Is Jazz a kind of contemporary art music?

I really wonder why "Classical music" and Jazz seem so often to be seperated.

I mean, Jazz is usually composed/played by educated musicians, it uses a sophisticated harmonic language and often interesting and elaborate musical structures, which set it really apart from what is normally called "popular music".

So it seems a bit strange to me, that jazz and classical are seen as two different genres(especially since "classical music" is not really a genre of music but says more about the attitude behind the music).

What do you think about this and what might be the reason for this?

It's probably mostly still a traditional thing. Jazz hasn't been institutionalised in an academic context for long and before that it was sort of an opposite pole to the classical world of conservatories, concert halls, theory-heavy education, and so on. The origins of Jazz are also often relatively simple (correct me if I'm wrong there - I'm by no means an expert of Jazz history) and it only developed these sophisticated and complex elements over time, after already having obtained the "popular music tag" in the eyes of classical musicians.

Of course, this has changed for quite a while now, but some notions take time to change.

And in some circles there are still some old clich

(especially since "classical music" is not really a genre of music but says more about the attitude and the effort behind the music)

I think this part is key. I'd say the concept of "classical music" as different from other music generally has to do more with historical, cultural and social context than with anything else (certainly not effort!). The historical, cultural and social context of jazz is largely different, and this is why they are often conceptually separated.

Jazz is usually composed/played by educated musicians, it uses a sophisticated harmonic language and often interesting and elaborate song structures, which set it really apart from what is normally called "popular music".

But what primarily sets it apart from popular music is that it isn't popular, right? ;)

On a more serious note, I don't think it's constructive or appropriate, in a serious discussion of music on anything but the most shallow of levels, to use terms like "sophisticated" and "interesting" to classify and define things. Not only will it make it harder to come to any real and truly interesting conclusions about the actual characteristics of or differences between various forms of musical expression--you'll also find that it will make you unpopular with a lot of people.

(Written before I saw Gardener's post. Not that it matters a lot.)

The easy (and somewhat inaccurate) response is that since Jazz didn't come from classical musicians, classical musicians have always held it in a lesser regard. To add insult to injury, Jazz became more popular, garnered more interest than classical from the public at large, and earned much more money (in the long run) than classical music, as classical music fell further and further by the wayside... which further poisoned classical musician's views on it.

The actual response is much more involved. I'll let Robin discuss.

But you are indeed correct, good jazz does require a great deal of musical knowledge and can be a frightfully wonderful, complex, and interesting idiom to work in.

In the end, categorizations are silly.

But if you went to a generic classical concert and got performance after performance of Miles Davis/random jazz you might be disappointed and vice versa. I think it's actually extremely helpful and useful to categorise... Surely...!? I wouldn't be offended if somebody categorised my piece as romantic/classical/jazz etc.. what's the deal here?

1. Jazz and classical are not that separated anymore. (See Braxton, Zorn, Frith, Hampel, Kenton. For opposing views, see Marsalis, Kenny G, The Necks, The Bad Plus.)

2. Learn something -- anything -- about the history of jazz and pop in America. (I wish I could go deeply into it, but I only know enough to hurt myself.) The chord progressions from jazz and pop (especially contemporary to the time pop, ie Tin Pan Alley, etc) are nearly the same. I'm not going to challenge the assertion that jazz has "complex song structures," but it's worth noting that pre-|:AABA:|-post is hardly a complex structure. Not to say that there aren't much more complex structures, but that they might not be the most common or most revered.

3. CULTURE CULTURE CULTURE. How do you think a group of white, rich, highly educated men of the other men (ie music critics and academics) would react to a music connected to Black Power movements? Why do you think Rap and Hiphop are poorly recognized by the critical and academic communities,* while funk and jazz are now acceptable? Check the demographics of the musicians.

4. Get rid of the distinction between low and high, folk and art. They're the exact same thing, and there are too many crossover points. (See Prog rock, "extreme music" like Merzbow, Sunn0))), electronic music like The Books, Cornelius, and Yujio Dill, and other microgenres. The loosening of the beat in rural blues makes an interesting note as to "complexity.") This distinction is a product of the ruling class exerting its will and asserting what is high, what is low. All -- and I mean all, even "bad" -- music deserves study, deserves seeing what you can take from it.

