Talk:Jazz/Archive 2

Modernism template

I have added a template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Modern Jazz

I notice that if you search for Modern jazz you end up here, but the term isn't used in this article. Is it just a British term or something? I realise it isn't an especially useful term and the connotations of modern pose problems, but it is used, at least here in the UK. The first jazz I ever listened to was a CD called 'This is Modern Jazz', and for a long time before I heard the terms bebop and hard-bop, that was what I thought of it as - Modern Jazz. I think it's pretty well understood, here at least, to mean bebop onwards and especially hard-bop. But then, over here we had the whole trad jazz phenomenon, which might explain why the distinction is phrased that way, modern vs. revivalist. Anyhow, I'm not suggesting that we embrace the term 'modern jazz' but an interested newcomer might be fazed by its non-inclusion, so maybe an explanatory note is in order. Mattley 13:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Modern jazz" is fairly commonly used for bop &/or post-bop styles. Perhaps the term is a bit POV. Trivia: the earliest usage of the phrase "modern jazz" I've found is in a 1919 newspaper ad for the Louisiana Five. -- Infrogmation 01:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Precursors of Jazz

I have put up a digest on the precursors of jazz which I had written a few months ago here: User:Sketchee/Precursors of Jazz. It's a paraphrase summary from the book chapter that was an assignment for my Black American music class. I'm releasing it to be used freely so it might be helpful for this article. The reference is listed on the bottom, so if you copy and paste it should be okay to list this reference in the article(s) in which it's used. Hope it helps. --Sketchee 19:12, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Neo-bop / post-bop?

In the article, section 1.12 - Recent developments, styles like nu-jazz, acid-jazz and fusion are mentioned, but where is the reference to those artists who nowadays play modern bebop-influenced jazz? Think of artists like: Wynton Marsalis, Roy Hargrove, Wallace Roney, Terence Blanchard, Nicholas Payton, Vincent Herring, Donald Harrison, Antonio Hart, Mulgrew Miller, Branford Marsalis, Joshua Redman, Christian McBride.

I'm from Europe and I have come to know the style of jazz these artist play under the name "Neo-bop" (sometimes also "Neo Bop" or "Neobop" or altogether different: "Post-bop"), the name referring to the fact that it's a bebop style mixed with influences from free-jazz and hard bop.

I was going to edit the article to mention this new bop genre, but because this is a featured article I feel somewhat reluctant to do so without asking here first. So, anybody else out there who's heard of the term "neo-bop" before? Should I edit the article to fit this in? Waldorf 15:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is from awhile back, but I started the article on Neo-bop jazz recently and Post-bop a month or so ago.--T. Anthony 11:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm.... I think both these articles are somewhat misconceived. First: "Neo-bop": this is just one of many terms used to describe the turn to pre-fusion/free forms of jazz by younger players in the 1980s. I think it is less useful than others, though, because "bop" is a very specific term, & many of their players don't necessarily take their impetus from bebop (e.g. Marsalis moved from modelling his music on the Miles Davis groups of the mid-1960s to an interest in models like Duke Ellington & Jelly Roll Morton; Diana Krall seems to have models like Shirley Horn & Nat King Cole in mind; &c). & there's the so-called "swing revival" associated with labels like Concord which should be related to all this too. -- "Neo-conservative jazz" might be the more useful catchall phrase.

Second: "post-bop" is just not a useful term at all. It has no agreed-upon meaning; all it means is "anything after the bebop era up to fusion". You'll just end up with a miscellaneous list of virtually any jazz musician who came to prominence in the mid-1950s to 1970.

Anyway, so my vote is that "neo-bop" get a namechange & clearer focus; & the latter does not need a musician list, just a brief definition. -- & the lists as they stood had some bizarre inclusions--I mean, Buck Clayton as a post-bop musician?? Niels Henning Orsted Pedersen as a neo-bopper??? I have deleted a lot of the names of the lists. AMG should not be taken very seriously--it's often a monkeys-on-typewriters resource. --ND 14:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The list was just because it looked skimpy. I wasn't sure if this was a valid term after I made it, but I saw people ask about it. Post-bop, even if vague and ill-defined, is a term I've seen all kinds of places. If need be it can just be about why the term is not useful.--T. Anthony 15:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Much more needed!!! Neo-bop / post-bop?

