the jazz is the african version of European romantic music because africans learned far more advanced music from European and make their own genre called jazz by copying european romantic music and mixing their rhythm and harmony into complexity of European romantic music. (Unsigned.)

Your opinion is merely that -- your opinion. It doesn't seem grounded in reality, and it also seems exceedingly Eurocentric. It's highly unlikely that the originators of jazz had any meaningful exposure to the European classical music of the time. Musicologists generally attribute European influences in the development of jazz to enslaved Africans'/African-Americans' exposure to European sacred/worship music and the more prosaic music of the time, and to marching band music as well -- which African-American bands, in turn, came to influence heavily. It seems to me that your statement has little basis in fact. Certainly, one could argue effectively that early in the history of jazz the influence was the other way around -- that early jazz influenced European classical music. Debussy, one of the leading romantic impressionists of the early 20th century, became intrigued with ragtime as he became disenchanted with romanticism and later ripped off/tried to mimic ragtime in his "Golliwogg's Cakewalk." And certainly over the years, jazz, blues and other African-American music genres have been pervasive/ubiquitous influences on music worldwide, with the obverse being true to a far more limited extent.
Still, many aficionados of jazz would agree with your statement that jazz is African/African-American classical music. It is certainly at least on par with European classical music in its complexity and sophistication -- and many would argue even more so. BTW, "africans" should be capitalized -- just as "Europeans" is. And remember to sign your posts. deeceevoice (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

denying European influence on jazz music is arrogance and jealousy. I would say jazz is mostly ripped off from European music more and partly influenced by african music by african. Jazz is african music that african made when they first met the new world of highly complicated European romantic music and ripped off from it. african and Americans just deny it because of their patriotism. africans also use european music instruments not their own. American Musics are degraded music that is cheap and simple, It's only popular because americans use their jewish media power to market their cheap impulsive music to make more money. american media influence ,that spread cheap instant american music, stop the development of music and degrade European and Asian people's highly developed music level to primitive level, low quality music and impulsive music that promotes violence and adultery world wide. music started to degrade to primitive era of music from highly developed and complicated music culture from Europe and Asia in modern time by adopting the low quality american music to just simply make more money by greedy people that use people's impulsive desire. Powerful american media has done a vast job in degrading music level to primitive african music level again by politically forcing other countries to play cheap american music in mass media and economically using people's impulsive desire that is wanting to stick to simple and cumpulsive culture to make more money. cheap American music that promotes adultery and violence is certainly bad influence to people by strong american media. Jazz is not on par with baroque and romantic music in its complexity and sophistication, but africans did great job to vastly improve their primitive music by learning from highly developed european music to make improved african genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.111.38 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

U trippin'. Nowhere have I denied European influence on jazz -- and, no, I'm neither jealous (of what!! lol) nor arrogant. (Seems to me we're dealing with a case of projection rather than detection here....) You obviously have other issues that cloud your judgments. I'm an old hand at dealing with ... entities like you, and none of your ignorance fazes me one iota. I know your type -- that it bugs you that I can out-debate you; that I know more about something than you do; that you can't shoe-horn me into your narrow, debased notion of who and what My People are. I know it irks you we birthed you and yours. ;) But those are your issues -- not mine. And you can keep on stewin', son, for all I care. I'm done engaging you because, frankly, you're not even worth the effort in the keystrokes. You clearly aren't about contributing constructively to either the article or the article talk space. You may even be incapable of doing so. After all, it takes a willingness to write factually and edit honestly and fairly, an ability to discern truth from fiction/wishful thinking. It seems you're unaware, so let me pull your coat: Wikipedia is not a forum for you to expound on your fantasies about the "superior[ity]" of the "White race." Try to stay on point.
And to show you what a stand-up, wonderful, credit to The Race I am, I'll even help you. ;) *turnin' my back* deeceevoice (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

you just contradicted yourself. superiority of the white race? why are you suddenly bringing race into music? your argument is irrelevant and sensitive. you see things with your twisted perspective and complex feeling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.111.38 (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

From reading this anonymous person's comments (calling African music "primitive", negative reference to Jewish people), I think this person is trying to start a flame war. Ignore immediately. B-Machine (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And unsuccessfully so. Already done.  ;) deeceevoice (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Jazzbox[edit]

