Talk:Jazz

Archived discussions can be found at:

• Talk:Jazz/Archive1 (archived on October 31, 2005)

Smooth Jazz Article

I was reading this article, and it seems to me that the smooth jazz section here is quite POV, and not very well done. For example: "In the 1980s, drumming became much louder and more active in jazz music. The tones of saxophones were rougher and the bass lines were more invasive. However, when jazz reached the 1990s this harsh type of music was replaced by a refined and quiet style." This is rather obviously pro-smooth jazz bias. Also: "When this music was played, instead of the improvised solos being adventuresome they were actually very stylized. These improvisations are what made smooth jazz an official style of jazz instead of being considered just background music." Since when is smooth jazz 'official'? This sentence makes no consideration of the controversy still going on over whether smooth jazz is jazz or not. Could someone please fix this? 63.16.162.22 03:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Modernism template

I have added a template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Modern Jazz

I notice that if you search for Modern jazz you end up here, but the term isn't used in this article. Is it just a British term or something? I realise it isn't an especially useful term and the connotations of modern pose problems, but it is used, at least here in the UK. The first jazz I ever listened to was a CD called 'This is Modern Jazz', and for a long time before I heard the terms bebop and hard-bop, that was what I thought of it as - Modern Jazz. I think it's pretty well understood, here at least, to mean bebop onwards and especially hard-bop. But then, over here we had the whole trad jazz phenomenon, which might explain why the distinction is phrased that way, modern vs. revivalist. Anyhow, I'm not suggesting that we embrace the term 'modern jazz' but an interested newcomer might be fazed by its non-inclusion, so maybe an explanatory note is in order. Mattley 13:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Modern jazz" is fairly commonly used for bop &/or post-bop styles. Perhaps the term is a bit POV. Trivia: the earliest usage of the phrase "modern jazz" I've found is in a 1919 newspaper ad for the Louisiana Five. -- Infrogmation 01:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Precursors of Jazz

I have put up a digest on the precursors of jazz which I had written a few months ago here: User:Sketchee/Precursors of Jazz. It's a paraphrase summary from the book chapter that was an assignment for my Black American music class. I'm releasing it to be used freely so it might be helpful for this article. The reference is listed on the bottom, so if you copy and paste it should be okay to list this reference in the article(s) in which it's used. Hope it helps. --Sketchee 19:12, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Neo-bop / post-bop?

In the article, section 1.12 - Recent developments, styles like nu-jazz, acid-jazz and fusion are mentioned, but where is the reference to those artists who nowadays play modern bebop-influenced jazz? Think of artists like: Wynton Marsalis, Roy Hargrove, Wallace Roney, Terence Blanchard, Nicholas Payton, Vincent Herring, Donald Harrison, Antonio Hart, Mulgrew Miller, Branford Marsalis, Joshua Redman, Christian McBride.

I'm from Europe and I have come to know the style of jazz these artist play under the name "Neo-bop" (sometimes also "Neo Bop" or "Neobop" or altogether different: "Post-bop"), the name referring to the fact that it's a bebop style mixed with influences from free-jazz and hard bop.

I was going to edit the article to mention this new bop genre, but because this is a featured article I feel somewhat reluctant to do so without asking here first. So, anybody else out there who's heard of the term "neo-bop" before? Should I edit the article to fit this in? Waldorf 15:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is from awhile back, but I started the article on Neo-bop jazz recently and Post-bop a month or so ago.--T. Anthony 11:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm.... I think both these articles are somewhat misconceived. First: "Neo-bop": this is just one of many terms used to describe the turn to pre-fusion/free forms of jazz by younger players in the 1980s. I think it is less useful than others, though, because "bop" is a very specific term, & many of their players don't necessarily take their impetus from bebop (e.g. Marsalis moved from modelling his music on the Miles Davis groups of the mid-1960s to an interest in models like Duke Ellington & Jelly Roll Morton; Diana Krall seems to have models like Shirley Horn & Nat King Cole in mind; &c). & there's the so-called "swing revival" associated with labels like Concord which should be related to all this too. -- "Neo-conservative jazz" might be the more useful catchall phrase.

Second: "post-bop" is just not a useful term at all. It has no agreed-upon meaning; all it means is "anything after the bebop era up to fusion". You'll just end up with a miscellaneous list of virtually any jazz musician who came to prominence in the mid-1950s to 1970.

Anyway, so my vote is that "neo-bop" get a namechange & clearer focus; & the latter does not need a musician list, just a brief definition. -- & the lists as they stood had some bizarre inclusions--I mean, Buck Clayton as a post-bop musician?? Niels Henning Orsted Pedersen as a neo-bopper??? I have deleted a lot of the names of the lists. AMG should not be taken very seriously--it's often a monkeys-on-typewriters resource. --ND 14:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The list was just because it looked skimpy. I wasn't sure if this was a valid term after I made it, but I saw people ask about it. Post-bop, even if vague and ill-defined, is a term I've seen all kinds of places. If need be it can just be about why the term is not useful.--T. Anthony 15:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Much more needed!!! Neo-bop / post-bop?

I use Wikipedia most often as a science reference. I have a doctorate in math and work in applied statistics. My "2nd career" is as a jazz musician (saxophone). When I tell my science friends how great Wikipedia is as a science reference I usually get laughed at and told "but anyone can edit it and write whatever they want (e.g. rampant misinformation), however up until now, I have not found this to be the case. Science entries are usually very accurate. This being said, I have never run across anything close to the level of misinformation that exists in this article. Its a complete disgrace. Judging by the faint murmurs heard on this page from perhaps the most knowledgable, the real experts (musicians) are staying away from it because a good edit is impossible!!! What it needs is a complete re-write. For one thing, if any among you has really ventured out to a real jazz club in any reasonably large city (and some small ones) especially one that boasts a jam session, you will discover that Bebob is the lingua franca. Walk into a jazz jam and find out right away what the definition of jazz is: open up "the real book" vol I or II and you will have roughly 300 pages of paradigm definition in your hands. Much of it is from the 40's and 50's, some also from the 60's and beyond. The point to be gleaned here, is that although the book spans the 40's even into the 70's, "free jazz", and "avant guard jazz" are extremely rare. There is maybe 1 Ornette Coleman tune. (I love Ornette Coleman). The point is that Bebop is broken into "waves". The first wave were the innovators--and Monk must be included in the list proper (Parker, Gillespie, Monk and Powell). The 2nd wave consists of their younger collaborators and students, who took over the guard in the 50's and early 60's: Sonny Rollins, John Coltrane, Lennie Tristano, Charles Mingus, Miles Davis]. Next the third wave (Wayne Shorter, Lee Morgan, the other Jazz Messengers, among many many others) and so on. The most important point to make about John Coltrane is _not_ that he went "spiritual" in the final years of his life (63-67) but that prior to that (beginning in 57 until 62) he stretched 'straight-ahead bebop' as far as it would go (for example, "Giant Steps" and "Live at the Antibes Jazz Festival". Another point is that chromaticism isn't really dissonance, but rather a logical chord sequence insertion [for example II/V/ with 2 beats to each chord becomes IIIb/VIb/II/V with one beat to each chord. Finally, perhaps the most important missing innovation of the beboppers was the move to harmonic improvisation in which the player uses higher intervals of the chord and arpeggiation in constructing a solo. Anyway, this rant is so brief maybe it too is useless. One more thing before I go, it would be useful to link audio clips to the chronology. It would be fantastic if this could be turned into something that rivals Ken Burns documentary. It wouldn't be that hard. The starting place is to modify the Bebop topic by creating new topics Bebop 1st, 2nd, 3rd waves, and beyond, and devoting a separate article to each one. Then maybe some experts can find a meaningful place to start uploading their PhD dissertations.128.231.88.4 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Grant Izmirlian

If you feel like revising the article, go ahead, but I don't think the entry on bebop is at variance with what you say: see the last paragraph of that section (which I had a hand in) in particular. There is also further info on the Bebop page. -- Lennie Tristano is not second-generation; he was born in 1919 & his first own-name recordings were exactly contemporary with the earliest bebop recordings. -- I have no idea where to begin in sorting out this page; life is short & it would take weeks of serious work to untangle the page with the assistance of good reference books & people I trust like Allen Lowe & Larry Kart. --ND 01:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Jazz in Europe?

This article focus on USA, could someone write something about the jazz development in Europe?

I am not an expert but this article is crying for references to European artists such as Django Reinhardt, Stéphane Grappelli, Michel Petrucciani, Toots Thielemans, Philippe Catherine, Didier Lockwood, Steve Houben to cite the ones I know without presuming of their relative importance. Vb 11:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are interested in jazz in Europe please help improve the following articles: Spanish jazz, Polish jazz, Italian jazz, and French jazz. Thank you.--T. Anthony 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 17:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Problem editing page

I'm not a regular here; I just dropped by to read the Jazz article. I found a typo in one sentence and clicked "Edit" to fix it; but the text that came up in the Edit box didn't exactly match the text in the main window, and the sentence that corresponded to the typo was very different, so I couldn't fix it. No point in responding to this, since I'm unlikely to return to see your response. As a casual visitor I just want to suggest that what comes up in the "Edit" box should match what's in the main screen. Regardless of the explanation of why it didn't (and I'm sure there's an explanation), this is extremely confusing and off-putting to a visitor who's trying to be helpful.

Bye.

Works for me. It'd help if you could tell us which section you tried to edit, and exactly what text showed up. Fredrik | talk 19:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jazzbox and Jazzfooter are templates. If you would like to edit the templates, please edit them at Template: Jazzfooter and Template: Jazzbox. Andros 1337 03:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Marsalis quote again

I know this has been fought about before. Still, here goes...I don't think the Marsalis quote should be in the introduction. I think it's POV, and that it's pride of place suggests that the article as a whole endorses that point of view. (Putting the quote further down would be fine -- Marsalis is an important figure, and his opinions are worth quoting.) Here's the Marsalis quote:

"Jazz is something Negroes invented, and it said the most profound things -- not only about us and the way we look at things, but about what modern democratic life is really about. It is the nobility of the race put into sound ... jazz has all the elements, from the spare and penetrating to the complex and enveloping. It is the hardest music to play that I know of, and it is the highest rendition of individual emotion in the history of Western music."

The POV statements in this quote include:

"Jazz is something Negroes invented...." Controversial on several counts. White folks contributed in important ways to the formation of jazz -- most expecially in that (for reasons of racism) they were the first to record the music, which in turn influenced the development of the form in many ways. It kind of depends on when you feel "jazz" actually coalesced as a form. This isn't my main objection however, and if this were all Marsalis said, I probably wouldn't bother mentioning it.

"it said the most profound things -- not only about us and the way we look at things, but about what modern democratic life is really about. It is the nobility of the race put into sound...." What jazz does or does not say about American democratic life and about the nobility of black people is entirely POV. Did Jazz really say profound things about the way all black folks look at things? Haven't there historically been black folks who hated jazz? Do black people really have one way of looking at things? It's because of questions like these that Marsalis is such a controversial figure. Again, he deserves mention, but I don't like the idea of the article endorsing his particular take.

"the highest rendition of individual emotion in the history of Western music" If Marsalis thinks that, that's fine. But to put it in pride of place in the article is simply insulting -- not to other musical forms, but to Jazz. Why do you need to tell the reader that jazz is so darn special? Can't the music sway people on its own merits? Does the article on blues make these sorts of special claims for that music? Country? Hip hop? Classical music? Metal? Again, this is the sort of thing that pissed people off (including me) about the Ken Burns documentary. Why do we need to be told that we should be awestruck by this music? (And that doesn't even get into the question of whether Kenny G tracks --or late Louis Armstrong, for that matter -- are really the "highest rendition" of anything.) People should listen to jazz because they enjoy it or are interested in it, not because it's good for them. That's my POV, of course, but it's been a common criticism of Marsalis' views.

I'm really not interested in an edit war, and I'm not going to move the quote (again, I don't think it should be deleted). I thought it was worth stating my opinion here though. NoahB 18:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a quote -- from someone whose opinion on the subject has weight and merit. And, no. You don't have to agree with it -- but many do. I know I do. There's no question that there have been a relative handful of nonblack innovators in the history of jazz, but it remains at its core an African-American-originated art form. IMO, Marsalis' quote is entirely appropriate, and it's appropriate where it is. deeceevoice 21:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

But the point is not that I disagree with it or that you agree with it. The point is that the quote makes extremely controversial arguments, and that he's singled out for inclusion in the intro, suggesting that Wikipedia endorses that viewpoint. If you contextualized it, by saying something like "Many critics over the years have stated that jazz is a particularly important part of the African-American experience. For example, Wynton Marsalis...." it might be better, especially if you then added a quote from someone who disagreed, or a summary of opposing viewpoints. As it is, it seems like Wikipedia is making this assertion. It violates NPOV. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? (If not, Deeceevoice wins, cause, as I said, I'm not going to try changing it myself.)

Incidentally, as I state in my post above, I didn't argue with the African-American originated part -- as I said, if that were Marsalis' only assertion, I really wouldn't object to the quote at all. As for a "relative handful of nonblack innovators"; black people's contribution to the form has been hugely disporportionate, but many, many whites (and others) have been extremely important in the development of the form. Slighting this by referring to them as a handful (even a "relative" one) is a bad idea for lots of reasons, IMO. (The article itself -- Marsalis quote and all -- doesn't do this, I don't think.)

Well, we clearly disagree. Are there now and have there been lots of talented jazz musicians of all sorts of ethnicities who've turned out some great music? Without a doubt. But, IMO, with regard to the originators and true innovators of the form, nonblacks are but a relative handful. And, no, the article doesn't state that. Presenting a quote by someone who has an informed opinion on a topic doesn't seem to me to violate NPOV. Now, if I'd said it, then it would definitely be. NPOV requires that one not present personal opinions, do original research or advance unsupported statements as fact. This does none of that. Nor does it stand alone. The article makes it quite clear that contributions to jazz have come from many quarters. What this quote does is flow directly from the previous comments regarding the West African/African American origins of the art form. deeceevoice 00:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough; it'd be kind of fun to argue about, but I will resist, since I shouldn't even have brought up this point (that is, the "handful" issue), since it doesn't affect the article. My apologies for wandering off topic.

I see your point about the quote following from the argument about the African-American origins of jazz. However, the quote does a lot more than that, as I tried to show in my post above. I also wonder why so much emphasis is necessary on the origins of the form. Marsalis is kind of obsessed with early jazz in particular, but I don't know why the article should feel the need to hammer away at that era in the introductory section (and I'm writing as someone who listens much more to pre-bop than to post-bop styles.) Would you (or anyone else) care to respond to this or other points I made about the Marsalis quote?

Alternately, the issue may simply be whether the position of the quoteand the lack of context provided effectively means that the article endorses Marsalis' viewpoint. I think it does -- which, again, is why I'd move it further down in the article.

Also, sorry for not signing my earlier post. It doesn't seem to have caused confusion, thankfully....

