Is Jazz a kind of contemporary art music?

Some random responses:

"In the grand history of music 50 years is a blink-of-an-eye! "

Perhaps, but a relatively long blink, given all that has happened in that half of a century. ;)

"Well, by that measure anyone playing baroque music is terribly stuck in the past. "

That's not even debatable, is it? Except for the modifier 'terribly.'

"But in today's education, most conservatories require their students to do some improvisation at a fundamental level..."

Not meaning to sound catty, but the above doesn't mean it is any good. Hopefully, though, the student will at least be able to appreciate hearing a jazz master improvise later in life.

"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). ..."

Some are, some aren't--I definitely give you Maria Schneider, but I can't think of many small working ensembles besides the Yellowjackets and Dave Holland's groups who are known for their arrangements more than their individual players.

......I can't think of many small working ensembles besides the Yellowjackets and Dave Holland's groups who are known for their arrangements more than their individual players.

Fair enough.... (The YellowJackets?? Really? :P ...I cringe at Mintzer)

...It's the small groups thing that kills my theory.

Really? Have you really listened to him? He's playing some incredible stuff the last few years, imo. He'll never be a Brecker, whose playing just got into my soul, though.

I have a question to pose to all of you about the subject of this thread. How much of an effect does money have on perpetuating or maintaining this divide between jazz and classical, or any other kinds of music? Is music marketable if it doesnt belong to a genre, category, or style? And are these categorizations a hinderance on the development of new and original music? (sorry that was actually 3 questions)

Peace.

Really? Have you really listened to him? He's playing some incredible stuff the last few years, imo. He'll never be a Brecker, whose playing just got into my soul, though.

To be honest, I dug his early work - the Jaco stuff is KILLING...but I quickly got turned off years ago when I heard his big band records. The writing was (in my opinion) truly awful and it ruined Bob Mintzer for me. :P Perhaps it's time to give him a second chance...

sorry quote buttons are wonky tonight...

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 dunno... there's something about the composer-performer dynamic here that I can't really put into words. ... Postmodern rebellion against overmechanization combined with a healthy dose of inversion of the power structure? All sounds in line with a movement away from romantic idealism and mechanistic modernism...

but I can't think of many small working ensembles besides the Yellowjackets and Dave Holland's groups who are known for their arrangements more than their individual players.

I think we hit one of them before, unless i'm misunderstand what arrangement means -- The Bad Plus.

But that brings up the issue -- once you start "diluting" from whatever ideal of jazz you function under, you have to call it something else... The Bad Plus isn't exactly jazz, but it's certainly extremely jazz-like, and part of the deviation is their song forms and layering which are, certainly, jazzy, but ar eindebted to a lot of other things as well.

Medeski Martin and Wood have similar stuff going on, but they're all known for their session/solo work. They're more funk-etc.

@ wholly - Yes, but it's the only way for it to function.

--

So what do you guys do with European Free Improv? Is that jazz or classical? It has all the socioeconomic status of classical music, many similarities with what was going on in the high-art world, yet has deep parallels and influences with and from jazz....

not to mention the similarity of jazz to Western(ish) folk musics and later, art musics...

I dunno... I'm not convinced that jazz is excluded from art music simply by virtue of it's use of musician-focused improvisation...

I never heard Mintzer's big band work, but check out The Hudson Project, with Erskine, Ambercrombie and Patitucci. And yeah, that Jaco stuff was excellent.

"How much of an effect does money have on perpetuating or maintaining this divide between jazz and classical, or any other kinds of music?"

If it's about money, it's a pretty bad strategy! Jazz was only 2% of all CDs sold in 2008 (and that includes the more popular smooth category), and classical was only 1.5%.

" Is music marketable if it doesnt belong to a genre, category, or style?"

Anything is marketable if people like it. As has been pointed out with the references to The Bad Plus and others, today's jazz is all over the map: there is mainstream that doesn't sound like mainstream of 10 years ago; there is fusion (making a comeback, too); acoustic, electric, acid jazz, smooth jazz, big band, vocal, and more. To say that John McGlaughlin and Ella Fitzgerald belong to any one single category is a stretch, and yet...they are connected by their jazz lineage.

"And are these categorizations a hinderance on the development of new and original music?"

