You got to show me something more!

"I'm a little late to the party here and in "you got to show me" thread but would agree with many of the "live and let live" posts."

Yes, you are late, but that doesn't matter. But that doesn't explain your comment above. You've jumped on board the identical erroneous conclusion as the people you're purportedly agreeing with. No one ever suggested, least of all me, one shouldn't listen to any particular type of music because it is inferior to another. To the contrary. What I HAVE suggested, is a person who doesn't understand a certain type of music shouldn't be so closeminded to suggest that because they fail to understand it, the music has no merit!

"Whether it was Ellington or Armstrong, Presley or the Stones, they all started playing variations on themes originally presented by Handy, Johnson, Dixon and Waters."

Hardly! Explain to me where Presley, the Stones, or even Armstong played anything remotely close to placing one scale upon another? Ellington began doing this in the 30's long before it became in vogue in jazz in the 50's, and his doing so hardly related to a variation on a theme from Handy, Johnson, or anyone else that preceeded him. These new harmonies all came about by design, not as a variation upon a theme.

I enjoy a healty debate as much as the next person, but it's important that information be accurate.

"Personally, I am waiting for the Blues series on PBS, but not holding my breath. Jazz may not get the respect it truly deserves, but Blues gets even less."

Finally, someone echoes what I've been saying since the beginning of this thread. Bottom line. Jazz doesn't get the respect that's due it, and I hasten to ad, that is probably because folks choose not to investigate it enough to understand it! Those that do, understand that there's more happening between the lines than their ears first hip them to. Those that don't, close their minds, and their ears, and therefore miss out entirely. The appreciation of jazz, like any other art form, is enhanced with some rudimentary understanding of music. Time well spent if you ask me, as the analyzation of any musical form only serves to reap greater rewards upon the listener!

Enjoy!
Coltrane1 Yes, you are late, but that doesn't matter. But that doesn't explain your comment above. You've jumped on board the identical erroneous conclusion as the people you're purportedly agreeing with. No one ever suggested, least of all me, one shouldn't listen to any particular type of music because it is inferior to another. To the contrary. What I HAVE suggested, is a person who doesn't understand a certain type of music shouldn't be so closeminded to suggest that because they fail to understand it, the music has no merit!

"I think, however, Coltrane, that you're engaging in some serious historic revisionism when you state above that rock was born out of jazz." Historic revisionism. That's a fancy way of saying you've been hit over the head with the truth, and it's unsettling to you. Study the technical structure of rock in the 50's, 60's, which is a basic I to V to I to V chord, with an occasional IV chord tossed in, and Voila, you have nothing more than a basis for the Blues, which you obviously are aware is the basis for jazz.

Coltrane: You have now become the mind reader you recently accused Dekay of being. My agreement with the "live and let live" posts refers to people listening to what they want because they enjoy it. I happen to listen to mainly blues and some jazz (as well as other types of music) because I ENJOY it-my enjoyment of the music has nothing to do with whether I think one musical form is inferior or superior to another. I can assure you though that I do not enjoy all forms of the blues any more than I enjoy all forms of jazz. As you've deduced, I agree with you on many points; what I disagree with most is the way you're trying to make your point. I also disagree (if I'm reading you correctly) that jazz is the "superior" music form, but, then again, I don't have your technical understanding of the music. Your technical ramblings, however, leave me cold, much the way a technically proficient musician without an ability to inject emotion into the music leaves me. Re-read my post, particularly where I stated we could chatter endlessly about how the various musical forms have evolved. Your "placing one scale upon another" is in fact, part of that evolution, even if you proclaim it to be what makes jazz "superior". Blues is, unequivocally, the foundation upon which both jazz and rock are built; all your final paragraph says to me is that rock is built on a slightly less sophisticated foundation. Here's to the music.

"Learning about jazz
On a long thread last month regarding jazz recordings, I made a number of posts. Rather than try to recap my comments, let me quickly offer than I have been an avid jazz enthusiast since high school (late 1950's), and have taught a college course in jazz appreciate. Some of the remarks made on this thread either miss some important points about this extraordinary music, or are well-intentioned but misleading. For example, HiWaves commented that jazz musicians are imitators of the classical genre, and that jazz musicians do not really understand counterpoint. Nothing personal, HiWaves, but most GOOD jazz musicians go substantially beyond imitation by spontaneously creating music as they play. That, in essence, is what sets jazz apart from virtually all other major musical forms.

Ahhhhh...man, this is indeed sweet music to the ears. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only enlightened set of ears on this site. And, might I add, that HARMONIES developed through the evolution of JAZZ did not exist in the context of traditional harmonies before it. Why is that you might ask? Well, one reason is because before JAZZ, Western ears were accustomed to the traditional consonant harmony of Europe. It wasn't until the integration of the dominant 7th chord (even common to European classical music), with the blues scale (of African descent) was integrated with the diatonic scale common to the West, did jazz really begin to evolve. Once these different scales began to be examined, and developed, a constant exposure to them began to expand our ears. And so, what was once believed to be a sound that was incapable of being resolved by the ear, now was heard and accepted as purposeful, and opened many a door to new, fresh, and greater harmonies. Take away the flatted 7th (a dominant 7th scale), and you've removed the basis of the foundation to most, if not all jazz harmony. For the uninitiated, any song form can be broken down to its foundation, in essence, its harmony.

"Ken Burns' "Jazz" makes the valid point that jazz is an amalgam for forms: marches, late 1800's dances, blues, ragtime, negro work songs and chants, French operatic aria, etc."