NoahB 13:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we have simply a fundamental disagreement. Again, the quote is positioned there because it is a natural follow-on to the description of jazz as having been originated by African-Americans, or "Negroes," as Marsalis puts it. Further, no one can read this article and come away with the impression that blacks are the only ones to ever have played jazz, to have contributed to its development, or that one must be black in order to play it. It is, in fact, not something Marsalis himself believes. As I stated earlier, the article, I think, presents quite amply the various multi-ethnic contributions to the development of the music. Marsalis' further comments relate to the general nature of the art form, as he sees it, as well. It seems to me perfectly appropriate/natural where it is. And, again, no. Simply presenting a quote doesn't "endorse" anything. I think we should give our readers some credit here. It is quite clear the quote is Marsalis' opinion, that those words are his. If the same words or similar content were presented without quotation marks (or without being block-indented, as in this case), or without attribution and as part of the general text, however, then that would be POV. Forget what Marsalis actually says for a moment. I seriously doubt that you would have the same objection to, say, an article on Mark Twain that contained a quote from a literary critic three paragraphs down lauding Twain as America's greatest writer, his works quintessential expressions of mid 19th-century American humor and of the American spirit -- even though others might consider Will Rogers more deserving of such praise (well, maybe not the writing, per se -- but I'm sure you get my drift).deeceevoice 00:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not communicating well, I don't think. I'll try again. The problem is not that Marsalis says that only black people can play jazz -- as you point out, he says no such thing. The problem is that the quote endorses the view that jazz's primary importance is as African-American spiritual/cultural expression, rather than as an aesthetic form. Lots of people do believe this, and it's a point that should be made. However, it's also been disputed, directly and indirectly. For instance, I think Louis Armstrong's much-quoted statement that if you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know , could be taken as a refutation of exactly the kind of academicism Marsalis is pushing.

The Mark Twain example is a bit off the mark. All the statements you attribute to the hypothetical critic are less controversial than Marsalis' quote (though I'm just contrary enough to object to the "American spirit" bit.) The content of the quote has everything to do with whether or not Wikipedia is violating NPOV. A better example would be if there were a quote from a critic in the Mark Twain intro claiming that Twain was the best analyst of the racial situation in the America of his day. That's an arguable point, and one that I'm even somewhat sympathetic too. But I would object to it, and would argue that it shouldn't be in the intro of the article. NoahB 19:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Most artists would express the view that artistic expression has a spiritual dimension. No surprise there. And there are those of us who do, in fact, attach importance to jazz as an African-American spiritual/cultural expression -- and here, again, he is speaking of jazz's origins and not (as I pointed out in an earlier discussion on this subject) in an exclusionary sense -- because without African-Americans and an African-American cultural aesthetic, there would have been no jazz. And, no. I'm not missing the point. The Marsalis quote merely is an expression of Marsalis' informed opinion. By virtue of his status as a jazz artist and student of the history of jazz, his remarks have weight and relevance. And because his comments address the origin and nature of the art form, the quote is, IMO, properly placed. Further, the Mark Twain analogy is, IMO, precisely on point. Both the hypothetical comment and the Marsalis quote advance an opinion. And, again, the article "endorses" nothing. deeceevoice 01:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, we're pretty much just going back and forth restating our positions, at this point. It doesn't seem like anyone else wants to weigh in, so I guess that's that. If it were up to me, I would replace the paragraph with the one below.

Jazz has frequently been viewed as an important expression of the African-American spiritual and cultural tradition. For example, contemporary critic and trumpet-player Wynton Marsalis has said, "Jazz is something Negroes invented, and it said the most profound things -- not only about us and the way we look at things, but about what modern democratic life is really about. It is the nobility of the race put into sound ... jazz has all the elements, from the spare and penetrating to the complex and enveloping. It is the hardest music to play that I know of, and it is the highest rendition of individual emotion in the history of Western music." Others have rejected rigid definitions of the forms significance. Most famously, when trumpeter Louis Armstrong was asked to define jazz, he responded, "Man, if you have to ask, you'll never know."

The advantages I see to my version are (1) it explicitly suggests that Marsalis' quote is part of a longer tradition of advocacy for this view, which it is, (2) it identifies Marsalis without giving his resume (I understand in the context of the earlier argument why the resume was given, but it sounds like we're trying to demonstrate his importance, which really isn't necessary -- people can link to the article on him if they doubt his relevance), and (3) it suggests that Marsalis' interpretation is controversial, and provides at least one alternate (and similarly controversial) viewpoint. It also allows us to use the Armstrong quote, which I've always liked (especially since I assume Armstrong perpetrated it while high -- it's my understanding that he was pretty much always high....)

Someone'd need to double-check Armstrong's exact words -- I'm quoting from memory. I'm not inclined to do it myself since the paragraph is never going to be used anyway. I had a couple other changes I thought might be a good idea, but they're more or less from the same perspective, which doesn't appear to have much (or any) support. So probably best to leave well enough alone. Thanks for the feedback, deeceevoice. Take care. NoahB 14:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Hold up one minute. Let me tell you something about Louis Armstrong. There was a hell of a lot more to him than some smiling trumpet player. He was sly, tremendously self-possessed and fiercely proud of his African-American roots. He was a jazz master, a consummate artist -- and a showman. He knew how to make white folks comfortable. He knew they loved to see a smiling blackman. The blacker the man, the whiter the teeth, the better. A lot of whites were beguiled by that smile of his and simply didn't listen closely to him when he spoke. They let their assumptions take over. With his age, assured stature as a national treasure and the changing times, though, he spoke his mind more and more frequently in his later years. A lot of times he was putting white folks down (or on) -- and all the while with that brilliant smile of his. It wasn't mean-spirited; more dismissive. A case in point. It's the "Tonight Show" sometime in the early '70s, and Armstrong is the featured guest. Johnny is clowning, talking about jazz and makes some comment about attempting to play -- that he could do something of his own if Armstrong would just give him a few pointers. Armstrong looks at him and drawls, "Naw, man. You'd jus' go on playin' in your own, white way." And then he flashes those pearly whites, just cool as you please. Carson and the mostly white audience just laughed. Funny, huh? :p What Armstrong was saying with the quote you cite is that jazz is something you feel, not something you think; that the truest swing comes from a sense of rhythm, from understanding and surrendering to it, rather than from a command of it; it is not something one can be taught. And I do believe if he were alive today, Louis would agree wholeheartedly with Marsalis about the true nature of jazz and its origins. deeceevoice 05:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Armstrong could be quite sly -- that's why I like the quote. My own guess is that he would have found Marsalis' pronouncements unbearably pompous, whatever he thought of their merits -- but it's impossible to know, of course.

I think your interpretation of Armstrong's quote is too narrow, but I refuse to generate additional verbiage about an injunction to silence.... NoahB 18:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My statement was that Louis very likely would agree about the quintessentially African-American nature of jazz, that it was conceived as an artistic and aesthetic expression of the African-American spirit. Now, as far as Wynton's arguably hyperbolic appraisal of jazz, I can't say. He probably would have shaken his head, laughed, slapped Marsalis on the shoulder, pronounced him a "crazy, cerebral cat," lit up a blunt and left it at that. I don't think he concerned himself with such matters. deeceevoice 19:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Marsalis' statement is (even though it is obviously true that blacks contributed more to jazz than anyone else, so that much doesn't have to be debated) the statement and wording that he uses that jazz was something that blacks "invented" is really poor musicology. I hope we can all understand that blanket statements like this are stupid. While jazz would obviously not exist without black people, and black people contributed more to it than anyone else, jazz would still not exist without the contributions of non-black people. I would like everyone to get beyond a political or social fight and think about many musical aspects of jazz. The saxophone, so vital to jazz instrumentation, was invented by a French/Belgian and the creation of the saxophone had absolutely nothing to do with America. The trumpet (not earlier forms of the trumpet, as I know that there were actually trumpets in ancient Egypt, as well as obviously the shofar and other instruments, but the former has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of the specific type of trumpet used in classical and jazz music, so I can say already that any references to trumpets in ancient Africa is irrelevant), both in its medieval valveless form and post-18th century valve form) was developed and created by Europeans. The trombone was created and developed by Europeans. The piano was invented by Italians and Eastern Europeans. The double bass was invented by Europeans. The guitar was developed by the Arabs and Spanish. So without the contributions of non-blacks, what instruments would jazz use? Also think of music theory. Seventh chords and ninth chords were discovered and their use standardized by European music theorists. The modes, which are extremely important in jazz music theory, were discovered and standardized by the Catholic Church. The jazz system of chord symbols from which players improvise comes from the Baroque use of figured bass for basso continuo accompaniment.

Responding by the various ways blacks have contributed to jazz is uneccessary because its not something that I deny or reject. What I do reject is the exact wording of Marsalis' statement. He says Jazz is something Negroes invented, and as a Juilliard School former student and professor, he really should know better. A correct statement would be something like this: jazz is a fusion of various styles deriving from various cultural traditions. While the form itself would not exist without African-Americans, it would also not exist without pre-existing Western music. There is nothing wrong with Marsalis having pride in the black contributions to jazz, but that doesn't change the fact that his specific statement is wrong and I seriously do suggest that a better one is found. Yid613 | Yid613 23:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Blues people" by Le Roi Jones is a book you should all read.The first book on Jazz history written by a black man.It details the cat and mouse game between black musicians and white musicians.Black players would inovate and white players would appropriate and inovate further.That would force the black musicians to inovate further to keep themselfs working.Racial inequality it a huge part of the growth of Jazz as an art form.

As I have shown above, if white people "appropriated" the styles and sounds of black people, thnn black people "appropriated" the instruments and music theory techniques of white people. Speaking in terms of musicology, however, it is likely that the history Jazz is not one of two groups stealing things from each other but rather a cultural fusion. Did blacks play a larger role than whites? Of course. That is not being contested. What is being contested is Marsalis' quote, and Marsalis' quote is wrong.

I have a problem with this statement:

In addition, it could be argued that jazz would not exist without both instruments invented or developed by Europeans (the trumpet, saxophone, trombone, double bass, etc.) and the previous work of Europeans in music theory, which was explored in different ways by jazz musicians, such as increased use of the seventh chord and extended chords.

This statement is too obvious. Do we describe the invention of the television partly to Edison (or Swan or Göbel, depending where you're from) for his invention of the light bulb? Or do we partially attribute Gumbo to Asia or Africa for having the first species of rice consumed by humans? Modern instrumentation and music theory is always based, even if lossely, on what came before it. This time, the connection is too obvious and unnecessary to mention. What do you all think? --Mcmachete 20:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You whites want to take credit for everything good the black man creates huh?

None of the comments here so far have addressed the fact that many of the early jazz originators were Creoles. They did not consider themselves black or white. They would have been highly insulted to be labeled as black or negro. It saddens me to see this argument here about racial categories. It's like the mythology of Jim Crow is still important to people today, when we should really all know better than to label individual according to ridiculous notions about skin color.Verklempt 02:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you're all verklempt, Verklempt. But save your tears. No one is talking about "race" here. Creoles are blacks. In the 1950s, today's black people/African-Americans wouldn't have accepted the term "black" either. That doesn't mean we weren't and aren't. I have no problem with mentioning if someone were Creole. But understand that, bottom line, they were, and are still, black people culturally and ethnically. Creole culture is not separate and distinct from black culture; it is a subset of it -- another flava only sometimes. Beyonce Knowles comes from Creole people, too. But is she black? Most certainly. Is Mayor Nagin black? Most certainly. The Morial family? Most certainly. And anyone attempting to say otherwise would be laughed out of the room. Creole jazz musicians moved in the same circles as other blacks. And, certainly, they were -- are are -- all African American. deeceevoice 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about the turn of the 20th century and before, when things were different. I would recommend reading "White by Definition", by Virginia Dominguez, which is the standard scholarly reference on Creole identity in NO. After that, have a look at the oral histories of the early jazz musicians. There is no question that the Creoles were a distinctive group back then. It is anachronistic to impose the one-drop rule on historical individuals who rejected it. To do so is not only a methodological error, it also replicates Jim Crow racism. It also ignores a whole lot of crucial recent scholarship in jazz history.Verklempt 23:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Typo in 2nd graf of "Other regional styles"

In the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the "Other regional styles" section, there is what appears to be a typo:

In the northeastern United States, a "hot" style of playing ragtime developed. While centered in New York City, it could be found in African-American communities from Baltimore to Maryland.

Last I knew the city of Baltimore is in the state of Maryland, so the phrase "from Baltimore to Maryland" doesn't really make sense. I'm not sure of the author's intent here, and not well-versed on the topic at hand, so don't feel qualified to make the edit myself. However perhaps something like "...communities as far away as Baltimore, Maryland" would make sense.

Kelly 17:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

External links list and article length

Isn't the external links list getting a bit too long? isn't the article itself a bit too lengthy? I'm sure we could find things to put on separate pages. Karol 09:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The external links section was almost all in the "don't link" category. I've done a chainsaw slight trim.
brenneman^(t)(c) 05:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article??

Shouldn't this article be unfeatured?

• No sample
• Not many references
• No in line references
• Style: regional styles in bullet format
• Contemporary jazz: a list of short paragraph.
• Completeness:
  • Neo bob is missing
  • Very few European artists are cited. American point of view.

Jazz is America's art form. It only makes sense that there are fewer European artists as primarily American artists shaped the music through its evolution.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.29.6.7 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

• • Django Reinhard

We need a better featured Jazz article! Vb 15:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on starting jazz articles about Europe. I started Dutch jazz and Polish jazz plus have done a great deal on French jazz and British jazz. That said there doesn't seem to have been much distinctive outside the US before WWII. An exception to that is Gypsy jazz, which I added some information on. The modern era of jazz, after say 1970, is not something I normally feel competent to write about.--T. Anthony 16:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Piano/guitar comping described as "ostinato"

I don't agree with this comparison. Ostinato implies an incessantly repeated, stubborn riff that does not change. (I've also heard that it has to be at the same pitch in order to be considered ostinato.) That's not really how it works in jazz; the character, variety, and spontaneity that you hear in a professional [pianist,guitarist,vibist]'s comping does not remind me at all of ostinato. TheBoyNextDoor 01:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to comping and removed the link to ostinato. Hyacinth 10:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Check, one two... is this thing on?

There is a book, off Oxford Press, called Word Myths by a man names Milton, I believe. He pretty clearly states where the term jazz comes from, and cites his sources, too.

Maybe someone should look into it, as the etymology is not what is on this page.

I have added a second link to a second Daniel Cassidy article and inserted his version of the etymology into the main article; unlike all his predecessors, Cassidy backs up his argument with a careful analysis of periodicals tracing a pretty iron-clad case of the San Francisco Bulletin jazzing up the vernacular use of teas, and it's pretty plausible that the use of the term clearly as prior-art in regards to baseball would then find use in other aspects of american popular youth (and black) culture. Cassidy also addresses those prior writers, and finds their stories seriously lacking in credibility. Jasmine perfume? That's a new one on me: I've read what Ellington, Morton, Armstrong, Ra and others have said, and I'm convinced Daniel has a very good case; the match between the meaning of the original Irish term is more than motive, and the journalism and sports angle is clearly opportunity for nearly instant mass-adoption, and the need of the early Jazz empressarios to jazz up their PR (a custom deeply rooted in black entertainment) is more than enough good cause to adapt the term in the service of selling this new music. True, it's all circumstantial, but that's a great deal more probable cause than is given for any of the "sexual connotation" yarns. -- garym

Cassidy's pseudo-etymologies do not belong here. If you want critiques try Language Log (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003326.html) or the curt but just dismissal at http://www.grantbarrett.com/index.php/grantbarrett/crank_etymologist/ -- I don't know anything about the "jasmine" derivation either, which looks dubious to my eye. A few cites from credible etymological research would be nice here. ND 02:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd then that the worldly journal like the SF Bulletin would risk using a sexual term in the very proper society days of 1913. FWIW, Michael Quinion (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-jaz1.htm) ties a direct line of communications from Scoop Gleason to King Oliver, who if not the first to use the term in his advertising was certainly among the first.

Is this article too long?