Derivatives, Subgenres, Fusion genres...[edit]

This template needs some serious revision. Are math rock, ska, etc. really types of jazz fusion? Derivatives perhaps. And who put krautrock and drum and bass all alone in the derivatives section like that? It's just a little strange. Can we please come to some consensus as to what should and what shouldn't be included, and where?BassHistory (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, nobody has responded so I will just start deleting anything that looks weird.BassHistory (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Replaced with Infobox music genre[edit]

I replaced the Jazzbox template with a Infobox music genre template, as that is how every other music genre page is handled. The Jazzbox template still exists at Template:Jazzbox for reference since some information was omitted, notably the list of Jazz Musicians. A less notable exception is the "Mainstream popularity" as that field has already been discussed and removed on the Infobox Talk page. I also removed a duplicate link to Jazz fusion from the derivative forms list, since it already existed under the fusion genres section. Eleventythree (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Left response at Template talk:Jazzbox#Deprecated (also left a notice at WT:JAZZ). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to delete section "Modal jazz"[edit]

"Modal jazz" is not truly a style, it is simply a harmonic device (ie. slowed-down harmonic rhythm) that came into fashion in the late 50's. Most common examples of this style (Miles Davis, John Coltrane, etc.) are actually by musicians in the hard bop or avant-garde sub-styles. The term is outmoded, misleading and confusing, and it's controversial in the world of jazz scholarship. Perhaps this device can be mentioned in the article, but it should not be listed with alongside other major schools of jazz such as Be-Bop, Cool Jazz and Jazz Fusion.

Examples:

1) Miles's sextet can be considered on the "cooler" side of hard bop, and they definitely never exclusively played "modal" tunes. "So What" and "Milestones" are just one type of tune that the band played during that period, along with standards ("Stella By Starlight", "Someday My Prince Will Come" etc.) and Be-Bop tunes ("Tadd's Delight," "Dr. Jackal," etc.).

2) Coltrane's album "My Favorite Things" was not a "modal" album. It contains three regular standards (other than the title track), one of which ("But Not for Me") actually has much denser and more complex harmony than the original arrangement. Coltrane's material, post-Davis, can really be considered hard bop ("My Favorite Things"/"Coltrane Sound," "Crescent,") or avant-garde ("Ascention," the stuff with Alice Coltrane and Pharoah Sanders, etc.).BassHistory (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you re: harmonic device vs. style (not to mention genre, but I guess I just did). You are also aware there is an entire modal jazz article? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
(Never mind my question, just saw this.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I added some comments on Talk:Modal_jazz; not disagreeing with BassHistory's assessment of it as genre but nonetheless I would be against its erasure here or indeed the article. Genre is a difficult topic whose borders are rarely clear; just taking its near-predecessor in this article here is what Max Harrison said of Cool Jazz: "There has always been cool jazz. Far from being a new development of the 1950s, this vein of expression... goes back almost to the beginning." And goes on to instance Bix Beiderbecke, Frankie Trumbauer, Benny Carter, Teddy Wilson, Lester Young and on through to John Tchicai (Harrison, A Jazz Retrospect) It seems reasonable for this article to present an overview that will assist the reader seeking contextual information on what is meant by Modal, Cool or what have you. AllyD (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
If we all agree that "Modal jazz" is not a style or school, why should we keep the section? Again, there is just no such thing as a "modal jazz" musician.BassHistory (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I quite agree about the musicians - use of this "harmonic device" is not a defining characteristic so I'd support a CfD on erasure of Category:Modal jazz musicians. The section here is another matter: there were people choosing to use opportunities provided by that harmonic device at a time and place and it is reasonable to describe such in this overview article. By so doing, one doesn't have to legitimise it as a genre. (On genres, as I was trying to say above, I have a sceptical attitude and don't believe that many of those assiduously listed in this article exist. Most are never more than a convenient journalistic shorthand.) AllyD (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Such classifications can be useful because they can refer to a specific school of playing, of an actual community of musicians, as is the case with "cool jazz" and "hard bop" (and not with "modal" jazz).
  • As for "modal" playing, it is just one approach that was used, specifically to harmony, in the 1960s (NOT 1950s). One could likewise name other approaches, such as the "interplay" approach used by Bill Evan's trios (Explorations (album)), and the "timbral" approach used by Miles's '60s quintet (Nefertiti (album)). Neither of these has its own section, while they are both highly influential as well (more so in current jazz in fact). There is no section for tritone substitution in the 1940s, it was arguably a more important and influential device than "modal" techniques.BassHistory (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Usage of the word "genre"[edit]