Why would they be? It's in the hands of the artists. if they make cookie-cutter music, they won't grow and the audience will eventually get bored.

And by the way, Robin--I used to hold my nose at the Yellowjackets until I saw them live. They are tremendous players by any standards--well, at least by my standards--and a great ensemble who have developed a style of their own. How many groups have remained intact--with only a handful of personnel changes for over 25 years today? Not that many.

"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!"

Bang! BAng! Don't worry, they were only blanks. ;)

^^

Great posts :thumbsup: Even I can concede that, and appreciate their musicianship. They tend not to be up my alley, but still...

I never heard Mintzer's big band work, but check out The Hudson Project, with Erskine, Ambercrombie and Patitucci. And yeah, that Jaco stuff was excellent.

Don't bother with the Mintzer big band...that Hudson Project sounds KILLING though. (Don't get me wrong - I was never trying to diss Mintzer's playing...I just got a sour taste for anything associated with him - that's how lame his writing is. He IS most definitely a stellar player). I will have to dig up that Hudson Project - smoking band!

I'll pass on the Mintzer Big Band, thanks! I probably mentioned that I recorded a couple of albums with Peter Erskine and and one with John Patitucci, and around that time Peter got me passes to see the Hudson Project live at NAMM. AS great as I knew these players were, I was somehow unprepared for how hot the band would be. Afterwards, Erskine told me it was only an ok night. :)

hmmm....

The distinction between "Classical" and "jazz" music is similar to the distinction between "Art" and "pop" music.

It is not at all correct, however, to presume that jazz musicians are better improvisers or that jazz is based on improvisation.

What society has deemed to be the greatest "classical" musicians have always been master improvisers. Bach was capable of improvising incredibly complex fugues, and Mozart was only impressed with Beethoven after he demonstrated his improvisatory abilities. The same with Mendelssohn, and Saint Saens, and Liszt, and Rachmaninoff, and so on and so forth.

Perhaps these days, institutions aren't doing enough to foster the improvisatory skills of all musicians... but please don't assume that only jazz players know how to improvise *well*

It is not at all correct, however, to presume that jazz musicians are better improvisers or that jazz is based on improvisation.

Excuse me? Jazz is based for a large part on improvisation. It is considered one of the chief elements of what jazz is. In fact improvised music that isn't really jazz is more likely to be categorized under jazz than "swing" music without improvisation. In modern jazz (specifically lots of the ECM stuff) the term "improvised music" is often preferred to "jazz". Even though this improvised music comes from the jazz tradition.

And although there are always exceptions, the average jazz musician is a better improviser... And many classical musicians couldn't improvise to save their lives. Of course I wouldn't say that only jazz musicians can improvise, but in general, jazz musicians are better improvisers.

This is a fun debate. However, I think Anath just went off the rails a little! :)

"The distinction between "Classical" and "jazz" music is similar to the distinction between "Art" and "pop" music."

Not really--the latter is a snobbery-based value judgement (what IS art? Is Steely Dan art or pop?), while the other is a stylistic divide, with separate rules and conventions. Sure, rules can be bent or broken, conventions ignored for a brief time--but ignore them long enough and you are no longer making that style of music. You know, at some point, if you take out the p[edal steel, the electric or acoustic guitars with a bit of twang, the certain song forms and vocal conventions, and you add a horn section, a fuzz bass and a drum machine, you're really not making Country Western music anymore.

"It is not at all correct, however, to presume that jazz musicians are better improvisers or that jazz is based on improvisation."

Obviously you don't know very much about jazz, my friend. As was pointed out, improvisation is one of the key elements in jazz. And since we all do it, every single time we play, and we study it and examine it...no question we're better at it, more facile, more educated to the possibilities, more open to the unknown than someone who can't get started unless there is paper in front of him. And like it or not, that describes the vast majority of classical players.

"What society has deemed to be the greatest "classical" musicians have always been master improvisers. Bach was capable of improvising incredibly complex fugues, and Mozart was only impressed with Beethoven after he demonstrated his improvisatory abilities. The same with Mendelssohn, and Saint Saens, and Liszt, and Rachmaninoff, and so on and so forth."