I ask this not as a Wikipedian but as a reader, coming to the article for information about jazz. For someone like me who has had casual exposure to jazz--liked some styles; others not so much--it is an extremely large, sprawling, nebulous genre of music, very formidable and difficult to penetrate and learn about and get deeper into. I came here hoping to find a somewhat concise breakdown of the various styles and how they evolved, and the notable artists within those styles, as a sort of map with which to explore. Unfortunately, it seems that one must read the entire long history of jazz in full detail or not at all. Now, I typically don't like it when I see people saying articles should be shortened or condensed, as I think an online encyclopedia like this is a great opportunity to compile as much information about any given subject as possible--but I have also seen articles in which the subject was summarized in a shorter format at the top of the page, followed by a much longer and more detailed article below, expanding on and filling in the details of all the points mentioned more briefly in the beginning of the article. I wonder if this article could benefit from something like that, some kind of concise map of the evolution of jazz styles, somewhere easily accessible and approachable? thoreaubred 05:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. The article is ~6,200 words long. The WP guideline for article length says articles become unreadable from 6,000 words and more. And myself I even find 6,000 words are too many for an encyclopedic article.

I suggest that the sections are greatly shortened, and that the full text be included in separate articles. I think I can safely say nearly ALL sections are too long. The text is too prozaic and includes too many examples.

Example:

But Pullman porters were more than solicitous, smiling faces in smart, navy blue uniforms. The most dapper and sophisticated of them were culture bearers, spreading the card game of bid whist, the latest dance crazes, regional news, and a heightened sense of black pride to cities and towns wherever the railways reached.

I mean, what the heck? The one who wrote that should go write a novel, not an encyclopedia.

The sections about Latin jazz / Free jazz / Jazz fusion have their own articles, the information doesn't need to be included here. MrTroy 12:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I really wonder what a discussion of George Pullman's invention of the sleeping car has anything to do with "jazz" and I think this article could be shortened by removing random information such as that.AllTalking 00:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's way too long. I think the detailed stuff should be moved to separate articles on each style; the point of this article should be overview. The immense detail on early styles versus the perfunctory & random info on recent jazz history is also strikingly disproportionate. ND 20:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject

Any interest from fellow jazz fans in getting a Jazz project started under WP:GENRE? If so, please leave a note on my talk page. --cholmes75 16:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have added WikiProject Jazz music to the list on Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects. If anyone wishes to sign up please do so there. Once we get enough people (5 or so should cut it), we can safely promote it to a regular project. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect usage

The Dutch Wikipedia article includes this text, would anyone think it's a good idea to include it in this article too? I think it would be a rather useful addition.

== Incorrect usage of the term jazz ==

Contrary to popular belief, it's not true that contemporary jazz is slowly evolving into pop music. This misunderstanding is caused by the tendency of naming alternative pop music jazz. This happens with several kinds of music.

• Music that is a mixture of jazz and pop music, such as the recent albums of Jamie Cullum. Although this music is indeed influenced by jazz, it would be incorrect to classify it as jazz. In most cases, the artists themselves acknowledge this, however, often the general audience isn't aware of this.
• Sometimes music entirely unrelated to jazz is said to be jazz. Well-known examples are James Blunt and Joss Stone. This incorrect naming can be caused by misinformed radio DJ's, and record label promotors who use the term jazz to get more attention for their artists. Another cause can be the artist performing at a jazz festival. It's becoming more and more accepted that non-jazz artists perform at these festivals. This can lead to the misconception that those artists are in fact jazz artists.

Mind that it's just a rough translation of the Dutch text. If it is going to be included, some rewording might be needed. --MrTroy 19:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good addition to me. I've had to correct more than one friend after they say something sounds "jazzy," and I'm sure I'm not the only one. JoeTrumpet 11:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the affirmation. I added the text to the article. MrTroy 12:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering the enormous length of the article, & the fact that this subsection contradicts stuff said elsewhere in the article on Jamie Cullum, I think this entire passage could be boiled down to one or two sentences. ND 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the shortest way you can get. Making it shorter would remove essential information. There are much better ways of shortening this article, such as removing useless examples and prozaic, unencyclopedic pieces (like I said above in the "is this article too long" discussion).

Also, it doesn't entirely contradict the other stuff on Jamie Cullum, as that other piece too questions the usage of the term "jazz". I agree however, it seems a bit silly to say it's incorrect here, and elsewhere in the article say it's OK to call it jazz.

Nevertheless, the "incorrect usage" section is much more detailed about why the naming is incorrect. I think if one of the two has to be deleted, it should be the other one (that basically only says 'the instrumentation and rhythms are similar, so it can be called jazz'). MrTroy 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

AllTalking---edits for 9 July

You fail, as seems to be your wont, to provide any references whatsoever for the numerous edits you made on 9 July. Please do not make unsubstantiated claims, as this seems an awful lot like POV pushing. If you can, find some references for the opinions expressed, i.e. the popularity of Paul Whiteman, etc. Thank you. ---Charles 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that Whiteman was indeed enormously popular. Cf. e.g. The Rough Guide to Jazz which says that by 1930 he was "an internationally known showbusiness figure" & that his 1930s band was "hugely successful". ND 17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing whether he was or was not---I will assume your reference is accurate---my problem is AllTalking's penchant for making claims and assertions in articles (I have seen this before) and feeling no need to provide references for same. You were able to provide two quotes on the topic, so why could he not do the same? And, it is not just Paul Whiteman---he has made other assertions that are similarly unreferenced. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an opinion forum. ---Charles 18:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to step into the larger issue/argument about citation, but myself wouldn't see the need to include cites for statements like this. Whiteman's popularity is well-known to anyone familiar with early jazz/pop music. ND 19:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jass

I find the long well doccumented incident of the "J" in "Jass Band" advertising posters being scratched off being alternately labeled a "theory" by people adding it and "vandalism" by others removing it very annoying. Rather than getting into an edit war on the article page, please take your discussion to the talk page, though I think the involved parties might benifit from reading some early jazz history first. -- Infrogmation 14:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a much easier solution: the people adding that "theory" should cite a reputable source for it. We could have an 'it's true / no it's not' discussion for ages, but just citing sources would solve the whole discussion.

And what do you mean by "reading some early jazz history first"? Obviously, you know everything about the subject, so please enlighten us about whether it's a genuine theory. MrTroy 16:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"long well-documented incident": where & by whom? Sounds like yet another bunch of cute pseudo-etymology to me. ND 17:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking for a source. For one, "The Story of The Original Dixieland Jazz Band" by H. O. Brunn, page 57 ("LaRocca avers that the word 'jass' was changed because children, as well as a few impish adults, could not resist the temptation to obliterate the letter 'j' from their posters."). It is is a story told by individuals who were there at the time. One may judge the account credible or not. However, mentioning it is neither a theory nor vandalism. Sorry if I came off as snarky, but I found the terms by which the dispute was being argued inappropriate and annoying. -- Infrogmation 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You can hardly blame me for deleting something sounding so untrue. No, I never read a book about jazz history. But that's not the point, <anonymous user> should've cited a source for the statement. Besides, the phrasing was fairly poor - it suggested the name was created by scratching away the 'j' from 'jass' - which of course isn't right, that would make "ass", not "jazz". Your explanation makes clear what actually was meant. MrTroy 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Prose question

I thought this "[...]black-established and -operated[...]" was a smart bit of prose (found somewhere near the bottom to the intro section of History). It is, I think, the first time I've come across this structure and certain emphasis, and I wonder where it comes from and whether it's common. -Bordello 04:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean the implicit repetition of the word "black", indicated by the second hyphen? It's a common device in formal prose, yes. ND 05:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that's what I wanted to know. -Bordello 10:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening

Mrmusichead has deleted the rewritten opening I contributed on July 16th with no other explanation than that he desires "the traditional clear wikipedia opening". Any votes on this? Needless to say, I'm not at all pleased to see my work junked, especially considering that I was trying in good faith to improve an article which many people seem to agree needs a major overhaul (for instance, it's ridiculous that the enormously long piece waits till the end to explain about improvisation!). & what I wrote seems to me neither unclear or even all that atypical. I also think (hope?) that given that my rewrite stood nearly unchanged for a week, other readers/contributors were OK with it. Anyway, I'm tempted to simply revert it but thought that before I did so I should solicit a few opinions. If you have suggestions for improvement that'd be useful too. But now we're just back to the original, (IMHO) unhelpful opening. ND 06:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Revert. "Return to clear traditional Wikipedia opening" is not a good argument to make such a drastic change. MrTroy 07:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• On principle, I'd say revert. For an article of this size, a lead of more than one paragraph is most definitely warranted. That being said, you may want to be careful not to stray too much into an essay-style opening. If this article is ever to be returned to Featured Article status, all the claims made in it must have citations (even if they are obviously true to jazz fans). In particular, I would stay away from getting into any musical theory (defining swing, for instance) in the opening, and save that for later on. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 18:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, when I have a sec I'll revert & try to condense/reorganize a little. One thing that needs to be done is dealing with the "Improvisation" section of the article, which is currently (absurdly) at the end, after 1000s of words about jazz--surely it needs to come early. That's one reason why I got into a little more detail at the start. -- I left an invite to Mrmusichead on his talk page to rewrite, as opposed to simply junking, the opening, but no dice so far. -- I keep trying to find time to sit down with a few good reference books (like Lewis Porter & the Kirchner OUP book) to see how they deal with jazz history & do some factchecking: will try to get around to that this week. ND 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your writing was informative Ndorward, please don't take offence by the revert. But it was simply too detailed for what needs a be a clear and concise opening. I would support a version of your intro under a "Background" section above the "history" section. Sometimes being bold and removing material aids the editing process.--Mrmusichead 02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Jazz

In the article, it is not described that jazz originated from the songs sung by the elder to accompany the work on the fields. It traces back to the homelands (West Africa) of the black community in America. -KVDP 08:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly that is not the sole direct origin, but it's a very important topic in historic African American music. We have a stubby article at work song; serious expansion would be good. The early jazz standard "Rip 'em Up Joe" was said to have been based by Joe Oliver on a work song he heard upriver. -- Infrogmation 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

eh?

"Today, the only remnants of the true bebop sound and style exist in New York through a club called Smalls on 7th Avenue South."

Is this a joke? Atraxani 07:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is, indeed, filled with non-sequiturs of individuals' opinions and views. I hope we can whip it into shape eventually, but it's a big job! Special-T 13:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Smalls club & record-label are indeed a vital place for music in the bebop tradition (but not merely "retro"). That said, it's hardly got a lock on intelligent bebop playing. -- I have no idea even where to begin with the "Jazz" article"--I suppose the first thing would be hiving off some of the accumulated detail into the separate articles on each period. ND 14:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Commercial links

Several of the links listed seem to be primarily commercial, or don't have enough info about jazz to merit inclusion. Specifically:

• A Passion for Jazz! Music History and Education
• All About Jazz jazz portal
• Jazz Web Site at About.com

I'm admittedly no expert on what makes the cut as far as external refs, so I'd like some other editors' input before removing these. Perhaps I'm not being bold enough... Special-T 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with omitting all those links. AAJ is a reviewing organ & discussion board but it's loaded with advertising, paid features & other moneymaking schemes which make it kind of borderline. ND 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

AAJ is far more than a "reviewing organ & discussion board" if you take a closer look at the information content it offers. Sure, there are a lot of CD reviews (>18,000, all archived and fully searchable), but there are also a variety of different article types, including interviews (>100 so far just this year, and plenty more in the archives). Plus international coverage, a huge musician directory, news updates, daily downloads, and guides to radio stations, venues, schools and festivals. All of these features are available to every reader and contributor totally free of charge. I'm not sure why the advertising ("& other [unspecified] moneymaking schemes") should disqualify this site from being linked at the bottom of the Wikipedia entry on jazz. None of the advertising interferes in any way with access to all this free content, and it pays the bills so the site can remain active and keep growing. How does any of that make AAJ "borderline"? -- Nilinator 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with removing AAJ links. More editors' input: [1]. BNutzer 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me what "AAJ is a reviewing organ & discussion board" means? And as an example, I view this page on Miles Davis as invaluable to anyone who is interested in his music (scroll down to view the countless article links). And seeing how All About Jazz has made the most significant contribution to the jazz web, it should without a doubt be included on the general "jazz" page at Wikipedia. It's also not "loaded with advertising". Our sponsors are listed here. Considering the depth and breadth of the site, these six banners and four box ads hardly constitute "loaded". I think the jazz editors at Wikipedia need to take some time and familiarize themselves with AAJ. I or any of the current (volunteer) senior staff members would be more than happy to assist you. Michael 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I added it myself, even though I didn't notice this discussion until just now. AAJ is VERY invaluable and was got me so interested in Jazz since I started listening to it recently. I think the removal was in part because of stimpulations at WP:EL, particularly WP:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest. Since you work for the page, adding it here is a "conflict of interest." WP's solution is "consider mentioning [the link] on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines." -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ron, this is all great to hear (aaj playing an instrumental role in your appreciation for jazz). i could certainly be more discriminating in the links i add, though i haven't added many to date, and what i did add, i'd like to see restored. my main concern here is that the jazz editors at wikipedia have difficulty determining what is actually important. we have many definitive interview links that should be added. we can't expect the artist, the artist's manager or the artist's publicist to add the links. it's up to us. Michael 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the point of the conflict of interest guidelines is that the best way for Michael to go about adding links to Wikipedia entries is to suggest them on the relevant talk page(s) and then let the editors take action. In the meantime, the mass deletion of the relatively limited links already in place (as "linkspam," with no more explanation in situ) seems rather inappropriate given the substantial information content they lend to the Wikipedia community. They should receive consideration by editors based on their merits before they are deleted wholesale. In any case, I'd hope that the editors who view AAJ as "borderline" or "commercial" spend some more time exploring the site before they reach such hasty and unjustified conclusions. It would be very discouraging to Michael Ricci and all the contributors who volunteer for AAJ if the Wikipedia editors presented a blank wall to potentially very helpful information they can share through these links, especially if it's based on what seems to be a pattern of ignorance and misunderstanding. -- Nilinator 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

See also the discussion at User_talk:Infrogmation#Jazz_link_-_spam.3F. The conflict of interest aspect led me to conclude that removing those links was justified. The editor who inserted those links is connected with the website, and his only edits have been insertions of those links. I have looked at the site, and there is some valid info there - if someone else chooses to judiciously re-insert some links, I'm not opposed. Sorry that my edit summaries were uninformative - there's such a thing as being too concise. - Special-T 04:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Special-T, who is that "some other person"? who else knows what's important besides myself and the senior staff at all about jazz? no offense, but i'm the most qualified person, though i could assign this task to an aaj contributor. also, it's impossible to get a handle on aaj with a one-time visit. we've been producing the site since 1995--the depth and breath is staggering. also, we're not a corporate/commercially-driven entity--though we obviously want to be profitable, it's run on a shoe-string out of my home. like wikipedia, we have the support of countless volunteers around the world. also, jazz is unlike other commercial forms of music. aaj is providing an essential service to the entire industry--primarily for musicians/artists. it was mentioned before, but perhaps i should suggest what i deem to be essential (aaj) links and allow the jazz editors at wikipedia to determine whether they're a good fit. Michael 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the AAJ link was restored. Thank you! Now I'd like to address the sequence of links. I'd like to see them listed in order of importance/significance or in alphabetical order. Placing AAJ at the very bottom (with no descriptive text), is certainly less useful as less readers will find it. Michael 13:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful for participants in this discussion to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, especially the section entitled "Personal benefits". I removed those links to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines in this area. No-one has stated that there is not valid information at the website in question. But insertion of those links by the website's owner/administrator/employee, etc. is explicitly "very strongly" discouraged under Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Also see Wikipedia:Spam: "Adding external links to an article for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." - Special-T 16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How about if I added it sometime? I do not work for AAJ, far from it. I have some doubts about it, but it seems useful. Particularly with jazz outside North America, which is not well-covered by some sites.--T. Anthony 07:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Jazz