The previous use of genre in the lede is colloquial (eg. jazz, classical, punk rock) not academic/correct (eg. jazz standard, string quartet, EP). This isn't a blog or popular magazine, so let's please use the word correctly in the music articles. (I know, many people use the word incorrectly, but please see the entry for "Genre" in Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians.)BassHistory (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Grout A History of Western Music": Genre Type or category of musical COMPOSITION, such as a SONATA or SYMPHONY

BassHistory (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, that means that 90% of all Wikipedia music articles need to be re-written, including the article titled genre. Just because something is technically and obscurely "academically correct" doesn't mean that it should be used - Wikipedia, and ANY encyclopedia, is about communication, first and foremost. That means academic diction, but actual semantics are a different story. Not only that, but the usage of the word genre is so mainstream and commonplace that the normal use of the term (e.g., "rock" is a genre of music) is absolutely acceptable on nearly every level. Plus, that usage only really applies to classical music. No parallels to a sonata or a symphony really apply to jazz in the same way. Experimental Hobo Infiltration Droid (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Grout is probably the most widely circulated music textbook in the world, definitely in English speaking lands, so your assertion that this definition is "obscure" is totally silly, no offense. And the genre article is totally screwed up and we're trying to fix it, whats your point? Anyway, I provided a strong source. If you can provide something credible (not MTV, Amazon or a blog), you know, a respectable book or journal article, that refers to jazz as a "genre," then I'm all ears. Otherwise, why dumb down this article? Everyone knows what is meant by "style" or "category," what's wrong with using those words (correctly) instead?BassHistory (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The Oxford Music Dictionary article on "Genre," has this to say about the term: "...the underlying tendency of genre is not just to organize, but also to close or finalize, our experience. This implies a closed, homogeneous concept of the artwork, where it is assumed to be determinate and to represent a conceptual unity. Only then is it readily classifiable." (Jim Samson. "Genre." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, accessed January 21, 2011.)
The ambiguity of the term "jazz" and the overall difficulty in defining it precisely seem to be at stake here. There are closed elements--call them styles, or trends--under the umbrella term "jazz" that might benefit from being defined as "Genres"; however, to describe "jazz" as a "Genre," unnecessarily limits the purview of the music. Btj (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

jazz based on European music theory and techniques[edit]

jazz is made based on european music theory and techniques but that is not explained here in details not even mentioned simply?? I simply add that part into the article but someone immediately deleted it because he said it's not construct work? is this intended or simply ommited mistakenly?

Jazz Born Out of The African American Experience[edit]

I kept reading and re-reading the contents of this article, to learn at what point would the author go into any detail on how and why Jazz was born (developed). Jazz, just as Blues, Railroad songs, Ragtime etc., was born out of the sufferings of Slavery, Jim Crow, Reconstruction and institutional racism in America. All of these forces which contributed to the chronically dispossessed Black Americans, to express their pain, spirits, angst, wants, needs and desires through the only means they had available . . . . music. These unfortunate circumstance together synergized to create what is known as the “African-American Experience.” It was not until the 70s-80s that Jazz went mainstream, prior to this, it (as nearly all Black cultural forms) was condemned by American society. For African-Americans, Jazz is a sacred music that tells the story of their ancestors. To not include some history of how early Black jazz developed from a cultural and social perspective, is missing the point entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.102.208 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC) --74.229.102.208 (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What else would you suggest including in the "Origins" and "1890s-1910s" sections? And, no offense, but I'm seriously puzzled by your statement "it was not until the 70s-80s that Jazz went mainstream". Personally, I'd place this during the 1930s-1940s. But actually, the article doesn't really go into detail about how much of popular music was at least derived from jazz, until the rock era. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
All of the above assertions are WP:OR and/or WP:POV, so unless there's a cited reference, these are moot points. - Special-T (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Early recording example[edit]