Sorry this is so rambling and tangential.

EDIT: in the time it took me to write this, you got 5 other replies, sorry if I crossed over.

________

*which they're not really, but it's relegated to specific communities and i can't let a little truth get in the way of my point

Thanks Flint ;)

I'll think about this and post more as discussion ensures... but for now:

I think the issue is one of education. Historically, classical musicians have been, for the most part, ignorant of the inner-workings of jazz. With ignorance comes contempt and fear and so the circle of "art music" continues. A little experience goes a long way, and one will find - with some educational listening - that jazz is every bit as "valid" or "important" or "artistic" as anything else.

....

Let's not forget that jazz is largely improvised whereas most classically-oriented music is not. To a certain type of non-improvising musician, this can seem like a copout, a cheat, a lesser effort than reading it off the paper and somehow making it a vehicle for self-expression.

Not to mention that in most jazz, reproducible accuracy of execution is far less important than intention, soulfullness and vibe. Not that these factors are not prized in classical players as well, but accuracy seems equally important. Whereas I couldn't care less that Thelonious Monk sounds like he's never practiced scales, because what he said with what he's got was so revolutionary and quirky. The content was 100% HIS. Imagine an audience of classical music lovers responding to Monk while he attempted to play Bach! They'd probably be as disappointed as a jazz audience going to hear Glenn Gould playing Bemsha Swing.

I think Cannonball Adderly summed up this attitude about jazz very well:

"It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be great."

"1. Jazz and classical are not that separated anymore. (See Braxton, Zorn, Frith, Hampel, Kenton. For opposing views, see Marsalis, Kenny G, The Necks, The Bad Plus.)"

Whoa. I promise you that first and foremost, no real jazz musician would consider Kenny G a jazz musician, for a myriad of reasons including the fact that Mr G himself does not call himself one (wisely, imo).

Second, I dig the Bad Plus, but I can't see any connection between them and classical--just having arrangements doesn't push you across stylistic borders. I think you might be confusing a more sophisticated approach (except in the case of Kenny G) with "classical music."

Let's not forget that jazz is largely improvised whereas most classically-oriented music is not. To a certain type of non-improvising musician, this can seem like a copout, a cheat, a lesser effort than reading it off the paper and somehow making it a vehicle for self-expression.

Don't forget that "high" musics of all sorts involve improvisation - the classical cadenza comes to mind, as do the standard world music examples.

"1. Jazz and classical are not that separated anymore. (See Braxton, Zorn, Frith, Hampel, Kenton. For opposing views, see Marsalis, Kenny G, The Necks, The Bad Plus.)"

Whoa. I promise you that first and foremost, no real jazz musician would consider Kenny G a jazz musician, for a myriad of reasons including the fact that Mr G himself does not call himself one (wisely, imo).

Second, I dig the Bad Plus, but I can't see any connection between them and classical--just having arrangements doesn't push you across stylistic borders. I think you might be confusing a more sophisticated approach (except in the case of Kenny G) with "classical music."

Nah, sorry. My point was poorly stated. Braxton, Zorn, etc were to show jazz musicians approaching (some) classical musics. Marsalis and Kenny were to show people taking a more populist stance on jazz. (Didn't know Kenny didn't have the nads to call what he did jazz. At any rate, he does use jazz concepts in a pop-music setting, and I'm pretty sure he's won Jazz awards.)

The Bad Plus take a populist stance with their covers and the way they approach their music -- I'd hardly call their stuff close to "art" music.

Lemme also make clear that, since I'm advocating the end of thought in a low-high dialectic, nothing is wrong with even what Kenny does... (Something is wrong with Marsalis, but that's got nothing to do with his music, just his concept of history.)

Don't forget that "high" musics of all sorts involve improvisation - the classical cadenza comes to mind, as do the standard world music examples.

Improvisation is expected (and I would say required) in Jazz, however. A "Jazz" piece without any improvisation is normally referred to as being "in a jazz style", but not actually "jazz".