In efforts to shorten this article, we've lost a good deal of important information on jazz history that hasn't appeared elsewhere in Wikipedia, and there are many points that could be expanded on. I suggest we need a "History of Jazz" series of articles. A short summary could go here, with main articles broken down by major periods-- for example something like "Jazz before 1920", "Jazz in the 1920s", "Jazz from the Depression to Bebop", "Jazz from Bebop to 1960", etc. Thoughts? -- Infrogmation 17:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Go thou and do likewise. If you start the articles, they will come. __ Just plain Bill 18:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Audio samples

If "Birds of Fire" is jazz (or at least has something in common with it), then I am Charlie Parker. And how "The Jazzstep" can be called modern jazz, while it is just a simple tune played over a synthesized background? --A.M.L. 15:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you are Charlie Parker and/or haven't read the article, you indeed wouldn't know that the development of Jazz didn't completely halt after the exploration of Bebop. The Mahavishnu Orchestra's Fusion is just as much Jazz as the first Dixie bands and Ornette Coleman's free experiments. — Mütze 15:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't judge the whole jazz fusion genre. I just state that this particular audio sample of 30 seconds isn't ever jazz fusion, it's straight rock. The caption says "this piece by the Mahavishnu Orchestra merges jazz improvisation and rock instrumentation into jazz fusion". The guitar solo can be called improvisation, but what makes it jazz improvisation? As to me, it is played in a typical rock manner. --A.M.L. 17:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

origin of word jazz

The word jazz relates to Jism / jizz. Narrow minded admin here disagree so remove it. Even from the discussion page. Even reference at the bottom of page suggests this - # ^ University of Southern California film professor Todd Boyd, the term was originally slang for sexual intercourse

That's one etymological story but not the only one, & my understanding is that many professional linguists are pretty dubious about the jazz=jism theory. Why a film studies prof should necessarily be an authority on etymology is beyond me. --ND 17:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well ignoring my vandalism history...another issue, thanks for taking me seriously on this one. I was beginning to think this wikipedia was one sided. 86.138.189.255 21:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've heard this from many other sources, of course not book sources. I think due to the nature of the other word, makes this a taboo linking and so people would rather forget it. 86.138.189.255 22:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if someone has access to Lewis Porter's Jazz: A Century of Change or to Dick Holbrook's article on the origins of the word, then the matter can get sorted out more authoritatively. See this posting from a linguists' discussion list: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0303d&L=ads-l&P=21158 (and also here: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0308c&L=ads-l&P=3343). --ND 02:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

jazz musician of the week

want to make a jazz musician of the week template??? Flying Hamster 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What is a jazz musician of the week?? --Gautam3 18:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Junglebop

In Jazz#Electronica I read This has been variously dubbed "future jazz", "jazz-house", "nu jazz", or "Junglebop".. Is Junglebot notable? If you have some comment, please write it to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Junglebop. Cate | _Talk 10:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1960s and Evans

The section on the 1960s needs some work. Bill Evans was arguably the most influential pianist of this era, but he is only mentioned as an aside in conjunction with modal playing. Evans' modal work was largely confined to his brief stint with the Miles Davis Quintet in 1959; Davis hired him because he knew Evans could do what he wanted done in that department. However, when Evans left Davis and formed his own trios, he immediately became known for his new ideas in voicing (for instance, "chords of omission") and innovative use of rhythm in his improvisations, none of which had to do with modal playing.

Jelly Roll Morton

Am I just missing it, or is he not mentioned anywhere - including the Dixieland/New Orleans, 1920s, and 1930s sections - on this page? I was under the impression he was extremely influential. I'm only getting into jazz though, so I don't feel qualified to add to the main page myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.3.230 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

bent notes

I have just added a wikilink to the reference in the Dixieland section of the article about "bent" and "blue" notes. My doubt now is twofold: whether bent notes also refers to instruments other than the guitar, which is the featured instrument under bent notes, plus the fact that I don't really associate the guitar with Dixieland - please correct me if I'm wrong! - Technopat 09:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can bend a note on a guitar, you can bend one on a banjo. Even easier if you have a fretless banjo, but that's beyond the scope of most banjo playing. If you look in Dixieland, you'll find "guitar" mentioned 2 or 3 times. Just plain Bill 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Just plain Bill - I just had this nagging doubt and not being a musician needed someone to put my mind at rest. Technopat 11:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The bent and blue notes are also made on most other instruments. Techniques vary from the slide trombone where it's inherently easy to the piano where it is technically impossible but the pianist can strike two adjacent keys at the same time to give the impression of a note between. -- Infrogmation 14:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was referring to - so what's the score now? How can the link be fixed to include other instruments? Should a new article be started for Bent notes which will link there rather than to the guitar page? Help, please! Technopat 17:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have created an pitiful starter stublet at bent note. We clearly need more on the topic. The link in this article should not have been redirected to the guitar only article; I fixed that. -- Infrogmation 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! And thanx for fixing it! Technopat 21:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Being Jazz and Being Called Jazz

If jazz is simply improvised music, as the article suggests, it is wrong to say that jazz has an African-American origin. If jazz is improvisation, then jazz is as old as music. At this point in time, it also isn't right to say that jazz is improvised music in an African-American tradition, since people improvise in "jazzy" ways based on all sorts traditions, albeit with a level of sophistication first introduced to the world by African-American jazz musicians. It is probably fairest to say that African-American improvisational music was the first music called "jazz" rather than the first jazz. It is just loaded to 1) say the definition of jazz is unclear, but primarily based on improvising, and 2) say that anything was the first jazz. Bsharvy 12:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So, a minor edit based on this idea would be to change the first sentence to "The first musical art form called 'jazz' originated in..." Bsharvy 05:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what you're saying here: If I interpret your statement "It is probably fairest to say that African-American improvisational music was the first music called 'jazz' rather than the first jazz" and extrapolate the logical conclusion, then:

"The first jazz" WAS NOT "African-American improvisational music".

So, you need to be able to say what WAS "the first jazz" (never mind the first "music called 'jazz'") before you can even consider an edit like this.

Basically: If you think that "the article suggests... jazz is simply improvised music" then you're wrong to start with. It's best to leave the editing to the people who know something about the subject in question, rather than taking your own best stab at parsing whatever flawed material is already here to derive your own uninformed editing ideas. 68.124.67.61 17:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

At first glance, here are some things that need to be taken care of before this can be promoted to a good article.

1. The lead needs expansion per Wikipedia:Lead section. Given the article's length, there should be at least three paragraphs.
2. There are almost no citations in the article. Any sentence that has the potential to be disputed must have a citation. On the bright side, there are four books listed at the end of the article which may be cited to improve the article.
3. Most of the citations in the article are improperly formatted.
4. Image:PaulWhiteman.jpg needs a fair use rationale.
5. Since the article is divided by time, the music samples would probably be of better use beside the era in which is was performed instead of stashed in the bottom.
6. There should be no one or two sentence paragraphs.

The biggest issue by far is citations. Unless the article is fully cited, it cannot pass as a good article. Teemu08 00:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Brötzmann's picture?

Does anyone else think it's weird to have a picture of a modern musician next to the 1950's section? 71.246.236.74 00:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the picture is meant to be associated with 'free jazz', not necessarily the year...an unfortunate possibility of confusion that comes with arranging subgenres by date, but I'm not sure another arrangement would be better. ¦ Reisio 04:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill Evans quotation

I removed the sentence following the Bill Evans quotation. Any composer would argue with the point that there is less spontaneous creation in composed music. Also, if you consider the composer the 'artist', there is not a more limited space for interpretation in composed music. I understand the point trying to be made - that there is a basic difference between composing in real time (improvising) and composing in a non-real-time way - and it's a valid point. But that sentence as it stood was inaccurate (in addition to being original research and POV). Perhaps the Evans quote should be moved to the section on improvisation as well, since the improvisation (=real-time composing) aspect of jazz is the aspect it addresses. - Special-T 21:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with the Evans quotation is (1) it's unreferenced and (2) it's in fact suspiciously like a misquoted version of a famous Steve Lacy quotation (which I can give an exact cite for: it's included in Derek Bailey's book Improvisation).

Re: improv vs composed: the sentence was perhaps unsubtle but rather than deletion I'd recommend rewrite, as the distinction is valid. --ND 03:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing on Electric jazz

Perhaps it isn't its own sub-genre, but I feel something should be noted about Electric jazz. Certainly it deserves its own page? Perhaps a simple redirect to a sub-genre it is very closely related to? Gautam ^Discuss 18:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Electric jazz is like saying 'jazz using only brass instruments' - it's not a style, just a description of the equipment. ¦ Reisio 18:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

But that's anyway something to note, don't you think? I said it wasn't necessarily a different sub-genre, but you would certainly agree that selective instrumentation affects timbre and thus musical quality in general. Gautam ^Discuss 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There's stuff on fusion, so I can't see there's much of an omission. --ND 22:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

All right, guys. Good call. Gautam ^Discuss 23:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem mentioning some jazz is made using electronic instruments (among others, and briefly, since it should be sort of obvious). ¦ Reisio 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Jazz History Section

As an amateur Jazz musician and a part-time Wikipedian, I was just browsing through this article, and noticed that the section on the history of Jazz is amazingly long, and I was thinking that maybe it could be split off into a separate article, and summarized more on this page? Just a suggestion. -YK Times^talk 01:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Protect page

This page is vandalized more than any other I have seen. A quick glance at the page history shows that the vast majority of edits are either vandalism or reverts. Should it be semi-protected? TK421 14:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --ND 21:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Free /Avant garde

Why are free and avant-garde filed (the first item!) as being 1950 things (while not being even mentioned in later sections)? For all I know, read, remember, the entire free movement did not begin before the 60s. Seems to me that the history section needs a good shakedown. --Alien Life Form 10:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The foundational documents of the free jazz movement all date from the mid-1950s: the first albums of Cecil Taylor & Ornette Coleman. --ND 19:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Coleman recorded Something Else!!!! in 1958. Taylor was recording in 1956, however his first records are normally considered to contain his later playing only in embryonic form. So we are in 1958 which makes it "end of the 50s" and most of the development of free happened in the 60s (Free Jazz, 1960; Ascension 1965). By this yardstick Cool Jazz is a movement of the forties (as the Tuba Band played in 1948 and recorded Birth of The Cool in 1949), Modal Jazz must be filed under the 50s (Kind of Blue, 1958-1959) fusion under 60s (In a silent way - 1968/1969, Bitches Brew 1969/1970). Methinks not. ---Alien Life Form 14:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

2000s

I think that Chistina Aguilera doesn't play jazz-based music. That's pop with some blues changes, but that's not jazz. If someone doesn't know true jazz music and listens to Chistina Aguilera could think that that's jazz, but we know that that's false. Diana Krall could be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.74.242.143 (talk • contribs)

Free Jazz Institute

In general, I am a big fan of the wiki forum, however the sort of comments that I have seen are not as much encyclopedia-esk as they are opinions. I and other students of jazz are not opposed to such discourse (in fact we find it quite stimulating), however we find that we are at odds with many of the "opinions" found here within the general wiki forum (and even at odds within our own community). We have recently come across the Free Jazz Institute site, which as the author states is in its nascent stages of development, but it seems to be in the spirit of not-for-profit spirit of the wiki community. I am not selling this site, as I have no motivation for doing so, but rather offering it up as a better forum for such discourse. If there are better (/other) not-for-profit sites out there I (and others) would be interested. Regardless, we are interested in more in depth analysis and even opinions of "jazz" on a more fundamental level. I think the internet could be used as a great medium for communication of musicians world wide. I know I am only a lowly graduate student in music but I think that significant modernization in communication between musicians could be very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.16.36 (talk • contribs)

Miles Davis ...

... doesn't get mention before the 1960s. Given that he made his first album in 1949 and was hugely influential this can't be right. 'Kind of Blue doesn't even get a mention despite being the most popular and influential jazz album ever! Come on people! SmokeyTheCat 09:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He sounded terrible on his first album, and Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie are about 80 bazillion times more influential. It's called _bop_ poisoning, not whiney muted trumpet poisoning. :P That said, if you think more on him should be in the article, be bold and add it. ¦ Reisio 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a bazillion is a real number and you are wrong anyway. SmokeyTheCat 08:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Split link

In the box on musical origins, there is a reference to "African American Folk Music". I suspect this was intended to be a single link to an article under that title, although there is no such article at present. Instead, it resolves ito two separate links - one to "African American", and another to "Folk Music", neither of which seem especially relevant in this context.

212.32.117.134 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

More from Gary Giddins

I see that Gary Giddins is cited once here. There's another matter on which we might want to cite him. In "How Come Jazz Isn't Dead", p. 39–55 in Eric Weisbard, ed., This is Pop, Harvard University Press, 2004, ISBN 0-674-01321-2 (cloth), ISBN 0-674-01344-1 (paper), Giddins essentially makes a case to divide the history of jazz into four periods, which he calls "native" (p. 42), basically jazz as the local music of New Orleans up to and including King Oliver); "sovereign" (p. 45), the Swing era (but also in this period Coleman Hawkins 1939 hit "Body and Soul"); "recessionary" (p. 45), bebop straddling the line between sovereign and recessionary, but other modern jazz being firmly in the latter, "a retreat from marketplace power but not bankruptcy" (p. 47), with continued commercial success for the likes of (for example) Louis Armstrong, Dave Brubeck and Ramsey Lewis and also the greatest years (commercially and artistically ) for "jazz qua jazz—as opposed to jazz qua swing or jazz qua bop" (p. 47) as "Smart music for smart people." (p. 47); and the current "classical" (p. 50) era in which "even the most adventurous young musicians are weighed down by the massive accomplishments of the past." (p. 50)

I see that many capable people are working on this article, so I'm just making this suggestion here and getting out of the way. If anyone wants me to comment or discuss further, please drop a note on my user talk page to get my attention. - Jmabel | Talk 21:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I enjoy Giddens as a journalist, but I don't consider him an expert. He has never taken a PhD in music history, nor published in peer reviewed journals. He doesn't appear to have ever done much if any primary source research, save for listening to records. Jazz history has long been polluted by poorly informed amateurs. We have a long way to go still to excise all of their mythmaking.Verklempt 20:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did the old article go?

What I discovered upon revisiting this page was far from an improvement. Talk about a whitewash! The article is simply less informative, far less interesting -- and less accurate in some particulars, and certainly less accurate in the overall impression conveyed.