I've replaced File:Ross Reel.ogg with File:OriginalDixielandJassBand-JazzMeBlues.ogg (recorded the same year) in the "Jazz Age" section. I'm unsure why a banjo reel recording was used here. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Free jazz as latin fusion?[edit]

The line currently in the intro "a variety of Latin jazz fusions, such as Afro-Cuban and free jazz, from the 1950s and 1960s" should be changed somehow as it inaccrately gives the impression that free jazz is latin fusion. Perhaps something more like this?: "a variety of Latin jazz fusions, such as Afro-Cuban, as well as free jazz, from the 1950s and 1960s". Munci (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, that reads strangely. Maybe just reverse the examples, so that Free Jazz is mentioned first and then the Latin? AllyD (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a good idea. I'll put it in. That'll be fine. Unless any one objects? Munci (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

no WP article on Encyclopedia of Jazz Musicians[edit]

Encyclopedia of Jazz Musicians Encyclopedia of Jazz Musicians How is it possible that there is not yet a WP article on this? Don't WP editors writing on jazz use it as a source? --Espoo (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This has also been posted at WT:JAZZ. I think it would be better to maintain this discussion there, as it concerns jazz-related articles in general, not just this one. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes to cited content[edit]

The recent edits I've reverted added information to cited sentences - information that may not be (probably isn't) from that cited source. So, no, they're not legitimate edits. Does Kirchner include "21st century" music in the previously cited statement? I bet not. Same with the "jazz", "jass", "jas", "jazs" sentence. I'm not disputing the claims, but you can't indicate that those references make those claims, which is what happens when you put them under the umbrella of the given reference. - Special-T (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course you're right, Special-T, about not ever altering a cited source - I hadn't noticed that it was cited. But this of course opens up a conundrum. By almost 2012 it's surely no longer true to suggest that by now jazz still has only, "incorporated music from 19th and 20th century American popular music". So what to do? Presumably the text should be updated and made more accurate if a more modern citation can be found. But if it can't, should the no-longer-true cited statement be left - or should the citation itself perhaps be removed? Unable to come up [yet] with a more modern citatation I've left it - but I'm uncomfortable 'cos it ain't true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolesi (talkcontribs) 22:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly does the cited source say, but the phrase "incorporated music from American popular music" sounds very bad. Maybe "incorporated elements from American popular music"? Come to think of it, I don't quite understand what the phrase means at all. --Robkirwan (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I changed it. --Robkirwan (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Earl Hines documentary[edit]

I reverted the (much-reverted) addition of an Earl Hines documentary on youtube for WP:COPYVIO concerns. Looking at youtube, it appears to indicate that the video was posted there by the film's creator, but it's not certain. If someone well-versed in WP's copyright policies thinks this is legit, it would be nice to keep the link. From what I can see, it doesn't seem certain enough to play fast & loose with copyright issues. - Special-T (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to keep the Hines docu if possible - it's an absolutely great film. Can I think of a better jazz film? I don't think so. - 81.6.200.204 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a good reason I am afraid--♫GoP♫TCN 17:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Un-Encyclopedic content[edit]

Can someone please explain to me why these sentences are in this article? "Even the media began to denigrate jazz. The New York Times took stories and altered headlines to pick at jazz. For instance, villagers used pots and pans in Siberia to scare off bears, and the newspaper stated that it was jazz that scared the bears away. Another story claims that Jazz caused the death of a celebrated conductor." They either need to be re-written or removed... "pick at jazz" is hardly an encyclopedic statement, and it is also unsubstantiated. Jack mcdowell (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with White jazz[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White jazz was recently closed as no consensus. I believe the info would be better served if incorporated into this page. J04n(talk page) 12:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose We have articles on British jazz, French jazz, Jazz in India &c. Entire books have been written about the contributions of white musicians to jazz and so this is a substantial topic which merits expansion, as with those national articles. Warden (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Jazz article is too long already; I would recommend splitting off History of jazz into a subarticle before considering any mergers. Neelix (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Mandy Make Up Your Mind[edit]

