Jazz Don’t Hurt: What Is Jazz, Anyway?

Jason Crane October 12, 2009 13

jazz[1]What is “jazz,” exactly? I sure as hell don’t know. And neither, I would suggest, does anyone else.

Sure, everybody knows what they think jazz is, and which particular elements music has to contain to qualify as jazz — swing, the blues, improvisation, etc. But put to the test, it turns out the word is extremely subjective.

From the list of three elements above (swing, the blues, improvisation), I would certainly eliminate swing and the blues as required parts of what I call jazz. First of all, defining a word like jazz with another word no one understands, such as “swing,” just makes the issue murkier rather than clearer. Many people would say “swing” refers to ding-ding-a-ding on the ride cymbal, or the same rhythm represented on some other instrument in the band. That would immediately eliminate much of the free jazz cannon, and just about all of the latin jazz world, to name just two “micro-genres.” (I think that’s a term I stole from Vijay Iyer.) Plus, much of the music being made today (and nearly everything I recommended in my Five Recent Jazz CDs for New Listeners piece, would also get the axe if swing — strictly defined — is a requirement.

Some people define “swing” as a feeling. But that’s just as ephemeral as the word “jazz,” and only serves to mystify folks. Saying something “swings” doesn’t seem very useful if it’s nothing more than a synonym for “kills” or “shreds” or “burns” or “cooks” or “rocks” or “grooves” in the sentence, “Wow, that music really _________.”

And what about the blues? Here we get into sticky territory. In my opinion, it’s important to differentiate the origins of the music from the requirements for its current practice. In other words, even if it’s true that jazz came from the blues in its earliest days, it’s also true that the music has been embraced by people all over the world for whom the blues is not a foundational music. Much of what has come from Europe, for example, is completely unrelated to the blues. But it’s certainly jazz, as far as I’m concerned. It might have been more challenging to separate jazz from the blues in 1950, but it’s extremely easy to point to examples these days.

What about improvisation? Of the elements I listed, this comes closest to a requirement in my book, but it still falls short. There are dozens — make that hundreds or thousands — of ballad performances on record that feature nothing more than a performance of the melody with no solos. Sure, some of these performances involve ornamentation or other flourishes that are improvised, but they don’t involve the kind of spontaneous composition that is the hallmark of what most jazz people would call improvisation. On the flip side, there’s music that features tons of improvisation, such as the Grateful Dead or Phish, that almost no one would classify as jazz. (Not least because they wouldn’t want to give the music the kiss of sales death that the word “jazz” usually carries with it.)

So where does that leave us? And why did I name my interview show The Jazz Session if I don’t even know what the word “jazz” means?

Taking the second question first: I named the show The Jazz Session because (a) it’s catchy, and (b) it helps a certain niche group of listeners find the show more easily. I didn’t mean it to be exclusionary, but I can certainly see how the name might have that effect.

As for where we’re at, having removed any useful means of recognizing what’s jazz and what’s not, I think that’s the entire point of this essay, and of my “Jazz Don’t Hurt” column. My contention is that we toss the definitions and requirements, and just find music that we each dig. My jazz doesn’t have to be your jazz, and vice versa. We don’t need to agree on the terms of the debate, or on the definition of the words. In fact, the more we worry about the definitions, the more we risk missing good music that gets hidden deep in the pigeonhole. I don’t think you should listen to Darius Jones or the records I recommended in the five CDs piece because they’re jazz records. In my opinion, you should check them out because each one is full of great music by musicians who have something to say.

I know that people — including me — will still use the term jazz. It’s sometimes a useful shorthand, and it’s going to be a long time before record stores are alphabetized from A to Z with no catergories. But I don’t think the word should be a gate to which you must hold a special key.

What is jazz? I don’t really know. And I don’t really care. And if you’re comfortable with not caring, too, I think we can have a lot of fun together discovering music here at Popdose.

Jason Crane is the host of the online jazz interview show The Jazz Session.

  • http://www.jazzrochester.com/ Greg Bell

    Amen, brother! Too many boxes…

  • jamesshippdotcom

    Yeah! YEah!!!!! That was well said, Jason. That word is nice for getting people to go to festivals (and also nice for keeping people who don't really want to listen out of listening rooms) but in my experience, it's doing more harm than good these days. I like 'creative music,' but of course that's got as many snobbish connotations if not more, so that's trouble. Anyone else got a better word for what used to be jazz?