I'm sorry, but you're basing this argument on completely undocumented improvisational abilities of 6 or 7 people who have been dead for hundreds of years? Ok, so show us the living classical musicians who are brilliant improvisers. I've heard Yo Yo Ma improvise, and it's average at best, albeit his tone is always gorgeous.

I don't see why we're getting into a debate of "who can improvise better" here, when it's almost impossible to judge (you'd have to hear everyone improvise in the first place and then have good criteria of judging the quality, which is pretty much impossible per se), and also rather irrelevant.

I think the point we were starting at is a difference in practice, which, if anything, matters here: Improvisation is a key element of Jazz practice, while in the classical performance practice of today it is much less emphasized. That's all. It isn't about quality.

This improvisation debate also needs to be looked at from an instant composition standpoint.

Improvisation within a style, using a set stock of forms, etc etc etc can simply be considered instant composition of a pastiche, y'know? So I'm wary of this supremacy of jazz as some improvisational art form, while other improvisation traditions, equally as beholden to their histories, are left to be "folk" music. [of course, there is still tons of cutting edge jazz, but I'd argue that the majority of "jazz" players (and players in general) are stuck in some concept of what jazz (music) IS, whether big band, bop, post-bop... whatever. I mean, music is extremely forgetful of minor bit players. I'm thinking specifically of the "history of free jazz" which rarely mentions the first free jazz recordings on Lennie Tristano's Descent into the Maelstrom, two years before Ornette got in the picture...)

I don't know anymore -- I can't see one aspect where either is categorically superior to the other. I think of Peter Kowald, who lacks a lot of the jazz forms in his improvisations, yet considers himself jazz. I think of Derek Bailey, who I think doesn't consider himself a jazz musician, who is in a similar boat... It's this fuzziness, this lack of sureness as to who is on what "side," that make it clear to me that there is NO divide, apart from "mental shortcuts" like genre, which are arbitrary and incomplete.

"I don't see why we're getting into a debate of "who can improvise better" here, when it's almost impossible to judge (you'd have to hear everyone improvise in the first place and then have good criteria of judging the quality, which is pretty much impossible per se), and also rather irrelevant."

I'm sorry, but as a jazz player I can tell you absolutely that it's not a phony debate about who can improvise better. Come on, I can be a hippie about it and say "man, we're all great!" but there is a language--let's call it criteria--to jazz improvisation, just like there is a language of classical phrasing. If someone doesn't have it, there is no reason to sing Cumbaya and try to make us all believe that there isn't a difference, or that maybe the *next* guy who hasn't studied the forms might be incredible--no, he won't be and furthermore, why would he be?

Look at it this way: who can play Beethoven better, a guy who practices it every day or someone who has never bothered to learn the proper technique, whose home base is spontaneous harmonic inventions on Autumn Leaves, and who has never been schooled in how to approach that kind of music? You can try to say "well, we'd have to hear them both to decide," but if you had to buy a ticket and loved Beethoven, I think I know which one you'd pick--and you'd probably be correct.

I believe that these kinds of arguments ("How can you say that jazz improvisers are better at improvising than someone who almost never does it, without hearing absolutely everyone else before you decide?") are actually part of a condescending attitude classical players used to take with jazzers, as if 'oh, anyone can do that! Watch me, I'm improvising too!' Yes, well--you might be improvising, but you're not doing what a good improviser would do.

Like I said, I've been playing jazz for over 40 years now, and when I heard yo Yo Ma, I knew within a few measures that he did merely ok...for a guy who knows very little about jazz improvisation.

"So I'm wary of this supremacy of jazz as some improvisational art form, while other improvisation traditions, equally as beholden to their histories, are left to be "folk" music."

I don't think that was where the conversation was going--it was strictly about jazz versus classical music, and the amount improvisation skills required of the players. Remember--in a jazz ensemble, *everyone* is improvising most of the time, within certain parameters. The examples we've been given here of classical music feature one guy improvising while everyone else is counting and waiting for their thoroughly composed entrance.

I am no master, but I played string bass in an orchestra for a bit. it is a completely different, very gratifying experience.

I don't think I ever said anyone can do Jazz improvisation as well as anyone else. Obviously a classically trained cellist won't be as successful at pulling of a convincing Jazz improvisation than someone who has done it all life long. Nobody would ever question that.

