First, any definition will be approximate. It will exclude some music that is arguably jazz and/or include some music that is obviously not jazz.
Bearing this is mind I think that the most serviceable definition is Wynton Marsalis's: it is music with a specific type of more or less triplet-based swing rhythm. This would exclude, say, Bitches Brew: a desert island album for me, but one I'm quite happy to categorise as not-jazz. The definition could also embrace some hip-hop. I am agnostic on the question of whether the definition should be refined to exclude hip-hop but believe it could be easily done.

Most definitions stress the primacy of improvision but improvisation is common to a wide range of musical forms. It also seems to me that certain types of composed-through music containing little improvisation (eg Mingus's "Goodbye Pork Pie Hat") and extended works by Gil Evans, Quincy Jones, George Russell) etc are clearly jazz. Improvisation is a characteristic feature of jazz but not it's defining feature. Definitions which stress improvisation are very poor at defining where jazz stops and rock starts, unlike rhythm based defitions.

This is a question that scholars have written volumes on.
They generally describe its origins, major artists and off-shoots, but never end up with a definitive description.

One of the difficulties in coming up with a definitive description, is that as an evolving art form, it's a moving target.

The thing you hear most is that Jazz must have the basic element of "swing" and compositions will have some form of improvisation.

Now I will say that it is a form (i'd also include Classical) that you can't fake your way into.
I've had this fantasy that all contemporary folk that classify themselves as musicians, be transported back to the 1920-30 period and try to make it being a "musician" in Louis Armstrong's band for example. If you survive, then you could be transported back to the present and retain that title.

My guess is not only would the vast majority get this look from "Pops"...



...they'd also end up fighting for the fry-cook position at McDonald's once they were returned to the present.



Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

U mean.....besides BORING as hell?

U mean.....besides BORING as hell?

Graycap23 said:

Hold up Doc.
Aren't you the same cat that posts the Foley & Chris Dave videos?



Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

A group of talented musicians playing in a room together. Unfortunately, they are all playing different tunes at the same time.

I've had this fantasy that all contemporary folk that classify themselves as musicians, be transported back to the 1920-30 period and try to make it being a "musician" in Louis Armstrong's band for example. If you survive, then you could be transported back to the present and retain that title.

My guess is not only would the vast majority get this look from "Pops"...

This is a question that scholars have written volumes on.
They generally describe its origins, major artists and off-shoots, but never end up with a definitive description.

One of the difficulties in coming up with a definitive description, is that as an evolving art form, it's a moving target.

The thing you hear most is that Jazz must have the basic element of "swing" and compositions will have some form of improvisation.

Now I will say that it is a form (i'd also include Classical) that you can't fake your way into.
I've had this fantasy that all contemporary folk that classify themselves as musicians, be transported back to the 1920-30 period and try to make it being a "musician" in Louis Armstrong's band for example. If you survive, then you could be transported back to the present and retain that title.

My guess is not only would the vast majority get this look from "Pops"...



...they'd also end up fighting for the fry-cook position at McDonald's once they were returned to the present.



Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

By most definitions I've seen so far, there is NO question that projects like C-Note, Xpectation, etc. are jazz or, at the very least, varying sorts of jazz fusion. N.E.W.S., for example, is on par -- stylistically, if not artistically or proficiency-wise -- with any given Weather Report album. (Yeah, I said it. )

Lammastide said:

Oh no you di-int!

I was about to respond to Imago when I read this.
This one is gonna require a serious rebuttal so i'll do it later when I have more time.
And only because I don't mind having a serious discussion about this with someone who isn't an irrational Prince sycophant.
(Which I don't believe you are.)


Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

This response is aimed at Imago & Lammastide as it seems that they both are asking if some of Prince's material would qualify as Jazz.

It should be obvious at this point that it's difficult (if not impossible) for any of us here to give a one sentence (or even a few paragraphs) to answer the question What is Jazz? on a technical level. It almost becomes a case of visceral recognition after having listened over the years to artists that are most closely associated with the art from from its inception through various transitional stages. You could say, much like the Supreme Court when trying to describe obscenity, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it...". In this case, I know it when I hear it.

Even Dr. Billy Talylor's explanations (suggested by TD3) don't contain a clear cut "nuts and bolts" answer to "the question".

To complicate matters even further when trying to answer "the question", the term JAZZ has been bastardized relatively recently by the "Smooth Jazz" (i.e. Easy Listening, what it should be called) format. I just scanned the Most Popular New WAVE Music list of the local Smooth Jazz station and found the following artists included.

Beyonce
Alicia Keys
Seal
Simply Red
Robin Thicke

So to a listener unfamiliar with any Jazz history, what do you think they could conclude from this?
By these standards, I guess Prince (along with a slew of others) could qualify as Jazz contenders.

Speaking for myself, i'm not sure what snobbery has to do with anything i've had to say on this subject. You'll have to expand on that.

As to the Prince albums you named standing up to any Weather Report album, I strongly disagree simply from the composition aspect alone.

Let's do this, give me one composition (from the albums you listed) that can stand up to this familiar piece by Weather Report.



...Birdland



Have at it.




Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

Good show, tA. You were nice to me.

First, I didn't mean to insinuate YOU'VE been snobbish in the things you've posted so far. But I do think there's a certain snobbery by many jazz types in denying the very genre of certain pieces of music based simply on the musical pedigree of the artist or on the fact the piece doesn't meet their own subjective artistic standards. I respect personal taste, but that gauge, by itself, is horribly uncharitable and stifling in so many cases both to performers and to various genres. And because jazz is ever-expansive, at a certain point that subjectivity can even be looked back on sometimes as downright laughable: As Sandino cited, for example, with a completely uncommitted -- and adjustable-at-will -- personal "approximation" of jazz, our boy Wynton is ultimately so given to his own personal biases that he would tell the world Bitches Brew is "not-jazz." I'd be happy to hear his reasoning, but that's gonna be a darned hard sell to anyone aside from himself... and maybe Ken Burns.

Now, I'll repeat: Prince is hardly a "jazz musician." You'll never hear me humor that insanity. But the forays on the albums I mentioned fit (even if not in an altogether masterful sense) just about every definition I've seen given for jazz here or elsewhere. And they do satisfy the sort of visceral recognition you (correctly) mention. They aren't the sugary, sentimental easy listening/R&B trash we hear on Quiet Storm stations or even the exhaustingly repetitious stuff of some earlier Madhouse numbers. He's gotten better.

Onto Prince vs. Weather Report... (What did I get myself into? ) I'll admit: Trapped in the Canadian tundra with the choice of either Heavy Weather or, say, C-Note, Prince's stuff would become kindling without a second thought. But while I agree no jazz efforts he's dreamed up can touch "Birdland" from not only a compositional standpoint, but technical, improvisational, yada yada yada.... I'd dare say a decent amount of P's stuff can easily hold a candle to things like "A Remark You Made" or "Harlequin" (both of which I love, BTW). If I consider another Heavy Weather track, "The Juggler," I'd even say I'd much rather spend time mentally unpacking things like Prince's "Nagoya," anything from N.E.W.S or even something outside his "formal" jazz repertoire like "Alexa De Paris," all of which I think are smarter written pieces.
[Edited 12/9/09 18:32pm]