  • tasker1234

    Yes sir!!! Great!!! Well said!!! Now I have this list of editors, writers, musicians, booking agents, labels and some others we need to deal with. ;-)

  • Pingback: RVAJazz Week in Review | RVANews

  • http://www.lucasgillan.com/ Lucas Gillan

    Great essay, Jason!

    I went to a school (Northern Illinois University) where swing and blues were ESSENTIAL elements of the “official” jazz definition. Every CD the jazz ensemble ever released had the word “swing” in the title. “Swingin' into the Millenium,” “We Came to Swing,” “Swingin' Every Which Way But Loose,” to name but a few. Our director also insisted that every solo played by every member of the big band must sound bluesy. His standard instructions to a student whose solo was less than great was, “more blues!!!”

    It was tough to reconcile this perspective with what I saw occurring in the real world. The aforementioned educator responded by simply saying, “that isn't jazz,” if something didn't sound like his definition of it. I'm not really that offended by that, to be honest. You might even hear me say, “Carrie Underwood isn't country,” because to me, it sounds like it has nothing to do with Hank Williams and Johnny Cash. What I have a problem with is people saying that the music is invalid because of its lack of swing or blues. That discounts the entire canon of Western Classical Music, for starters. I'm reminded of this quote from a recent John Zorn interview:

    “People started judging this new music with the standards of jazz, with the definitions of what jazz is and isn’t, because stories about it appeared in jazz magazines. And now I’ll do a gig at the Marciac Jazz Festival and I’ll get offstage and Wynton Marsalis will say, 'That’s not jazz.' And I’ll say, 'You’re right! But this is the only gig I’ve got, man. Give me another festival and I’ll play there.'”

    I call the new stuff, the European stuff, the free stuff, the Bjork and Radiohead covers etc., “jazz,” because it's part of the jazz continuum. Jazz players take their jazz training and apply it to other repoertoire, other sound experiments. This is part of a long tradition of jazz musicians borrowing from other genres (Manteca, anyone? Sketches of Spain? Bird with Strings?). But: if some militant says, “that's not jazz,” I guess it's OK. Just don't say that means it's not worth listening to, and don't get mad at me for calling it “jazz.”

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    Sure, Phish and The Dead are jazz. Bad jazz. It's all jazz. There are only two kinds. Good, and bad.

    I kid, I kid. I bought a Greatful Dead album download recently, and enjoyed it, although that particular album was not very jazzy, i.e. not a lot of improvisation.

    I would say improvisation is the most crucial element defining jazz, though I would broaden the definition to include uniquely arranging or transforming the original composition through performance in some way. For example, Susannah Hoffs and Matthew Sweet have done two covers albums, and some of their covers come dangerously close to trying to reverently replicate the original recordings. Those kinds of “faithful renditions” are very far away from jazz. But when Shawn Colvin performed the Talking Heads' This Must Be The Place on her album Cover Girl, that was truly a transformation of the song. If not jazz, it was in the spirit of jazz.

    Jazz is ripping music apart and putting it back together in a unique and hopefully still musically valid manner.

  • Pingback: radiomemory.ru » Blog Archive » What is jazz, anyway?

  • chriskelsey

    Yes! You nailed it Jason. I'm basically of a mind that if a musician wants to call his or her music jazz, then dad-gum it, jazz it be. Why not? The more the merrier. It's not like Christina Aguilera or Kanye West are gonna sell more records if they start calling their music “jazz.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/lyn.horton Lyn Horton

    Jazz begins and ends with the breath and the heartbeat, when put into the human context; the music just “is” requiring no definition, no documentation, no context.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lyn.horton Lyn Horton

    Jazz begins and ends with the breath and the heartbeat, when put into the human context; the music just “is” requiring no definition, no documentation, no context.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lyn.horton Lyn Horton

    Jazz begins and ends with the breath and the heartbeat, when put into the human context; the music just “is” requiring no definition, no documentation, no context.

  • Pingback: Jazz Don't Hurt: The Industrial Jazz Group | Popdose

  • Pingback: New Releases from Ayler Records | Avant Music News