Curious. Wikipedia -- unfortunately -- seems to be the site most consulted for information on jazz. Why unfortunately? Because it's the only site where one can go and read about how un-black jazz is and read a long, long list of ALL white and Jewish, many relatively obscure, band leaders of the 1920s. WTF? How's that for cultural appropriation? This just flat-out sux. (No wonder the article was demoted from featured status.) But the treatment of this subject is classic Wikipedia. Oh, yeah. And the hits keep right on comin'. deeceevoice 08:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1)Wikipedia is not a venue for racial politics. If you feel that important artists are missing, then add them in. But musicians are important because of their artistry, not their race. (2) "all reflections of its origins in the music and cultural traditions of West Africa." This is unproven and unprovable. It contradicts the article's earlier (and correct) assertion that jazz emerged in a combination of musical styles, created by people of a variety of cultures. Please justify your inclusion of this sentence. (3)" spirituals, blues and ragtime, stemming from West Africa, western Sahel," Again this is unproven and unprovable. Please justify your inclusion of this sentence. (4) "Small bands of primarily self-taught Black musicians, many of whom came from the jazz funeral procession tradition of New Orleans, played a seminal role in the articulation and dissemination of early jazz, traveling throughout Black communities in the Deep South, to northern cities and westward." Again this is unproven, and incorrect. There are many well-educatedmusicians in early jazz, and many non "Black" musicians. The earliest traveling jazz band went to the West, and played for more than black audiences. Please justify your inclusion of this sentence. (5)"A "...black musical spirit (involving rhythm and melody) was bursting out of the confines of European musical tradition [of the marching bands], even though the performers were using European styled instruments.. This citation does not meet the standards for WP:RS. The cite does not take you to the quote. Also, the quote adds nothing informative to the article. It is simply a claim from the black nationalist perspective, and thus POV. It should come out. Please justify your inclusion of this quote.Verklempt 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a venue for racial politics." I find that amusing, because, curiously enough, Wikipedia is the only place that purports/pretends to be a reputable source of infomration online where one can visit an article examining jazz, its beginnings and history where the role of African-Americans and the distinctly African pedigree of jazz has been systematically de-emphasized:

From: "Jazz is an original American musical art form that developed around the start of the 20th century in New Orleans, rooted in African American musical styles blended with Western music traditions. Jazz uses blue notes, syncopation, swing, call and response, polyrhythms, and improvisation -- all reflections of its origins in the music and cultural traditions of West Africa."

To: "Jazz has roots in the combination of American music traditions, including spirituals, blues, ragtime, religious hymns, hillbilly music, and marching band music. After originating near the beginning of the 20th century, jazz styles spread in the 1920s, influencing other musical styles."

From:

The instruments used in marching bands and dance band music at the turn of century became the basic instruments of jazz: brass, reeds, and drums, using the Western 12-tone scale. Small bands of primarily self-taught Black musicians, many of whom came from the jazz funeral procession tradition of New Orleans, played a seminal role in the articulation and dissemination of early jazz, traveling throughout Black communities in the Deep South, to northern cities and westward.

A "...black musical spirit (involving rhythm and melody) was bursting out of the confines of European musical tradition [of the marching bands], even though the performers were using European styled instruments."North by South, from Charleston to Harlem," a project of the National Endowment for the Humanities

A postbellum network of schools for African-Americans, founded and funded by individual donations and charitable and civic societies, black and white, as well as widening mainstream opportunities for education, produced more formally trained African-American musicians. Lorenzo Tio and Scott Joplin were schooled in classical European musical forms. Joplin, the son of a former slave and a free-born woman of color, was largely self-taught until age 11, when he received lessons in the fundamentals of music theory. Black musicians with formal music skills helped to preserve and disseminate the essentially improvisational musical styles of jazz.

To: "The instruments used in marching bands and dance band music at the turn of century became the basic instruments of jazz: brass, reeds, and drums, using the Western 12-tone scale. Small bands of musicians played a seminal role in disseminating early jazz, traveling throughout communities in the West, South, and to northern cities." That's it. Everything else was deleted. Except that ...

... later in the same section, the language was redacted to give the absurd impression that jazz was taught in "public schools" to -- gee, I don't know -- everyone, including white kids? lol

For comparison, take a look at the following websites treating jazz history:

• This on early jazz[2]
• Another. "Jazz Roots." [3] Just scroll down the page and check out the photos. Yes, the montage is repeated several times -- but how many white faces do you see? Check the names under "Early Jazz." I haven't counted, but betcha the vast majority are black.
• Check the timeline on the PBS website for Ken Burns' film.

And now check Wikipedia's version of "jazz." A day ago.[4]

This article has been gutted -- and it looks to me like it's been gutted with an agenda. In listing examples of bandleaders of the 1920s, ALL of those listed are non-black -- Jewish and (maybe) white. And don't tell me that's just an accident. The fact of the matter is the preponderance of innovators of the jazz idiom, those most seminal to its development and articulation, certainly up to and including that time, were African-Americans. There's no way you're gonna tell me that these obscure people were more important artistically than Kid Ory, Buddy Bolden, King Oliver, Louis Armstrong's Hot Five and Hot Seven, or Jelly Roll Morton. The glaring omission of these GIANTS of jazz -- all black -- can't be mere happenstance. So, don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. The repeated deletion of text referring to Africa and supplanting it such material about whites and Jews is flat-out deceptive, and stinks of intellectual dishonesty and cultural appropriation, if not racism -- not to mention the deletion of black photographs and the insertion of largely inferior (in importance/relevance) white images -- sheet music and a poster.

I've saved the most preposterous of your contentions for last. That quote from a project by the National Endowment for the Humanities is POV and from a "black nationalist perspective"?!! ROTFLMBAO. Yeah, right. The bottom line is jazz was invented by black folks, and it bears all the hallmarks of its African pedigree. Have other artists contributed to its development? Yep. But America's "only original art form" is African-American in origin. And that's a fact. Try as you might, you can't convincingly whitewash that fact. And the innovators, the greatest artists of the form have been overwhelmingly black. The original reference linked to the website/web page. I made sure of it. It should be fairly easy to hunt down. When someone reworked the references, someting obviously went amiss. That's an easy fix.

But slapping a "black nationalist" label -- not a negative from where I sit -- on something just because it doesn't quite sit with your, uh ... unique ... version of jazz history isn't rational or scholarly. But thanks for the laugh.

I'm out for now. No tellin' when I'll be back. I've got some real work to do. deeceevoice 11:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to provide evidence for the specific sentences under dispute, but you have not offered a single one. Instead, you rant about my motives. This is not productive. I have a number of disagreements with what you wrote. First Kid Ory, Jelly Roll Morton, and King Oliver were Creoles. They did not consider themselves black. To retroactively apply the one-drop rule to these men is to deny their own identity, and to replicate Jim Crow racialism. Second, the NEH cite is incomplete. Without a complete citation, we don't know who the author is, or whether or not it is a reliable source. Even if it is a respectable source, the quote adds nothing encyclopedic to the article. It replicates, yes, the black nationalist version of jazz history. I would remind you again that Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for racial politics or racist utterances such as [[5]] I think that it would be good to have an entire section of this article devoted to jazz and race. It would discuss primitivism, Communism, Jim Crow, Crow Jim, and black nationalism, and how those phenomena relate to jazz history. But your simplistic argument that "blacks invented jazz" is out of line with recent scholarship. I asked for evidence and got a rant instead.Verklempt 21:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

ROTFLMBAO. If you think that's a racist utterance, I think you need a dictionary. Look up "racist"/"racism." deeceevoice 00:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read up on King Oliver, you'll find that no, he was not Creole, and yes, he did call himself "black". Not that the two are always exclusive, but partly we shouldn't impose current terminology on that of almost a century ago-- Yes, Jelly Roll wouldn't have called himself "black" but he and his family did call themselves "colored" -- a friend who knew Jelly's younger sister confirms her family rode on the back of the streetcars back in the Jim Crow era. For the record, -- Infrogmation 23:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on Joe Oliver. What is the evidence that Morton referred to himself as colored? I have never come across such. Even if such evidence is found, it must be carefully interpreted. There were plenty of people in the 19th century who thought of themselves as "colored", but who did not consider themselves "black" or "Negro." The one-drop ideology didn't gain complete hegemony until the Jim Crow era. Even under Jim Crow, many of these folks resisted one-drop -- the "Creoles of color" in NO being a prime example.Verklempt 22:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm reading you correctly, Froggy, your argument just doesn't hold up. So, when writing about black folks of certain eras, we should refer to them as "niggers" and "colored people" because those terms were common parlance? Hell, no! We use words that have meaning to people today. Besides, it is quite clear that one could be creole and African-American/black -- but not creole and white. Creoles were/are a subset of African Americans generally accorded/possessing economic, educational and social privileges because of their lineage and/or skin color. They were never anything other than that. And to somehow pretend today that they aren't black -- because it suits someone's agenda to de-Africanize the roots of jazz is the height of intellectual dishonesty and smacks of something worse.

I'm reproducing here my comments from another section, where I comment on the fact that Verklempt repeatedly has tried to excise the accurate information about jazz originating in African American communities on the basis of a source (or sources) that, puportedly, mention some creole musicians in connection with early jazz:

Ridiculous. I'm from Louisiana. "Creole" is merely a regional term. In New Orleans, my family would be considered Creole, but I'm from Shreveport instead. And I'm black. Mayor Ray Nagin is creole. LOOK at him. He's black. Same thing with the Morials. That term comes from a time when it was useful economically to distinguish blacks by racial admixture because we were bought and sold as property, as commodities, like livestock. The same goes for the "roons." All are from a time when a lot of black folks were seriously color-struck. Outside of New Orleans, almost no one uses the term "creole"; everybody's black. This argument is ridiculous -- a complete fabrication, a means of de-Africanizing, white-washing jazz. Its origins are black and African. Plain and simple. deeceevoice 01:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And back in the day in Louisiana, there were plenty of black folk with virtually the same ethnic admixture and appearance of so-called "Creoles" who were in poverty, enslaved and treated like sh*t because they were black -- my family among them. And I'm astounded that that's not common knowledge. Hell, yeah, we were all in the back of the bus. And pullin' cotton and scrubbin' white folks' floors, get gettin' lynched, too. So now creole isn't black? lol My a**!

Furthermore, the most innovative/roots cultural expression in the African-American community fundamentally and historically has always come those closest to our African roots, and that has pretty much meant the least assimilated/diluted/washed-out among us (certainly culturally, at least) -- and, due to the twinned race- and class-based structure of oppression in American society (witness the footage of Katrina victims at the convention center and how it could have been shot in Haiti, or Cuba, or the Congo), that generally means the poorest of us and, often, the blackest of us. (Or, certainly, those in contact/collaboration with those in our community who fit that description.) Those traditions flow from drylongso black folks and feeds the rest of AA culture. And, yes, what I've just written is a generalization, but one that I'd say is pretty accurate. deeceevoice 09:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No you are not reading me correctly, and I would appreciate it if you didn't try to put words in my mouth, especially such unpleasant ones. My comment above was directed in specifically correcting the incorrect statement above it (Joe Oliver was an Anglophone uptowner, not a Creole, and also he did specifically refer to himself as "black" even before that became the usual term in the African-American community), as well as providing some historical context to avoid any misunderstanding in that if Morton didn't call himself "black" one shouldn't jump to the conclusion that he therefore considered himself "white". There are many other issues in the discussion I could add my perspectives to, but in my above comment I was restricting myself to a couple of narrow points. Thank you for civil discussion. -- Infrogmation 11:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Froggy, chill. There's no way what I wrote reasonably could be construed as me "try[ing] to put words in your mouth." That's really a stretch. First of all, I wasn't sure I was reading you correctly -- and I wrote as much. Second, I was responding to your comment about "we shouldn't impose current terminology on that of almost a century ago," putting it in the context of the "Creole"/"African-American thing. But thanks for clarifying. deeceevoice 13:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope I don't put my foot in it in this mass of cultural sensitivities, but in researching I came across this article which suggests that the Creole issue was of considerable significance, at the point in 1894 when the Jim Crow laws made the young Morton black. H2g2[6] covers the same story in what's effectively a wiki, so not a reliable source. Obviously this doesn't detract from the significance of African origins and black development, including the blues which surfaced about the same time, but it's one explanation for part of the mix that developed into jazz at that point in the context of segregation. By the way, could you perhaps give a date or a diff of when you think the article was at its best..... dave souza, talk 14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous scholarly works that make the same point about the importance of Creoles and Creole identity in early jazz. It is unfortunate that we have an editor who insists on introducing his/her own racial identity politics into this article, insists on replacing erroneous and anachronistic statements that have already been redacted, and attempts to justify it all by cites to web pages that don't even begin to meet WP:RS. There is a large scholarly literature on jazz origins, and I intend to make certain that the errors and POV come out of this article, to be replaced by an NPOV version based on scholarly sources instead of web pages.Verklempt 20:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The scholarly evidence I have to hand is that jazz has African roots, combined with various European contributions one way and another, and that significant contributors such as Creoles both identified with the black side of segregation, and were seen as black to the extent of Morton performing in blackface. This is presented as a significant part of the story, and should be reflected in the article. If you've got reliable sources giving another viewpoint, that too can be proportionately discussed in the article. .. dave souza, talk 22:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are some items missing like the 1800s, soul jazz, influential 1920s Performers, "improvisation" section. Are you referring to these items? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

For some time I've been bothered by various changes over the past couple years may have been well intentioned but have replaced specific information with vague generalities. Portions have been rewritten and rearranged, it looks to my some people trying to improve style but not knowing details of the history, resulting in some misleading sections. Yes, some parts of the article certainly have gotten worse. -- Infrogmation 20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Verklempt (and others): I think the real problem here is that rather than discussion taking place on this page, & potentially controversial claims on the article page getting properly tagged with requests for citations, instead the article is getting frequently reverted or drastically purged without discussion. How about trying to achieve some consensus here first before deleting references to race en masse, or adding them back in en masse? -- These are complex issues about music history, and I'd suggest that anyone who wants to make substantial alterations try to provide citations from good sources. I'd suggest the first two chapters of Kirchner's OUP companion to jazz--on the African and European sources of jazz--as one place to start (not least because they somewhat contradict each other). --ND 00:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The two Kirchner chapters are a perfect example of my argument that the origins of jazz are uncertain and disputed. This is exactly why this article should not take a strong position. I am fully in favor of writing up the debate in its complexity. But until someone takes that on, I think the POV version needs to come out of the article as it stands today.Verklempt 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong but here's what the issues seem to be: 1- Verklempt wants sources cited. Nothing wrong with that. 2- Instead of leaving the uncited material in (much of which seemed easily verifiable) and tagging it as needing refs, he removed a lot of it. Nearly all of the text he removed involved mention of black americans. 3- deeceevoice is looking at the current article and concluding that Wikipedia as an institution is racist. Let's scale down our focus to this article and its current situation - one editor, in a recent series of edits, removed much of the material about black musicians, teachers, etc. Another editor disagrees with these changes. I suggest re-inserting that information where it's warranted, and coming up with references. Let's make it a better article. I'm basically saying the same thing as Ndordward. - Special-T 14:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Re your point number two, I disagree that most of what I excised it easily verifiable. I think most of it is either incorrect or unprovable. If I thought it could be substantiated, I would have flagged it. Re your point number three, I mostly agree. I have laid out my specific objections, both in my edit comments and in this section of the talk page. I am more than happy to negotiate these issues with any polite editors who may be interested.Verklempt 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Patience, dearie. I'm busy. The world won't shift on its axis in two or three weeks. I'll get to it -- or someone else will. deeceevoice 00:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The generally accepted process in such cases is to flag the relevant material for citation -- not wholesale deletion and reversion without meaningful comment. As far as I was aware, the quote about the black bands was properly sourced -- and even with an improper link, it's quite clear the quote about African bands came from a reputable source. I mean let's be clear. The National Endowment for the Humanities is hardly a "black nationalist" propaganda vehicle -- is it? And I find it difficult to believe that anyone who would make such an outrageous statement is about being objective in any way, shape or form.

And this is not just about deleting information. It's about what has to be deliberate omission. Take a look at the long list of Jewish (and possibly white) bandleaders from the twenties with nary a single black bandleader among them -- and with such far better-known luminaries to choose from? What? We're supposed to believe that's just some sort of brain fart? An inadvertent omission? Hay-o naw. I ain't buyin' it.