That is how I view the dichotomy between the two genres.

Kenny G

Improvisation has all but disappeared from classical music, with some 20th century and contemporary works as a notable exception. Today's classical musician likely has never had to improvise anything. They fear it, if anything. They have no training to deal with it, they are rarely if ever asked to do it, and most would refuse if put on the spot.

Improvisation is expected (and I would say required) in Jazz, however. A "Jazz" piece without any improvisation is normally referred to as being "in a jazz style", but not actually "jazz".

That is how I view the dichotomy between the two genres.

Hmm. As a cellist though, there have been increasing instances where, for example, a cellist will improvise (and this understand is only to an extent) during the repeated sections of the Bach Suites. While surely this is limited, there is in my opinion an inherent ability (once someone reaches a certain skill level) that music is so natural to them that they CAN improvise - it's not so much a matter of training as it is a matter of practicality. I think if classical composers were more inclined to allow for improvisation in their works that many performers would cease the opportunity!

"Don't forget that "high" musics of all sorts involve improvisation - the classical cadenza comes to mind, as do the standard world music examples."

I've never heard the term 'high' used that way--can you explain it, please? In any case, you're right...but don't forget that I said this:

"Let's not forget that jazz is largely improvised whereas most classically-oriented music is not."

Throwing in a cadenza at the end of a through-composed piece is not what I'd call "largely improvised." Setting aside completely improvised 'free' jazz and fully orchestrated big band arrangements which may or may not feature soloists, most jazz is still largely improvised. Within certain rhythmic and harmonic parameters, the players are usually allowed to create their own parts. That's quite a break from everything else, imo.

"My point was poorly stated. Braxton, Zorn, etc were to show jazz musicians approaching (some) classical musics. "

I can see that--Branford and Wynton Marsalis have actually released bonafide classical recordings.

"Didn't know Kenny didn't have the nads to call what he did jazz. At any rate, he does use jazz concepts in a pop-music setting, and I'm pretty sure he's won Jazz awards.)"

Kenny G hasn't won any actual jazz awards. He might have won grammys for smooth jazz, but that's a different kettle of fish.

And while you might have a problem with Wynton's view of history, you'd do far better imo to be critical of Kenny G. Wynton plays his donkey off.

"I think if classical composers were more inclined to allow for improvisation in their works that many performers would cease the opportunity!"

Right, but they won't--because they are classical composers, and they are expected to compose the entire piece. Jazz composers are trained from the start to compose a setting where the players can be free, whether they are featured soloists or not.

The actual notes to Moonlight Sonata will not--and should not--vary from performance to performance. The actual notes for anything a jazzer plays MUST change from night to night, or no one will want to play with him or her. ;)

Tradition separates the two. Some one who wants to write jazz will write from a jazz background relearning the basics in a new way. A jazz composer might begin to use extensions, sometimes nonsensically, where a classical composer wouldn't.

However, I think much of the division has nothing to do with composers. Composers have traditionally been fairly open minded, especially in the 20th century. Many "classical" composers where and are heavily influenced by jazz (e.g. Bernstein, Milhaud, Villa-Lobos [?], Satie, Ravel, Debussy [lots of cross pollination here, but seen more plainly in Ravel and Satie], Stravinsky, Zorn, etc). Similarly many jazz composers where/are heavily influenced by 'classical' music (e.g. Mingus, Herbie Hancock, Gil Evans, Dave Brubeck, John Coltrane, Jacques Loussier). The division is in the mind of the performers and the audiences. Many performers believe that they must learn to play in one style, but this is changing (eg. Wynton Marsalis).

All this aside, the divide is quickly shrinking.

More and more you find 'legit' music using advanced jazz harmonic and rhythmic language; conversely you'll find more jazz composition with a very orchestral approach.

You'll find more 'classical' music incorporating improvisation while some jazz is becoming a more and more arranged and structured idiom...

....and some stuff is indistinguishable as either jazz or classical - the only defining factor being the background of the composers/musicians involved. Which, in itself is often not easily pinned down.