The problem is that the things you state here as qualitative criteria for improvisation, i.e. knowing the language/phrasing/stylistic properties of a certain music, are not what I'd typically value as a special quality in an improviser. Rather, I'd expect them as stylistical foundations. I'm sure you'd agree though that just getting those stylistical effects down isn't enough for someone to qualify as an exceptional improviser, but that you'd look for something personal, that goes beyond those things, maybe even incorporating things that are somewhat untypical for that style.

The thing is however that improvisation, per se, does not have any forms you must know. You must know forms if you want your improvisations to sound like Jazz, or Beethoven, or whatever, but this is entirely besides the point, since we're talking about improvisation in general here. So all the criteria you mentioned are merely criteria of determining how much a given improvisation falls in line with a certain style, and not whether an improvisation is valuable in general.

You are accusing my arguments to come from a condescending attitude of classical players towards Jazz, when in reality I'm merely trying to put improvisation in a more general perspective than "playing freely in a style". The whole thing is, as Ferkungamabooboo said, that improvisation (when seen outside the scope of a single style, where it could be described as a form of interpretation) is a form of instant composition, and since we are lacking clear criteria for determining whether a certain composition (or interpretation) is "good", we also lack those criteria for improvisation.

What remains is merely the technical proficiency of reproduction - be that by being able to play a Beethoven sonata without error, or be able to improvise in a way that it's distinctly Jazz. Sure, there are criteria for that and sure, those are important aspects of the interpretation too. But is this really what improvisation or interpretation is all about?

"The problem is that the things you state here as qualitative criteria for improvisation, i.e. knowing the language/phrasing/stylistic properties of a certain music, are not what I'd typically value as a special quality in an improviser. Rather, I'd expect them as stylistical foundations."

Absolutely agreed--I wasn't very articulate. What I meant to say, and I'm think about this as I type, those are not the things I listen for...but without them, the improviser will probably not move me because he won't sound in the groove with the other players. Ornette on top of, say, The Crusaders. For me, improvisation is about personal expression and soulfulness. But soul without the ability to speak your heart fluidly, which comes from dedication and practice and constant exploration? it would be like listening to Robin Williams if he had a serious stutter. His ideas might be killer, but if he can't get them out of his mouth then I won't wait around forever.

Apologies to anyone who stutters. You're probably not Robin Williams, so I won't hold you to that high a standard. ;)

"but that you'd look for something personal, that goes beyond those things, maybe even incorporating things that are somewhat untypical for that style."

Mostly, when I hear someone painting outside the lines--which is all the time--it just expands the style in my mind.

More later--have to go to dinner.

Hm. I had a long post.. but I accidently closed the tab.

Basically, what I wanted to add was that:

"Classical" music, like "jazz", contains so many varied styles and conventions that it is impossible to say that "jazz" does not fit into the "rules" of "classical" music

If Penderecki/Stockhausen/Cage can be put into the same genre as Bach/Beethoven/Palestrina, then why can't Desmond/Parker/Ornette? It's not only as a result of snobbery... as people have pointed out earlier, they arose from different cultures and have been culturally divided. They aren't "different styles" of music. And to the OP, the divide between art music and pop music is also cultural.. everyone has their own opinion of where the divide is (or if there even is one at all)

In fact Parker (in Hot House) uses harmonic progressions and phrase structures that one would expect to find in "classical" music... does that mean that he is improvising "classically" ? No! It is a musical technique, and he is free to use whatever he wants.

Gardener and Ferk basically summed up the other thing I wanted to add (that all musicians improvise and the quality and extent to which they improvise is different) [quality is defined by extra-musical factors]

Finally,

I'm sorry, but you're basing this argument on completely undocumented improvisational abilities of 6 or 7 people who have been dead for hundreds of years? Ok, so show us the living classical musicians who are brilliant improvisers. I've heard Yo Yo Ma improvise, and it's average at best, albeit his tone is always gorgeous.

As many people have pointed out earlier in this thread, the music of today is chock full of your definition of improvisation. Although it was popular earlier in the 20th century, it is somewhat dying out.

Brilliance in improvisation is subjective, as is the tone of his instrument.

