Jazz is not Blues and Blues is not Jazz.......


I have been a music fan all my life and listen to classic Jazz and female vocals mostly.  I did not see this throughout most of my life, but now some internet sites and more seem to lump Jazz and Blues into the same thought. 
B.B. King is great, but he is not Jazz.  Paul Desmond is great, but he is not Blues.   

Perhaps next Buck Owens will be considered Blues, or Lawrence Welk or let's have Buddy Holly as a Jazz artist? 

Trite, trivial and ill informed, it is all the rage in politics, why not music?




whatjd

It also shows blues pioneer Charley Patton, an early 20th Century Mississippi Delta guitarist of Choctaw and African-American ancestry, fused Native American rhythms with black music.

Co-director Catherine Bainbridge says the film presents a missing chapter in the history of American popular music.

https://www.insider.com/ap-pbs-films-tackles-native-american-links-to-rock-blues-jazz-2019-1

Let us compare the sound of the "Delta Blues" to the sound of Blues in Jazz;


          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyIquE0izAg


          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0aIjyX7vwI



Now lets listen to Blues in jazz;


            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMgwWAaxQQ4&list=RDDMgwWAaxQQ4&start_radio=1


            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-488UORrfJ0&list=RDDMgwWAaxQQ4&index=3


All of that music is called "The Blues". Do you hear a major difference between what's called Blues in Jazz and what's called "Blues" since I can remember and even before then? Or is that the difference between "Delta Blues" and all other Blues?


This gets back to the OP's original statement, 
Jazz is not Blues and Blues is not Jazz.......

In typical fashion, threads lose focus and go off in directions that are irrelevant. There is a tendency to dig one’s heels in and miss the forest for the trees.

I don’t recall anyone here claiming that there are no important differences between Blues and Jazz; or that they should be called the same thing. To claim so would be absurd. The over simplified title of the thread is only one part of the OP’s premise and complaint. The complaint was: “why do the two get lumped together?” I think that plenty of factual data has been presented and a pretty good case made for why they do get lumped together; and rightfully so. They are musical cousins having related genetic blue prints.

I think that this tune has been beaten to death and I will leave the discussion with this thought: there is a reason that I can find my Pepper Jack cheese in the same aisle as the milk 😋 (love those food analogies!).

I do find it interesting Orpheus10, knowing how many times you have come across the phrase “No Blues, no Jazz”, that this is the first time that I have noticed your objection to the premise 🤔

Frogman, you live in a musical universe of your own creation, and you never run out of "rose colored glasses".


"Feeling blue” is expressed in songs whose verses lament injustice or express longing for a better life and lost loves, jobs, and money. That's one definition.

"True Blues" has lyrics, while Blues in jazz is purely instrumental. Jazz was developed in our cities while Blues was developed in the cotton fields of the South, and the lyrics expressed deep dark misery and the desire to escape that misery.

I know if I was born in an unpainted shotgun shack in the middle of nowhere, I would most certainly have the Blues.

More often than not, the only things jazz and Blues musicians have in common is "ethnicity"; Miles Davis's father was a Dentist, and he went to Juilliard School of music in New York. What school of music did B. B. King go to?

Jazz, Blues, and Gospel were lumped together for the same reason everything else was lumped together some time ago, "ethnicity".