Precisely! Additionally, these Negro work songs were nothing more than the blues, which is but a five note, or pentatonic scale. These workers sang notes that weren't common to Western ears, dissonant in fact, but they were common in Africa, the continent from which they came.

"With regard to the comments about Bach: I also love Bach, as well as Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, and probably 100 or more great classical composers. But none of them combined extraordinary instrumental virtuousity with the ability to spontaneously created syncopated, polythmic music derived from a broad confluence of musical tradition."

This is precisely why I suggested to the uninformed, that JAZZ is the most technically challenging form of music ever created. Sure, classical players reveal great technique, power, touch, feeling when they play. But combine those same elements with creating of your own soul as you're playing, rather than playing something in written form, and you've opened up a whole other can of worms! Can you say INFINITY? Well, you've just described JAZZ. To hear this, listen to a 40 minute Coltrane solo where he doesn't repeat a single phrase throughout, and we'll talk!

"Listen to any good jazz drummer, for example, and you will hear 3-4 simultaneous rhythms. I have two references that I recommend to anyone interested in learning about jazz the music, not just the musicians who play the music. First, find the tape recording (or LP) titled "Jazz", which is a 1956 TV program from the Omnibus series, narrated by Leonard Bernstein."

I'm sure most of you know this famous American classical conductor. This same Leonard Bernstein was an avid JAZZ fan, and is even quoted by bassist Charlie Haden, as having interupted his playing while Haden performed with Ornette Coleman.

"Lenny discusses the forms of jazz and the improvisational styles, with support from musicians such as Miles Davis. It's a great tape, and one that is always well received in my jazz appreciation class."

Thanks for the heads up. I'd not even heard of that. See, that's the great thing about music, and life...we can learn something new all the time if we keep our minds and ears open. Which is the only point I was attempting to make in initiating this thread.

"The other reference source is the definitive college text on jazz: "Jazz Styles: History and Analysis", by Mark C. Gridley (published by Prentice-Hall). This book is easy to read, highly informative and interesting, and provides an excellent basis for really understanding America's only original art form."

Ahhhhh...how sweet it sounds. Art Form. No art form can be understood without study. It is merely a door, to greater knowledge, discovery of the self, and on a much deeper level an opening to a very spiritual experience. Examine Coltrane's life, and you might reach a greater understanding of your own.

Okay, I can leave in confidence now that I know that I don't walk this vast darkness alone. Thanks for the time folks. It's been fun!

Enjoy!
Coltrane1

"Coltrane: You have now become the mind reader you recently accused Dekay of being. My agreement with the "live and let live" posts refers to people listening to what they want because they enjoy it."

We are in total agreement here. I fail to understand why this is an issue with you, as it certainly is not a preoccupation of mine. But others HAVE chosen to suggest it was my intent to suggest what they should, or should not listen to. Hmm...not so.

"I happen to listen to mainly blues and some jazz (as well as other types of music) because I ENJOY it-my enjoyment of the music has nothing to do with whether I think one musical form is inferior or superior to another. I can assure you though that I do not enjoy all forms of the blues any more than I enjoy all forms of jazz. As you've deduced, I agree with you on many points; what I disagree with most is the way you're trying to make your point."

Hey, that's okay man. You don't have to like my style. I feel I've been direct, polite, and informative. But we can't please all the people all the time. So, if it comes down to shooting the messenger for some, so be it.

"I also disagree (if I'm reading you correctly) that jazz is the "superior" music form,"

No, musical superiority could be categorized in the mind of the beholder, but never once have I said the art form of JAZZ is superior music. It's harmonies are more complex, but that doesn't make it superior. If one felt the need to categorize, superiority is reserved for the mind/ear of the listener.

"but, then again, I don't have your technical understanding of the music."

Hmmm...I have diliberately attempted to be as untechnical as possible. Apparently, I have at least failed you in that regard.

"Your technical ramblings, however, leave me cold, much the way a technically proficient musician without an ability to inject emotion into the music leaves me."

Hmmm...Again, my bad for having left you feeling so isolated. Come in out of the cold man.

"Re-read my post, particularly where I stated we could chatter endlessly about how the various musical forms have evolved."

Undoubtedly, we could talk. And only through the sharing of ideas is one able to learn, which for a final time was the SOLE reason I chose to initiate this thread.

"Your "placing one scale upon another" is in fact, part of that evolution, even if you proclaim it to be what makes jazz "superior"."

Misquote on your part. You're interpretation once again is getting you into difficulty. The "scale placement" phrase was but one example where I was attempting to share with you how the evolution of JAZZ was far more than variations upon a theme, as your comment suggested. Harmony has had a far greater impact on the evolution of JAZZ than variations on a theme. Again, this is but a single example...I could present countless others, but that would get far too technical, and you've already shown a distaste for "technical rambling."

One wouldn't have to become a full fledged music student to learn more about the music they enjoy.

"Blues is, unequivocally, the foundation upon which both jazz and rock are built;"

Not exactly so. Blues is a part yes, but a small fraction of the pie...If you gave any study to harmony you'd come to that conclusion on your own.

"all your final paragraph says to me is that rock is built on a slightly less sophisticated foundation."

Thank you. If anything good came out of this thread, perhaps you, and someone else will have learned that rock is built upon a "far" less sophisticated foundation (harmony), and therefore jazz is far more than "jerky music." We've come full circle!

And before I'm misquoted once again, no, that does NOT make JAZZ superior! But there's a heck of a lot more complexity going on than what's happening in rock n' roll.

"Here's to the music."

Yes, here's to the music Bro!

Enjoy!
Coltrane1

Exuse me while I roll my eyes.