It looks like some misinformation has been prominently on this page for over a year. The tune "Mandy, Make Up Your Mind" (music by Geo. W. Meyer & Arthur Johnston, published with words by Grant Clarke and Roy Turk) [7] [8] was incorrectly attributed as being by Irving Berlin. Berlin published the piece, but was not the author. *Sigh* This is the type of thing which makes me doubt anything here has ever been given even a cursory fact check. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Request pending changes protection?[edit]

Most of the edits of jazz by unregistered users are vandalism of one form or another. In some cases, I guess that being able to see the vandalism and know that anyone else can too is part of the attraction. I therefore suggest that we apply for pending changes protection. This would allow all editors to make changes, but the edits of unregistered and new users would have to be reviewed before being accepted and visible to all. What do others think? EddieHugh (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that semi-protection would be stronger than pending changes protection, as the former prevents unregistered and new users from editing, whereas the latter allows such editing, but they go public only after being approved by a reviewer. It is intended for relatively low frequency problems, too. The last 10 edits have all been either reverts or ones that led to those reverts (from unregistered users). Some of the edits from unregistered users have been accepted, but it looks like most from the last few hundred edits have been reverted. It gets tiresome, and the topic, as with Ellington, appears to attract daft edits. EddieHugh (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Another request for comments, as almost all of the edits from IP addresses are being undone/reverted: it's better to keep them from appearing on the page by having pending changes protection; this would still allow edits to be made, as described above, but would, I believe, deter vandalism. EddieHugh (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the deal is lately. I've gone ahead and applied pending changes protection for one week. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed it to semi-protected (10 days). Pending changes protection doesn't stop vandals from trying, and since the edits still have to be manually reviewed, it doesn't solve anything where the PITA factor is concerned. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully it will reduce the frequency of vandalism (people piling up 'edits') at least. We'll see. EddieHugh (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Louis Armstrong's fingers have been changed into ape's ones?[edit]

@jazzcafe_club points out Louis Armstrong's fingers may be changed into ape's ones in the photo File:Louis Armstrong restored.jpg in the chapter Jazz#The Jazz Age in his/her tweets in Japanese: @jazzcafe_club's tweet 1 and @jazzcafe_club's tweet 2. Is it just imagination? Puckottini (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@jazzcafe_club deleted the 'ape' tweet and correct misconception in tweet 3 (in Japanese). Puckottini (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Split off History section? (again)[edit]

This issue has been raised previously on this talk page here and here, but never resolved. The page is currently extremely long (128 kB!). I think that the History section, which makes up most of this article, should be split into its own article. Are there objections? Mgnbar (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There are a lot of things wrong with the article, but cutting the History part out is not an appropriate solution. Cut the whole thing and there'd be very little of the article left. There are already links to main articles for Ragtime, Blues, Dixieland, Jazz Age, etc., and there are articles on 1930s in jazz, 1940s in jazz, etc. Developing those and maintaining a summary style for the main Jazz article would be better than cutting out the main content. I've cut more than 15,000 bytes from it without too much trauma or loss of useful content: it needs to be leaner, not shorter, per se. EddieHugh (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. You are right that cutting out the section would leave the article pretty empty. I'm not an expert in jazz (I came to this article to learn about it), but perhaps I can help whittle down the history to a reasonable level for an introductory article. There must be plenty of other material needing attention in this article: the key concepts, innovations, practitioners, recorded works and sheet music, record labels and publishers, concert clubs, conservatories, economics, demographics, etc. It's unusual for a Wikipedia article on an important topic such as this to be pure chronological history. Mgnbar (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
It's perhaps largely attributable to convention, which may have arisen because so much of the music is tied to history, as it changed so quickly that a chronology is the easiest way to present the information. A key musical concept in jazz in 1927 was hugely different in 1947 and not remotely relevant in 1967. For instance, the first four on your list are all strongly tied to chronology: 'concept Y was an innovation in 19xx, and was introduced / most famously presented by A & B, including in recording Z' is how things are typically reported, often tied in with something about economic circumstances and commercial success (although these last bits are largely absent from the current article). Some of the other things could have separate sections: education (conservatories); and audience/performers' background (demographics) would be good, I think. Suggestions on how to structure the whole thing are welcome... I've experimented with rewriting it, but need to do more background reading first. EddieHugh (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with the original proposer, is there nothing to talk about jazz except the history? Surely this can be covered in a summary style and expand on the other areas of jazz. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)