^^^^^^

"AARRRGH" at the term "legit"

^^^^^^

"AARRRGH" at the term "legit"

:laugh: Sorry....it's just a way to distinguish between one side and another. It's a slang thing...fuggeddaboutit.

I don't really buy that, Robin. What is more structurally arranged than Gil Evans' music from 50 years ago? And where is all this new classical music that relies heavily on improvisation?

I think the divide is there, and actually belongs there. Steely Dan is definitely jazz-influenced, but it isn't jazz for example.

"A jazz composer might begin to use extensions, sometimes nonsensically, "

Can anyone give me an example of a jazz composer using extensions nonsensically? Thanks.

^^^you're alright with me! :)

A lot of classical musicians just can't play jazz. So since it was all about academia, they "frowned" upon jazz and called it "sub-standard." Wynton came in and said and PROVED that jazz musicians can play jazz. Everyone went WOW!!!!!!!!!!

So now, more and more schools are hiring jazz professors (this is kind of standard, some what now...ten years ago, it was small change!))

As far as composition, the atonal professors ruled for a long time. Now, tonality has a renaissance in orchestral music (sort-of speak.) It exists in band music still!

nonsensically was a bad word to use. I meant to say in a nontraditional or nonfunctional manner. However, this is not true either. Sorry, don't shoot!

Hmm. As a cellist though, there have been increasing instances where, for example, a cellist will improvise (and this understand is only to an extent) during the repeated sections of the Bach Suites. While surely this is limited, there is in my opinion an inherent ability (once someone reaches a certain skill level) that music is so natural to them that they CAN improvise - it's not so much a matter of training as it is a matter of practicality. I think if classical composers were more inclined to allow for improvisation in their works that many performers would cease (sic) the opportunity!

Except in a highly limited and defined fashion, classical musicians are generally not mentally set up to improvise. (look everyone, generalities!)

The only 'classical' musicians I know personally that enjoy improvisation are 1) those who also play jazz, 2) those into 'modern' works (the age of experimentation... atonal 50's/60's, etc.), 3) those so stuck in the past that they actually do figured bass.

Also, keep in mind that the advent of 'modern' notation (specified dynamics, fixed instrumentation, fixed tempo markings, etc.) was all brought about by composers who wanted to stamp out players who were taking extraordinary (and sometimes extraordinarily tasteless) liberties with their music... to stop the improvisation.

I don't really buy that, Robin. What is more structurally arranged than Gil Evans' music from 50 years ago? And where is all this new classical music that relies heavily on improvisation?

I think the divide is there, and actually belongs there. Steely Dan is definitely jazz-influenced, but it isn't jazz for example.

I was counting catch like Gil into my comment. In the grand history of music 50 years is a blink-of-an-eye!

Also, I just meant that, it appears we're (we, being jazz musicians) are getting away from the extreme emphasis on improvisation (i.e. 35-minute solos / 89% improv, 11% tune). ...

There just (sometimes) seems to be more balance between prepared and spontaneous music. I'm thinking Dave Holland Quintet ...

Also, writers like Maria Schneider are taking the orchestral approach to new heights, where improvisation is being reduced and a much more integral part of the composition than ever before.

...

As for the Classical composers incorporating improvisation, I think it should be obvious where it is...

Stockhausen, 1991. Good luck getting Finale to play THAT properly! ;)

When we have a LOT of music out there that looks like THIS or THIS or THIS being written in the last 50 years, there MUST be an element of improvisation coming from performers who consider themselves to be "classical" musicians.

I agree however - the divide is definitely there, and it's important I think to better define ourselves within one...but I also feel that there's a lot of room for one side to stealthily use the other.

Dear Flint,

Perhaps you don't understand. The idea behind the example is that ON THE REPEATED SECTIONS they "improvise" (which means they apply different ornamentations and what not to the piece). There are no cadenzas in any of the Bach suites. There are some reputable recordings in which this happens. Boris Pergamenschikov made a CD of the suites and he does this. It certainly isn't "normal" but it does exist.

3) those so stuck in the past that they actually do figured bass.

Well, by that measure anyone playing baroque music is terribly stuck in the past. And since there's no clear temporal border there, one might as well include people who play Debussy and Sch