With regard to racism and cultural appropriation, that has been my experience over and over again with this website. It's nothing new. Here, it seems to me this guy has more than a problem with citations. His charge is totally off-the-wall. Again, people can mark the passages that they feel need citation, and I -- or someone else -- will get around to taking care of it when I/they have time. And, hopefully, other editors, like Infrogmation, who made such important and useful contributions to the old article can resurrect some of the stuff we and other apparently more knowledgeable editors contributed in the past which helped to make it a featured article.

Because at this point, frankly, the article just plain sux. deeceevoice 16:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Material that cannot be substantiated needs to be deleted. I am well-read in jazz history, and I know that most of what I deleted can never be proven. (E.g., the notion that spirituals, blues, and ragtime trace back to the Sahel is simply absurd. I have traveled all through the Sahel. They don't have many pianos there, much less a history of ragtime.) I have laid out what I think needs to be documented. If citations are not forthcoming, then I will delete those passages again, and I will be well within Wikipedia policy. I am more than happy to negotiate anything with anybody, but so far no one has put any evidence on the table.Verklempt 21:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So, that's all you have to say? There're no pianos in the Sahel? lol. I don't have time now, but I'll probably get around to adding citations in the next couple of weeks -- unless someone else does it before I do. Easily done simply by hunting an older permutation of the old, featured article. It's all there. The scholarship asserting the African connections is extremely well known and certainly not new. Besides, where do you think the seminal characteristics that distinguish African-American culture from mainstream American culture came from? Do you think it just sprang from whole cloth once we got here and just sorta grew like Topsy? ;)

Your remarks are reminiscent of the AfD discussion for Get down[7].

A wise rule to follow -- particularly if the subject matter is not about a cultural phenomenon indigenous to your own people, is to use your search engine -- assuming you have a genuine interest in obtaining knowledge about the topic. Just because you're unfamiliar with something, or haven't heard of it before doesn't mean it's not valid/true. After all, no one knows everyting about anything. deeceevoice 23:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute that there are Africanisms in jazz, just as there are influences of European and Caribbean musics in jazz. What I do dispute is the article's implication that jazz is a uniquely African music, or that it originates in Africa. This simply cannot stand up to the overwhelming weight of evidence and scholarship demonstrating the contrary. Furthermore, I question the propriety of racializing Wikipedia's presentation of an American art form. As I said, a separate section on jazz and race is appropriate. But labeling the music and its practitioners according to their race is reminiscent of antique Jim Crow racial ideology. Finally, I would ask you to communicate in a more polite and respectful manner, in accordance with Wikipedia's culture and policy. You could have better used the time you've spent today to make constructive edits, rather than wasting it typing out snarky, condescending and dismissive replies. There is little possibility for constructive negotiation pursuant to the discourse you've offered so far. You have yet to address my specific objections.Verklempt 04:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent> I'm addressing the issue, as time permits. The article at present is remarkably incoherent, and would not be helped by segregating race as you seem to want to do. ... dave souza, talk 22:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, who the hell here is talking about "race"? Certainly not I. In fact, the only people who have initiated the issue of "race" here are editors who, presumably, are white and Jewish. This isn't about "race". It's about ethnic cultural expresison -- African-American ethnic expression -- and, yes, black folks. I dare you to discuss klezmer and not talk about Jews. deeceevoice 15:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs, and avoiding the real issue here. You've insisted that the NO Creoles of a century ago were AA, based on antiquated one-drop essentialism. To label any individual's artistic expression in terms of his racial-ethnic identity is to commite the essentialist fallacy.Verklempt 22:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's simply absurd/pretentious. We're talking about a cultural phenomenon, and so it is proper to place it in the context of ethnicity -- which is about not only biological relatedness, but a shared culture. New Orleans' Creoles always were a subset of African American culture and life -- never outside it. And I defy you to produce an authoritative source that says otherwise. If anyone is "commite"-ing an "essentialist fallacy," it is you. It is absolutely impossible to meaningfully discuss ethnicity without considering history and culture. Again, I point to Jews and klezmer. I see your futile attempts to divorce Creoles from their essential, elemental African-Americanness is merely another in your attempts to whitewash/Jew-ify the article, another attempt at cultural appropriation. deeceevoice 12:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) It's apparent that you don't know Creole history at all, and are equally lacking when it comes to early jazz history. I already pointed you to the standard scholarly reference on NO Creoles. Anyone who is not familiar with Dominguez's work is ill-informed on this topic. Once you've read Dominguez, I'll be happy to point you to some jazz-specific references on Creole identity, and the relevance of its distinction from the NO black community. I plan to enter them into this article when I have time. (2) As to your insistence that racial-ethnic identity is central to jazz performance, that notion was refuted a half century ago by Leonard Feather. He conducted numerous blindfold tests, and found that the leading jazz musicians of the day were utter failures at distinguishing the racial-ethnic identity of the performers they were listening to. If the distinction cannot be perceived by the top jazz players in a controlled setting, then it doesn't exist. (3) "Jew-ify"?! You should be ashamed of yourself.Verklempt 15:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to be in the business of stirring this pot, but blindfold tests of mid-20th century performance have squat to do with much earlier cultural factors of the genre's origins. Furthermore, when someone says words to the effect of "I can't talk to you until you've read such-and-such an 'authority' on the subject" it sets my bologna detector a-tingling. Appeal to authority may sometimes aid an argument, but it is always a logical fallacy, and is often an abuse of rhetoric, an attempt to get the opposition to go quiet for a while. As mentioned elsewhere, various jazz idioms speak to different parts of the human condition. Regrettable as they may be, cultural stereotypes do exist regarding the demographic of intellectual forms vs. soulful forms. Is that politically incorrect enough for everyone? Maybe it would be better if we said w.r.t instead of vs. __Just plain Bill 16:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) Your first statment is correct, but misses the point. (2) Your second statement is a straw man. DC requested a cite that contradicted her erroneous and ill-informed contention, and I provided her with the standard one that everyone knows and cites. (3) WP is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but too many people edit articles on topics that they don't know much about. Too many people are unwilling to do the serious reading required to become knowledgeable. Cites to random web pages, in clear violation of WP:RS, are a big problem. This is an important article, and should be founded on the scholarly literature. Anyone who is unwilling to actually read the scholarly literature should stick to copy editing and let the rest of us do the heavy lifting.Verklempt 16:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Condescension is another diagnostic sign of my "straw man" being applicable. I'm willing to do extensive reading, but not willing to credit any one source with being an ultimate authority. I've probed the depth of your understanding elsewhere, and am still exploring your credibility. Have a gorgeous afternoon, __Just plain Bill 16:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) Nobody said that any single source is the ultimate authority. That is a straw man. But certainly anyone who is at all familiar with Creole studies has read Dominguez, whether you agree with her or not. A quick glance at the relevant citation index will prove that in an instant. (2) The ethnic distinction of Creoles in 19th century New Orleans is not even controversial among historians. Anyone who is at all familiar with the literature would never even dream of arguing otherwise.Verklempt 18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Great answer, thanks. Getting huffy when challenged is another sign of a bologna artist, and let me hasten to say that you have not exhibited that sign here, putting your credibility up several notches in my book. Carry on, I'll be happily watching... __Just plain Bill 03:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bill, but my credibility is not relevant. The central issue is the credibility of the sources we cite in the article, and achieving a balanced presentation when reliable sources disagree with one another. I have been disturbed by edits that are factually incorrect, and either not substantiated by cites, or cited to sources that don't meet WP:RS.Verklempt 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the credibility of any editor is relevant, especially where there are suggestions of non-neutral or biased POV being put into the article. "Even the Devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes."

WP:RS is an admirable thing, but only as good as the intent of the individual applying it. Where there is even a whiff of a suspicion of bias, as there most certainly is here, special effort towards achieving balanced presentation is called for.

Wikipedia's audience is the non-specialized reader; one of them at a time. Gutting the lead of the article, and ignoring large parts of the cultural heritage that led to America's indigenous art form "until they can be sourced in a certain scholarly fashion I approve of," does not help that reader understand it. __Just plain Bill 22:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Racial identifiers

First, I would support the inclusion of a section on jazz and racial issues. There is plenty of material to cover, and it could even be a stand-alone article. However, I cannot support the use of drive-by racial labels for musicians who are notable solely for their artistry, not their race. Second, I cannot support labeling musical elements as "African" or "Western." The inherited musical elements in jazz are not unique to either of these continents. Both continents have traditions of improvisation, non-ET intonation, call and response, polyrhythm, syncopation, etc. The distinctive features of jazz derive from the combination of many traditions, and were forged in the US alone. To label a musical element as either "African" or "Western" is to falsely imply that the element in question is unique to that continent. Hence such labels are factually incorrect. For these reasons, I have made the edits which DC objects.Verklempt 08:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I'd suggest you start working immediately on adding discussion of jazz & racial issues back in. I don't disagree about your impatience with simplified jazz history, but it's pretty obvious that just deleting multiple references to race/ethnicity/cultural origin is going to be a red flag, & you've repeatedly ignored the requests made here for a gentler approach via citation tags or the many other tools Wikipedia offers for indicating that an article is the subject of dispute. --ND 09:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Although you can't support labeling music as being primarily African or Western in origin, the terms are in wide use to distinguish between musical cultures that evolved in nearly complete isolation from eachother. Excising them is opinion and POV. Labeling a musical element in early jazz as deriving from one or the other of those traditions does not imply that the musical element is unique to one continent or the other - that's a specious argument comparable to your assertion above that the reference to the Sahel needed to be excised because they don't have pianos there and couldn't have been playing ragtime. Also, your selective strictness in only applying the knife to sections of the article mentioning race is, as ND says, a red flag at the very least. Race was most surely significant in the southern US only forty years after the end of slavery. - Special-T 14:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto (overall, anyway). What he (she?) said. In spades. deeceevoice 11:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have laid out specific objections to specific sentences in the talk section above, as well as in edit summaries. Most of the language I reworked was simply inaccurate. For example, blues, ragtime, and spirituals are not African musics. They originate in the US. There is no debate about this in the scholarly literature. To attribute them to the Sahel or any other part of Africa is totally inaccurate. Wikipedia policy does not require that editors leave inaccurate and unsourced data in an article. In fact, Jimbo himself has criticized the practice of flagging obviously wrong statements instead of excising them. If I were to flag them, they would stay flagged forever, because -- for example -- there is no evidence that ragtime originates in the Sahel. No one could ever provide a citation proving such an incorrect assertion, so why even bother to request a non-existent citation? It's better to remove such nonsense. I would appreciate if this Talk Page discussion could focus on the specific passages under dispute, instead of fretting over "red flags." Let's set the ephemera aside and get down to conducting business -- which is to get this article whipped into shape. I agree with DC that it needs a lot of work.Verklempt 21:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your approach to the music is simplistic, utterly ahistorical and completely uninformed/misinformed. There is no question that blues, ragtime and spirituals originated in the U.S.; they are inventions of Africans born here in this country. But that is what they (we) essentially were (are), historically and culturally -- Africans. As did immigrants to this nation, enslaved Africans brought their culture with them. African-American culture did not spring up out of whole cloth on the North American continent. The fundamental, essential distinctiveness of African-American culture from European/Euro-American culture emanates from our African roots. It is what has made African Americans the primary driving and formative force in the shaping of American and world popular culture over the last two centuries; we are not simply white Americans in blackface. As a result, the bold innovativeness of jazz, and the fact that some describe it as America's only original art form, can't be explained away by bland, vague, overly general language that seeks to attribute equal cultural responsibility or input on the part of blacks and whites into the making of jazz for what it is -- and certainly not by the shameless overemphasis on Jewish and white contributions evidenced in this Bowdlerized, expurgated and twisted version I discovered upon returning to the article almost 18 months after my initial involvement. Such an approach stinks to me of white/Jewish wannabe-ism (a la Mez Mezzrow, Lenny Bruce, etc., etc. -- the list is endless), cultural appropriation and possibly racism. Whites did not equally contribute (and have not equally contributed) to the invention and articulation/innovations of jazz. That's just simply not the case. No credible, authoritative source would dare to make such an outrageous assertion. The history is clear. Is jazz wholly African? Of course not! And no one has tried to make such a claim. But the deep and overarching imprint of Mother Africa on jazz is clear and undeniable in any reasoned, dispassionate, critical examination of the subject.

Funny that there are all sorts of sites on the web quoting and flat-out plagiarizing the earlier version of this article -- before it was gutted and twisted into something that, IMO, is a travesty. Why? Because it was a quality article, fully deserving of featured article status. And now it's a mess.

And with regard to Muslim influence on jazz, there is scholarly research that supports such a claim, certainly at least indirectly, through the blues idiom. You need to read more before you make such pronouncements based, apparently, on your unabashed and rather fundamental, appalling ignorance of the subject matter.

And, no, you have not addressed all of my concerns/complaints. I have limited time at the moment, but I will continue to correct what I view as a shameless whitewashing of the subject matter and reconstruct/restore information and sources that have been purged over time. deeceevoice 10:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

While I can't address every concern now, I reviewed the article. Some statements need to be fixed. A few more cites here and there would be helpful. The article is not overtly racist; every image appears to be of a person of African descent. Bearian 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with recent edits

There are many problems with recent reverts and revisions.

1) The lead paragraph is problematic. While most historians agree that jazz emerged in New Orleans and nearby, I have never seen any historian argue that it was unique to black communities. In fact, there are a number of scholars who observe that Creole musicians were more prominent in early jazz than black musicians. Furthermore, many historians note the importance of Storyville, which was an integrated neighborhood during the earliest years of jazz.

2) http://www.kennedy-center.org/programs/jazz/ambassadors/Lesson3.html

This essay is unsigned. The web site belongs to a concert hall. This source does not meet the standards set by WP:RS. Furthermore, the cite is being used to substantiate a claim that is controversial in the scholarly literature: that early jazz demonstrates "elements which collectively point to its roots in West African music." WP:NPOV demands that such one-sided arguments be modified.

3) "The Influence of African Rhythms"[http://northbysouth.kenyon.edu/1998/music/rhythm/rhythm.htm "North by South, from Charleston to Harlem," a project of the National Endowment for the Humanities Retrieved 10-29-2004

This essay is unsigned. The quote is not attributed to any author. This source does not meet the standards set by WP:RS.

4) "Also contributing to this trend was a tightening of Jim Crow (racial segregation) laws in Louisiana in the 1890s, which caused the expulsion from integrated bands of numbers of talented, formally trained African-American musicians. The ability of these musically literate, Black jazz men to transpose and then read what was in great part an improvisational art form became an essential element in the preservation and dissemination of musical innovation that took on added importance in the approaching big-band era. Black musicians with formal music skills helped to preserve and disseminate the essentially improvisational musical styles of jazz."

The first sentence in this passage is uncited, and I doubt it can be proven. The prominence of Jack Laine's integrated bands well into the 20th century contradicts this dubious assertion. The rest of this paragraph is pure opinion, and violates WP:OR.

5) There is no evidence that spirituals and ragtime "[stem] from West Africa and the Sahel". This statement cannot remain in the article. There is one author who speculates that melismatic blues singing derives from "Muslim" roots in African, but his hypothesis is controversial in the scholarly community, and cannot be presented as gospel in WP.

