Talk:Jazz

Problems with Lede

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? ReadWP: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

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

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

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

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)

Major Omissions

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Etymology of Jazz" section seems cramed in.

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 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Screw it I changed it anyway

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

Recent history

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)

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

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)

Arthur Taylor quotation

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"

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”. 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)