Thankfully, though, I know of quite a few instrumental instructors that are teaching their students "classical improvisation" as you call it. Adhering to the conventions of older music.

Well, Jazz music originated from Africa. If you listen to African music you will hear things like the blues scale and complex rhythms. Classical music originated from Europe (I think, maybe be wrong). They're the Yin and Yang of each other. You classical music with red and Jazz with blue (no pun intended with "Blues") because they're roots are different. Traditionally they're are different but people like to combine different types of music now. However there are always pieces that are purely classical and purely jazz from earlier times.

"As many people have pointed out earlier in this thread, the music of today is chock full of your definition of improvisation. "

I'm not trying to be a smart donkey, but I must have missed the examples. I saw people referring to legends about people who are dead and buried centuries ago like Mozart and others. But I think you're misunderstanding my definition of improvisation, used in the sense of jazz improvisation. It's far more collective than non-jazz musicians seem to appreciate--when I am improvising, so is my drummer and my bassist, within the parameters of the genre and the composition. It is interactive. It is not where the orchestra stops while the cellist explores some themes for a minute, and then everyone goes back to what is written on the page.

The other thing that is so striking to me about jazz improvisation, and I was just showing a student the other day, is that a jazz player can take any note and make it make sense, by touch, timing, or even just going for the dissonance. I demonstrated by playing F below middle C under an E above C. Play them loudly, it sounds challenging at best, but play them the right way in the right context and you've got a gorgeous interval with pulsating harmonics.

I have heard improvised classical cadenzas, and they tend to stay between the lines as opposed to exploring dissonance.

I think a couple of recorded examples will probably help clarify some of the definitions and ideas of this discussion.

Try this link: 01 Tee Bag.mp3

The first song is Nascente, not a jazz composition but a Brazilian one. And if I might direct your attention to a few specific aspects...

There is a chordal structure that all five musicians are following. However, as you listen to the soloists (First MIchael Brecker who plays the meoldy on tenor sax, then Pat Metheny on guitar synthesizer, then Herbie Hancock on acoustic piano and then Brecker again), you're certain to notice that they take long deviations from the written chord progression, instead playing *around* it in ways that are common to jazz improvisers.

Second, notice the drum part (played by the great Jack DeJohnette). The band has obviously discussed the rhythmic feeling it wants, but his part is almost completely improvised--he doesn't even hit all of the same breaks the rest of the players do. yes, he maintains an 8th note pulse on his cymbals throughout, but listen to the many variations he is *spontaneously* throwing in, in order to inspire the featured soloist.

This recording of Nascente is the perfect example for me of collective jazz improvisation within the framework of a composition--adhere to it, ignore it, modify it, all spontaneously but always with one ear on your other players so that if you move off the grid for a few moments, they either go with you or at least respond in a way that you feel free enough to explore an idea, knowing they will be there when you return.

The second link on that page is Tee Bag, an outrageously fun blues romp also featuring Michael Brecker on sax, along with Don Grolnick on piano (my hero), Steve Gadd on drums (another hero), Eddie Gomez on bass and Mike Manieri on vibes. I strongly urge you to stick around till the sax solo and open your ears up to hear the dialogue between the sax and the drums. To me, it's again one of the premiere examples of how within the context of a given song structure, two or more musicians can spontaneously create something intimate, powerful, musical that goes far beyond what the composer ever dreamed of.

And remember, all these musicians are seeing is a chord sheet and in the case of the sax, a melody line which he is free to play or not play or twist any way that feels right to him at the moment. The rest of what you're hearing? All improvised in the moment, again within the parameters of the chord progression and the genre--the shuffle rhythm in the blues, for example.

Not that all jazz sounds like this; not that classical music doesn't feature some improvisation from a soloist once in a while. But be honest with yourself--when was the last time you heard what you're hearing here in a piece of classical music? And could the finest classical violinist ever simply do what Michael Brecker is doing, just by virtue of wanting to? 99% of all jazz players cant, so why would he be able to?

Know what the problem is? "Art"

I hate that word. HATE it.

Man, I can't believe that this conversation was going so well, yet no one has apparently listened to an actual musical example. Trust me, guys--it's good stuff. :)