6)Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, says: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information[.]"Verklempt 03:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I'm from Louisiana. "Creole" is merely a regional term. In New Orleans, my family would be considered Creole, but I'm from Shreveport instead. And I'm black. Mayor Ray Nagin is creole. LOOK at him. He's black. Same thing with the Morials. That term comes from a time when it was useful economically to distinguish blacks by racial admixture because we were bought and sold as property, as commodities, like livestock. The same goes for the "roons." All are from a time when a lot of black folks were seriously color-struck. Outside of New Orleans, almost no one uses the term "creole"; everybody's black. This argument is ridiculous -- a complete fabrication, a means of de-Africanizing, white-washing jazz. Its origins are black and African. Plain and simple. deeceevoice 01:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Trust the fully sourced origins section assists, now to get on to blues and ragtime... .dave souza, talk 15:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with recent edits cont.

Terrific, Verklempt..... you are finally making "Jazz" clearer, certainly more accurate and certainly much more useful: please - everyone - keep going in this spirit... "Jazz" was getting pretty dreadful and sad.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.99.130 (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian Jazz x Bossa Nova

It should be noted in the section that "Brazilian jazz" should be assigned to the music mostly played by americans in a Bossa Nova way, but with a stiffer beat.

Most brazilians don't hear "Brazilian Jazz"; they don't even know what "Brazilian Jazz" is. They do know what Bossa Nova is: the junction in the 60's of a new guitar beat invented by João Gilberto, fancy new harmonies by Tom Jobim and good mood and very poetic lyrics by Vinicius de Moraes, which inspired a whole generation of musicians: the Bossa Nova movement. The harmonies were as non-standard and sophisticated as in jazz at that time, but it is not a solid enough base to oversimplify and reduce this rich genre merely into "Brazilian Jazz". It is not a mere extension of the american jazz culture in Brazil, but a national cultural movement of its own, deeply rooted and influenced by the historical and political moment in Brazil of that time and with its very particular musical characteristics.

This polemic about Bossa Nova being a "brazilian jazz" already existed by that time and to show how a really jazz-inspired brazilian music would be, Carlos Lyra composed "Influencia Do Jazz" (Jazz Influence), with a jazzy derived rhythm and harmony, and lyrics making fun in an ironic way of the blatant difference between Bossa Nova and Jazz.

The more jazzy thing came later, only when these musicians spent some time divulging Bossa Nova in USA, by the end of the 60's - which coincided with a turnover in the social and political scenario of the country, with the ascension of the military dictatorial government, which infringed, among other things, a considerable loss of artistic expression.

Neologisma 06:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Western 12-tone tempered?

Just reverted the addition of a phrase referring to marching and dance band instruments, brass, reeds, and drums, "played in the equal temperament 12-tone scale."

As it stood, this made no sense to me; I'd like to see a credible source before it goes back in. Both brasses and reeds can be lipped a bit, not necessarily confined to equal temperament. If such an assertion is made, it needs a bit of expansion and explanation: What scales were used earlier, how did exposure to tempered tunings affect performance, and where and when and by whom; what reasons were given, if any, for changing, and how did folks feel about it?

Don't know enough to do more than raise the question here... __Just plain Bill 04:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It looked plainly like vandalism to me, but you got there ahead of me to make the edit. It is true that brasses and reeds can be "lipped a bit", but that is necessary to achieve equal temperament, and why would anyone want to do that, when you can play in tune instead? As the statement stood, I assumed it meant that drums were the instuments intended, and that is just plain silly (though, of course, some drums--tom-toms, roto-toms, bongos, timpani--can be tuned very approximately in equal temperament).--Jerome Kohl 06:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"...why would anyone want to do that, when you can play in tune instead?" Indeed. __Just plain Bill 15:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Guitars, pianos, and mallet instruments have been tuned in 12-tone ET -- or a close approximation -- since before the advent of jazz. I don't think the edit is off the mark at all. On the other hand, it may be too much technical detail for an encyclopedia article on jazz. But it is certainly not vandalism.Verklempt 20:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit did not mention guitars, pianos, or mallet instruments at all, so how do you reckon the edit isn't "off the mark"? It might not have been vandalism, but it is certainly "off the wall" enough to require some documentation. It is clearly POV, at least to this reed player.--Jerome Kohl 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To my eye the problem wasn't accuracy or not (though the listing of drums as playing in equal temperament is ridiculous) but that the information was not necessary at that point in the article. --ND 20:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this (and many other) articles on broad subjects suffer from a surplus of material that is either trivial, tangential, or far too in-depth to be appropriate. - Special-T 21:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps poorly placed in the article, but I can't agree with saying it was too much information. It was too little information, a mere bald assertion of unsupported fact, with no explanation of what the effects on the formation of the genre were, of fixed-tuned percussion instruments such as the piano or the relatives of the xylophone. Guitars are not fixed-tuned by a long stretch. Players routinely adjust their tuning, and can bend the notes various ways.

Verklempt, I also can't agree that equal temperament vs. other intonations is a "technical detail." The difference is as plain as mud vs. porcelain once your ears become sensitized to it. Modern ears may not be very widely so sensitized, a fact which deserves a broader audience, IMO, but the question here is whether (and if so, how) ET made a difference to jazz, and when. __Just plain Bill 01:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any question but that 12-tone ET is the basis for modern instrument construction and modern jazz harmony? Of course a good musician will often intonate in just when playing with an ensemble, but that doesn't change the basis of the tuning system. It just adjusts for its weaknesses.Verklempt 02:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern bowed strings, as well as just about any blown aerophone I can think of, have everything to do with harmonic series, and not much to do with equal temperament, which is a keyboard thing of relatively recent invention. Early frets were tied on, and movable. Modern frets may be equal, but their players can certainly flex their strings.

As I understand modern jazz harmony, it started to come about with jazz musicians playing in venues (speakeasies?) where "the audience" was hardly listening, so the musicians had the freedom to play for each other's enjoyment. I don't believe that was the case in the days of earlier Dixieland bands playing blues-influenced music for funerals, for example. The bebop section of the article mentions notes being seen as melodic that would have been considered dissonant a few decades before. In my opinion, the earlier stuff came from the heart, and spoke to it, while the contrived artistic dissonances speak more to the musician's intellect. That POV probably doesn't belong in the article. __Just plain Bill 03:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

TRANSLATION OF THE ARTICLE

I found the article in English pretty interesting and I'd like to know whether there's any problem or not to translate it into another language. I would like the answer ASAP. thks in advance. willigfreitas@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.75.175.199 (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Translate it for what purpose/media? --ND 23:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I intend to translate it to add to another wikipedia.... to the wikipedia in Portuguese.201.74.143.197 11:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to wait until it's in better shape. Right now, it's pretty bad. deeceevoice 11:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't say that if u could uderstand Portuguese. The article in Portuguese is even worse. I guess I'll get some info from here, and get some other material from other sources. About copying content from other wikipedia, is there any problem about it? 201.75.178.18 11:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Eu acredito que não há nenhum problema. (If that said something stilted (desajeitado), so much for Babelfish ;-) ) Wikipedia being freely licensed, sister wikipedias in other languages, and so on. __Just plain Bill 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As the man says, it's freely licensed and can be copied, translated or whatever. Just remember that Wikipedia is not at reliable source, and you shouldn't just use the references from here without checking them – other wikis may be more relaxed about that. .. dave souza, talk 17:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

thks for the tips men. I'm already doing sth to make things better. 201.75.178.18 19:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

SLAVERY

what's the problem of adding a link to slavery or abolition of slavery inside this Jazz article? I had addded but someone removed... can it be explained?201.75.183.36 04:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It was removed (along with the preceding edit) with the summary "rev edit warring/whitewashing by verklempt", so my guess is that Deeceevoice accidentally caught it in his reversion of the many edits from Verklempt, which began before yours, and ended after. Indeed, looking at Deeceevoice's page, it would seem delinking "slavery" would be one of the last things he would do on purpose.

I've gone ahead and restored the two edits in question. ¦ Reisio 06:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

thks u all men.201.74.149.190 02:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Comment on WP:RS issues

I'm re-entering my concerns from above, since they did not receive a substantive response the first time around:

There are many problems with recent reverts and revisions.

1) The lead paragraph is problematic. While most historians agree that jazz emerged in New Orleans and nearby, there are dissenters among historians and in musicians' oral histories. Plus, the entire debate is based mainly on speculation. Furthermore, I have never seen any historian argue that jazz was unique to black communities. In fact, there are a number of scholars who observe that Creole musicians were more prominent in early jazz than black musicians. Most historians observe that white and Hispanic musicians were also present at the creation. Furthermore, many historians note the importance of Storyville, which was an integrated neighborhood during the earliest years of jazz.

2) http://www.kennedy-center.org/programs/jazz/ambassadors/Lesson3.html

This essay is unsigned. The web site belongs to a concert hall. This source does not meet the standards set by WP:RS.

3) "The Influence of African Rhythms"[http://northbysouth.kenyon.edu/1998/music/rhythm/rhythm.htm "North by South, from Charleston to Harlem," a project of the National Endowment for the Humanities Retrieved 10-29-2004

This essay is unsigned. The quote is not attributed to any author. This source does not meet the standards set by WP:RS.

4) http://www.cnmat.berkeley.edu/People/Vijay/06.%20Microtiming%20Studies.html

This web page is an unpublished student thesis. Were the author a historian, and were the thesis on a relevant topic, I would not object to it. However, the author is not a historian. Nor does the cited chapter appear to directly support the sentence in which it is cited. It's a musicological essay on rhythm, not a historical essay on the origins of jazz. This source does not meet the standards set by WP:RS.

5) User Deecee's version of the historical dissemination of jazz is not supported by any citation. The extant scholarly literature makes a strong case that New Orleans-style jazz was played in California and the Midwest before it went to New York in 1917. Thus Deecee's version is not only unsourced, it is also wrong in many factual ways. For example, see Lawrence Gushee, Pioneers of Jazz: The Story of the Creole Band, Oxford University Press, 2005.

Verklempt 21:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Will come back to you on this, but as you'll have noted these aren't the sources I'm basing a series of edits on. Your usage of Creole doesn't match up to the information I've been reading, and per WP:NPOV we should be representing notable opinions proportionately, not hiding away mainstream opinion because of some scholarly dissenters. WP:LEAD requires much more than a bland uninformative sentence, and the lead needs a fair bit of work which I'll try to come back to when possible. ... dave souza, talk 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(1)Which aspect of Creole is problematic for you? On the importance of Creole musicians, see Thomas Fiehrer, "From Quadrille to Stomp: The Creole Origins of Jazz," Popular Music, January 1991; James Collier's "Jazz; The American Theme Song", Oxford University Press, 1993; and the Ken Burns book. On the ethnic distinction of Creoles, see the Virginia Dominguez book. (2) I agree with your conception of an ideal opening. However, when an article is plagued by a dedicated POV-monger, then sometimes bland is the easier solution.Verklempt 23:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(6) Dave, I have to add this to the lsit of WP:RS concerns: www.redhotjazz.com/creole.html. It's a fantastic website, but it doesn't meet the WP:RS criteria. A better cite would be to the Gushee book and scholarly books and articles on Morton.Verklempt 15:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the usage of Creole, Cooke describes "a controversial ruling in 1894 that the Creole population (those of mixed European and black ancestry) was to be classified as 'black', Civil unrest followed..." This usage is entirely consistent with the undisputed importance of Creole jazz musicians, and describes their mixed African American ancestry as well as their official designation at that time as "black", in contrast to the white musicians who were relatively rare in jazz before 1917 or so. Given the definition in Louisiana Creole people that it refers to "refers to people of any ancestry or mixture thereof who are descended from settlers in colonial French Louisiana" (pre 1803), it's evidently useful for our purposes to call these people Afro Creole, or alternatively Creoles of color. If you have scholarly sources giving a different viewpoint, that can be added.

Your concerns about www.redhotjazz.com are noted, and in terms of WP:RS criteria it may help that Scott Alexander's site is given some credence by the Journal of American History and a History Matters review by Burton W. Peretti of Western Connecticut State University. I was citing it for the point that Freddie Keppard's Original Creole Orchestra visited California then toured the northern states from 1914 to 1918, and I'm glad that you have a better reference which you can add in its place. The redhotjazz site is the best reference I've found for Keppard's tour, but it's something I'd like to have mentioned in the article, so it would be useful if you could check to see if the redhotjazz articles are supported by the references you have, and information could then be added for you to verify. Similarly, do you have better references re "Papa" Jack Laine as often credited with being the first White Jazz musician, and having the ODJB members in his band?[8]

Regarding articles plagued by a dedicated POV-monger, I've always found it best to expand the the articles with properly referenced information on the various views as required by WP:NPOV. Even if "sometimes bland is the easier solution", WP is here to provide accurate information in proper proportion on all the notable viewpoints, not to just give in to the easy answer of censorship. .. dave souza, talk 19:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) "Creoles of color" was the common antebellum term. Prior to that, they called themselves "Creoles". What is important here is that most of these people did not consider themselves "black" at the time jazz emerged in NO, even though the laws forced them into that legal category. This is documented in the standard reference, Dominguez, and by Fiehrer and many other scholars as well. The scholarly literature is basically unanimous in noting that they were a distinct ethnic group in NO, with a different history and culture compared to the black musicians. (2) My only disagreement with the redhot essay is that the author does not seem to understand this fine point of Gulf Coast racial history, even though it is significant for early jazz history. (3) I agree with you that multiple viewpoints should be included in order to meet NPOV. However, my attempts to introduce recent scholarship into the article have been met with reverts, mostly without constructive negotiation. I appreciate that you are interacting here in a polite and respectful manner, as a good Wikipedian, thus demonstrating that you are not one of the problem editors.Verklempt 22:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Women in jazz and vocal jazz and some (possibly) omitted notables

Badly overlooked/neglected. Can't have an article on jazz without mentioning some of the "girl" jazz bands (Sweethearts of Rhythm, etc.), or a bunch of sisters who could belt it out, or let it flow smooth and sweet: Billy Holiday, Ellah Fitzgerald, Dinah Washington, Nancy Wilson, Betty Carter, Shirley Horn, Carmen MacRae, Sarah Vaughan, Esther Phillips, Cleo Lane. Male vocalists: Armstrong's scatting, Arthur Prysock, Joe Hunter, Leon Thomas (w/Coltrane), Johnny Hartman. Other important musicians not mentioned for whom there may be a place in this piece, or at least some reference to the milieu/timeframe during their heyday (just some artists I remember off the top of my head): Eubie Blake (I mentioned him briefly already in relation to movies), Erol Garner, Lionel Hampton, Thelonius Monk (may have been mentioned already; dunno), Max Roach, Bobby Hutcherson, Cecil McBee, Freddie Hubbard, Lee Morgan, Archie Shepp, Sun Ra and his (blah, blah, blah) Arkestra, Wes Montgomery, John McLaughlin & the Mahavishnu Orchestra, Julian "Cannonball" and Nat Adderly, Jean Luc Ponty, Modern Jazz Quartet, the Piano Choir, Les McCann & Eddie Harris, Rahsaan Roland Kirk, Yusef Latif, Bobby Humphrey, Sir Roland Hanna, Cootie Williams ....deeceevoice 20:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, how could you, and the article, forget Bessie Smith? Dunno if we can mention Lil Green, whose "Why Don't You Do Right?" blows away the Peggy Lee version used in Roger Rabbit, or the brilliant Memphis Minnie. However, there's probably a good argument for Ottilie Patterson, though this main article must focus on major figures rather than listing lots of fine but less important musicians. Eubie Blake does get an early mention. Anyway, work's in progress. ... dave souza, talk 21:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't forget Bessie. She came to mind along with Billie Holiday when I listed the other performers, but I recently visited Blues and somehow thought she'd already been listed in Jazz. By all means! You're right about Ottilie Patterson, but relatively obscure. Everyone I've mentioned above is/was very well known in their heyday. deeceevoice 21:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OMG. And Alberta Hunter. deeceevoice 21:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a potential problem with the article turning into a list of favorite musicians. Such lists are POV by definition, unless they come from a Reliable Source. I think there was already too much listing and not enough analysis in this article.Verklempt 22:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. That's what I'm working on, but while some of the above are at least mentioned and others aren't really that significant in terms of the development of jazz, others like Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith have considerable significance. Will see what sources say. .. dave souza, talk 22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have great affection for Ma Rainey (love Sterling A. Brown's touching poem about her) and should have included her, but I didn't want to get into a drawn-out discussion about blues vs. jazz. And you will note that I wrote, "Other important musicians not mentioned for whom there may be a place in this piece, or at least some reference to the milieu/timeframe during their heyday...." There's no way all these people can be mentioned, but they serve as reminders of timeframes and periods in jazz that should treated in the article. E.g., some of these people were most prolific during the vaudeville era and just after, others during '40s and '50s. Some were more successful during the resurgent interest in jazz I referred to in the article, during the BAM, all times which probably deserve broader treatment in terms of the trends of the times. The same is true of the sixties and '70s. And, certainly the decades of the '80s and '90s and '00s deserve (better) treatment.

It is quite clear certain segments are very limited in scope and treatment, citing relatively obscure teachers and artists and -- what? -- Amy Winehouse?!! (She might think she's "been black," but she's certainly not jazz -- and I don't know a single black person who refers to her as a "soul" artist. Yuck!) Anyway, I left her in, but reworded the text to something more accurate/realistic and added a number of more substantial, non rehab-wreck-of-the-month artists. deeceevoice 07:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead para

"Jazz is an original American musical art form, traditionally considered to have originated around the beginning of the 20th century in African American communities in and around New Orleans."

I still object to the "African American communities" phrase. The history is quite clear that early jazz was performed on riverboats, at resorts on Lake Ponchartrain, and in the Storyville brothel district. It is inaccurate to describe these locales as "African American communities".Verklempt 16:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your objection is noted. However, communities are people, not locales. Jazz was clearly initiated by people of African American ancestry, whether "black" or "Creole", and their designation as black is a significant part of the story of jazz that should be noted in the lead. Will come back to this in due course. .. dave souza, talk 20:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Creoles did not consider themselves African American at that time. It is historically inaccurate to label them as such, and denies their humanity by imposing upon them a label that they rejected for themselves. Furthermore, these "locales" and "communities" were in no way racially pure. To label them as "African American" is to implicitly deny the contributions of the many significant New Orleanian musicians in this history who were not AA or who were only part AA. It implies that African ancestry is the single most important determinant of jazz genesis, which is racist and extremely POV.Verklempt 02:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about them being "racially pure"? As stated below, ancestry was a significant social factor in creating the conditions for the origins of jazz, and the sources I have to hand support the point that it was seen at that time as black music. .. dave souza, talk 09:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) The term "African American" implies a monolithic racial-ethnic identity, and obscures the fact of extenisve cultural diversity within the early jazz musician population. Why should the article begin by obscuring that undeniable fact of diversity? (2)Another issue here is: How and why did jazz become seen as "black music"? This is a significant historiographical question that has been addressed by recent scholarship. As I said above, our conception of "black music" has been shaped by Jim Crow ideology. Do you want to penetrate the fog of historical racism and look at what actually happened? If so, then you need to read the more recent scholarship that undertakes this project.Verklempt 15:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> See WP:LEAD. The lead should summarise the main points of the article, and a brief statement about the origins of jazz covering the issues you're raising will be appropriate. Jazz#New Orleans discusses the issue – any proposals you have for improvements or for a brief statement to be added to the lead will be welcome. Regarding your point (1), see African American#Who is African American? and W. E. B. Du Bois. The issue should be covered adequately by the origins statement, in my opinion. ... dave souza, talk 18:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Afro-Creole"

This terminology is inaccurate. These people referred to themselves as "Creoles." They identified with their French heritage, not their African heritage. This is well-documented by Dominguez, Fiehrer, Hall, and others.Verklempt 16:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The term is used in the titles of a few books and numerous academic papers on creoles in NOLA and LA. It is used for clarity since not all creole peoples in the world are afro-creole.

It's pretty non-controversial. futurebird 17:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you give some cites showing that Afro-Creole was the relevant term in 1900? My concern is that using this term obscures the identity of "Afro-Creoles" circa 1900, which is an important part of the story of jazz genesis.Verklempt 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Terms used at that time seem to have been "Creoles of color", "mulatto", "black" and "Negro". For modern readers Afro-Creole is clearer, and the point is discussed in the article. We can always expand on the point that they had a French heritage which had been put in a US context, then were redefined as black before 1900 and their caste was put in with the black ghettos. Perhaps you have some proposals you'd like to discuss on this talk page. .. dave souza, talk 20:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly "Afro-Creoles" can be justified under WP:RS, in that there are sources who use this terminology. But it remains incorrect, and looking at the best sources will reveal exactly why it is incorrect. The major reason that these people are of interest on jazz history is that Jim Crow forced them into closer contact with black musicians, and out of this interaction came early jazz. By labeling them as Afro-Creoles, you redefine their black ancestry as their most important feature, even though its was a feature they themselves rejected and attached no significance to. You thus recreate one injustice of Jim Crow, and obscure a crucial historical distinction in the process. You certainly would not be the first writer to do this. Most jazz historians make the same mistake. You have to look to the historians who study race to get a more sophisticated understanding of this issue. I've already recommended Dominguez as the the standard general source, and Fiehrer as the more specific jazz-related source.Verklempt 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting exceedingly tiresome. Afro-Creoles had their own culture which, while not wholly separate from White Creole culture, it was certainly distinct/different in many respects. While they may not have called themselves "Afro-Creoles" (we didn't call ourselves African-Americans back in the day, either), they were in many ways culturally distinct from white Creoles. That is not to say they did not embrace the French part of their heritage -- and, in many cases, more so than their African heritage (there was a distinct advantage in doing so, given that blacks were lynched, enslaved, generally oppressed and discriminated against).

Culture is a persistent thing. So-called Creoles of color were perfectly free to celebrate and observe that part of them that was African as well -- and many did. And certainly there were Afro-Creoles who recognized the beautiy and value of their African heritage as well and who identified with their non Afro-Creole, black brethren on some level. And if many didn't do so before they were reclassified as black folks and treated like sh*t, a lot of them certainly did so afterward! ;) After all, most white people -- French Creole or Anglo -- who considered themselves white wouldn't have been caught dead "slumming" with "n-word" musicians in black New Orleans or, later, in Storyville cookin' up jazz -- even if they'd had the musical/cultural sensibilities to do so. There was a cultural affinity/recognition/resonance there between the two groups that classical music training and moving in "white" circles could not/did not obliterate.

Afro-Creole culture was distinct from white French Creole in many ways and, in fact, brought many Africanisms to (white) French Creole culture. Culture isn't easily discarded like a suit of clothes or an old pair of shoes. It's a come-with kind of thing. E.g., there are many African Americans who wholeheartedly embrace many aspects of American culture and many who may even consider themselves "Americans" -- but that doesn't mean there aren't some -- still, after hundreds of years in this nation -- some very, very African things about who we are as a people and our culture. Witness our culture today, its music, dance and other traditions still very deeply/strongly rooted in Mother Africa and our Africa-inspired innovations/contributions to American culture almost 200 years after we invented jazz.

You would have us believe that there was no difference at all between white Creoles -- whites of French colonial families and Africans mixed with Native American and white French -- which is simply absurd on its face, given what we know of how culture as a phenomenon persists and amalgamates with outside cultural influences. One culture may have been preferred or advanced by some Afro-Creoles for reasons of status, or formal education (in this case, in music), and even because of an internalization of white supremacist beliefs and values. My bet is there was a hell of a lot of code-switching going on between proper French and Creole (language) and other cultural aspects beyond language, depending on the company one kept -- just as today with African Americans across socioeconomic levels and the use of SAE and AAVE. History teaches us that one culture generally does not extinguish or supplant another without wholesale genocide. Not even violence and usurpation can accomplish that -- again, the history of my peoples in this nation (Native American and African) is a prime example. What is usually the case when cultures meet/clash is a dialectic, a confluence, a syncretism -- like Catholicism + indigenous African religious belief and practice = Vodun/Candomble/Santería.

Your argument is an utterly false one -- one, I would argue, contorted/twisted to whitewash/Jewify the article -- and one which certainly does not ring true in any respect. deeceevoice 07:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You're attacking a straw man, and demonstrating appalling bigotry in the process.Verklempt 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Overall, deeceevoice's assessment appears broadly correct to me. If I recall correctly, there were different layers of Afro-Creole society, so it's still a simplification. Removal of all mention of the topic would be an unjustified whitewash, "Jewify" is a bit strong and if sources note significance of Jewish elements of contributions, that can be considered in a way that avoids giving it undue weight. As for "appalling bigotry", that looks close to a personal attack and is unacceptable. Please note that WP:NPA is policy. Also note that in my opinion it's completely unjustified. ... dave souza, talk 18:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(1)No has argued for removing all mention of "Afro-Creoles". I am the one who has consistently advocated more emphasis on their contributions. (2) You are accusing me of a personal attack? You must be joking.Verklempt 03:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Jewify" is a reference to an earlier comment I made about Verklempt's addition of a long string of all-Jewish (possibly some white) bandleaders in the article about th emusic in the 1920s. deeceevoice 21:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not make those edits, but it doesn't matter who made them. "Jewify" is still an ugly word, redolent of bigotry when used in the pejorative manner you employ. You should be ashamed of yourself.Verklempt 03:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I note that Verklempt accepts that most historians take the approach we have in the article. It is of course possible that the other sources mentioned could suggest an alternative assessment which can be mentioned without giving it undue weight, and proposals for improvements to the brief statement about their position (which I added) can be discussed here. However, it's clear that the African part of their ancestry was what defined their social position from 1894 onwards, however much some of the Afro-Creole community wanted to remain French. It's also clear that their musical education was part of the mix that began jazz, and the current statement is intended to cover that point. .. dave souza, talk 08:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I accept that most jazz historians have (1) been tainted by Jim Crow ideology, and (2) been unfamiliar with the details of NO racial-ethnic distinction. However, the most recent scholarship is of much better quality. This article should acknowledge that the scholarly understanding of this aspect of jazz history is evolving. The question now is: Are the editors here going to take the time to read up on these issues, or are they going to simply reiterate historical mythology that derives from Jim Crow ideology?Verklempt 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Youre comments here demonstrate once againn that you seem not to comprehend anything I've written. deeceevoice 17:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The origins section at present covers these issues, and wild allegations about "jazz historians... tainted by Jim Crow ideology" are not supported by the edits I've been making, or the sources I'm using. However, if Verklempt has further clarifications from the evolving "scholarly understanding of this aspect of jazz history" then proposals for additions to the article will be welcome... dave souza, talk 18:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way: You don't realize how much you don't know about this topic. I say this with all due respect. What you label as "wild allegations" is in fact the current scholarly consensus perspective about early jazz historiography. I'll be happy to give you even more references if you're serious about catching up with recent scholarship. Verklempt 03:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet you argue on the MOWA and Lumbee pages using outdated science from the 50's through the 70's in order to support your idea of genetic makeup. So, on the one hand, you use modern historical work and ignore older historical work, but on the other hand you ignore modern science in favor of outdated science?David F Lowry 15:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous straw man. Please try to stay on topic. Also consider editing in a productive manner, instead of stalking me from page to page.Verklempt 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain to me how this is an off-topic ridiculous straw man "question"? The question is, how do we decide whether to present both old and new scholarship on an equal footing, or discard the old scholarship when the new scholarship either refutes or lessens the impact of the old scholarship? Or did I misunderstand when I thought you intended to minimize older jazz historiography in favor of more modern jazz historiography?David F Lowry 02:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Bassists

I started thinking about keyboardist Herbie Hancock (briefly "Mwandishi"; I never bought that one). Don't know exactly where you'd put him. (He came along at the tail end of hard bop.) But I don't recall seeing his name. (I could have missed it.) And then I was wondering if Ron Carter had been mentioned, or Ray Brown or Charlie Mingus -- all extremely prominent and highly regarded jazz masters who deserve a mention in any article on jazz. I haven't had time to read this article in full in its current incarnation (or at all lately, frankly), but if these brothers aren't mentioned, then, someone, please, add them. Let's not overlook that bottom! deeceevoice 10:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Is "Jazz" not getting far too long & bogged down in detail?

For instance Deeceevoice 09:57, 28 October 2007 (Talk | contribs) (60,760 bytes) (→Hard Bop - Reworking... the band was so important, you gotta mention it by name.) Of course he's/she's correct but shouldn't that go in the dedicated "Main article: Hard bop"? At some stage someone is going to have to take this whole "Jazz" article, organise it, stop it being such a mess and turn it into the INFORMATION it is surely meant to be a lot closer to Wikip.so-sensible rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.1.40 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

D.c.v. is correct that Blakey & the Jazz Messengers should be mentioned--one of the most influential jazz groups of all time. The accretion of excessive detail is mostly in the sections about early jazz, some of which is incredibly arcane. As far as I'm concerned the sections on bop & beyond are actually too sketchy & should be somewhat fleshed out while the early sections need to be drastically compressed.

The addition of Tyner however is just wrong: he's great but doesn't belong in a paragraph dealing with 1953-54, at which point he hadn't even recorded. --ND 13:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely we ALL may agree with this re the deserving McCoy Tyner, Blakey et al ....... but shouldn't such detail be in the already-existing Hard Bop article rather than weighing down "Jazz"? The "Jazz" article seems to be losing sight of its WP purpose - a pity for "America's ONLY art form"! So who can whip it into shape?81.156.1.40 16:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to work towards is showing the development of jazz and the influence of major names, rather than listing more or less notable names as some sections do at present. If there are areas you think too detailed, it may be worth splitting them off into a new main article and trimming this article back, summary style. .. dave souza, talk 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

... but surely, Dave Souza, this has already happened [eg Hard Bop article] and surely that's where all this boring-to-so-many] detail belongs?81.156.1.40 16:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've avoided doing so -- for obvious reasons -- but now that people are bringing this up, but for starters, how about whittling down that list of exceedingly obscure Jewish/white bands under the subhead of the 1920s? Also I'm rushing and don't know about the McCoy Tyner thing. When I wrote it I wasn't paying attention to the dates -- just the absence of his name. So, if it's off, then change it -- but please keep him in. Perhaps we could do a separate, annotated list of seminal jazz artists (either alpha ordered or by time period) -- if one doesn't already exist and put it in the "See also" section. (Heck. Maybe it's already there, but I'm rushing to gt out the door and to the bank. Gotta go!) deeceevoice 18:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As always, the best thing is to cite sources for the analysis of what's significant, and lists of bands whether pinko-grey or otherwise are not part of the story of development. Will try to push ahead with some ideas on the 20s shortly. .. dave souza, talk 18:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, big duh on that one, Souza. Time to get out the weed whacker on that list. Obscure, obscure, obsure! (Another friggin' street festival in Adams Morgan. Blocked the street, so no bus service. No bank. :( )deeceevoice 18:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Am working on a little gentle pruning, tho it may not end up shorter as proper coverage of Ory, Oliver, Armstrong, Jelly Roll and Bix is needed :) .... dave souza, talk 00:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC) p.s. have worked out what you were rushing about for, sorry to hear that and trust you'll be ok. As it happens, the bank I used in Edinburgh was in Bread Street, guess you are out of same :( ..... dave souza, talk 00:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)