I use Wikipedia most often as a science reference. I have a doctorate in math and work in applied statistics. My "2nd career" is as a jazz musician (saxophone). When I tell my science friends how great Wikipedia is as a science reference I usually get laughed at and told "but anyone can edit it and write whatever they want (e.g. rampant misinformation), however up until now, I have not found this to be the case. Science entries are usually very accurate. This being said, I have never run across anything close to the level of misinformation that exists in this article. Its a complete disgrace. Judging by the faint murmurs heard on this page from perhaps the most knowledgable, the real experts (musicians) are staying away from it because a good edit is impossible!!! What it needs is a complete re-write. For one thing, if any among you has really ventured out to a real jazz club in any reasonably large city (and some small ones) especially one that boasts a jam session, you will discover that Bebob is the lingua franca. Walk into a jazz jam and find out right away what the definition of jazz is: open up "the real book" vol I or II and you will have roughly 300 pages of paradigm definition in your hands. Much of it is from the 40's and 50's, some also from the 60's and beyond. The point to be gleaned here, is that although the book spans the 40's even into the 70's, "free jazz", and "avant guard jazz" are extremely rare. There is maybe 1 Ornette Coleman tune. (I love Ornette Coleman). The point is that Bebop is broken into "waves". The first wave were the innovators--and Monk must be included in the list proper (Parker, Gillespie, Monk and Powell). The 2nd wave consists of their younger collaborators and students, who took over the guard in the 50's and early 60's: Sonny Rollins, John Coltrane, Lennie Tristano, Charles Mingus, Miles Davis]. Next the third wave (Wayne Shorter, Lee Morgan, the other Jazz Messengers, among many many others) and so on. The most important point to make about John Coltrane is _not_ that he went "spiritual" in the final years of his life (63-67) but that prior to that (beginning in 57 until 62) he stretched 'straight-ahead bebop' as far as it would go (for example, "Giant Steps" and "Live at the Antibes Jazz Festival". Another point is that chromaticism isn't really dissonance, but rather a logical chord sequence insertion [for example II/V/ with 2 beats to each chord becomes IIIb/VIb/II/V with one beat to each chord. Finally, perhaps the most important missing innovation of the beboppers was the move to harmonic improvisation in which the player uses higher intervals of the chord and arpeggiation in constructing a solo. Anyway, this rant is so brief maybe it too is useless. One more thing before I go, it would be useful to link audio clips to the chronology. It would be fantastic if this could be turned into something that rivals Ken Burns documentary. It wouldn't be that hard. The starting place is to modify the Bebop topic by creating new topics Bebop 1st, 2nd, 3rd waves, and beyond, and devoting a separate article to each one. Then maybe some experts can find a meaningful place to start uploading their PhD dissertations.128.231.88.4 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Grant Izmirlian

If you feel like revising the article, go ahead, but I don't think the entry on bebop is at variance with what you say: see the last paragraph of that section (which I had a hand in) in particular. There is also further info on the Bebop page. -- Lennie Tristano is not second-generation; he was born in 1919 & his first own-name recordings were exactly contemporary with the earliest bebop recordings. -- I have no idea where to begin in sorting out this page; life is short & it would take weeks of serious work to untangle the page with the assistance of good reference books & people I trust like Allen Lowe & Larry Kart. --ND 01:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Jazz in Europe?

This article focus on USA, could someone write something about the jazz development in Europe?

I am not an expert but this article is crying for references to European artists such as Django Reinhardt, Stéphane Grappelli, Michel Petrucciani, Toots Thielemans, Philippe Catherine, Didier Lockwood, Steve Houben to cite the ones I know without presuming of their relative importance. Vb 11:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are interested in jazz in Europe please help improve the following articles: Spanish jazz, Polish jazz, Italian jazz, and French jazz. Thank you.--T. Anthony 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 17:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Problem editing page

I'm not a regular here; I just dropped by to read the Jazz article. I found a typo in one sentence and clicked "Edit" to fix it; but the text that came up in the Edit box didn't exactly match the text in the main window, and the sentence that corresponded to the typo was very different, so I couldn't fix it. No point in responding to this, since I'm unlikely to return to see your response. As a casual visitor I just want to suggest that what comes up in the "Edit" box should match what's in the main screen. Regardless of the explanation of why it didn't (and I'm sure there's an explanation), this is extremely confusing and off-putting to a visitor who's trying to be helpful.

Bye.

Works for me. It'd help if you could tell us which section you tried to edit, and exactly what text showed up. Fredrik | talk 19:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jazzbox and Jazzfooter are templates. If you would like to edit the templates, please edit them at Template: Jazzfooter and Template: Jazzbox. Andros 1337 03:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Marsalis quote again

I know this has been fought about before. Still, here goes...I don't think the Marsalis quote should be in the introduction. I think it's POV, and that it's pride of place suggests that the article as a whole endorses that point of view. (Putting the quote further down would be fine -- Marsalis is an important figure, and his opinions are worth quoting.) Here's the Marsalis quote:

"Jazz is something Negroes invented, and it said the most profound things -- not only about us and the way we look at things, but about what modern democratic life is really about. It is the nobility of the race put into sound ... jazz has all the elements, from the spare and penetrating to the complex and enveloping. It is the hardest music to play that I know of, and it is the highest rendition of individual emotion in the history of Western music."

The POV statements in this quote include:

"Jazz is something Negroes invented...." Controversial on several counts. White folks contributed in important ways to the formation of jazz -- most expecially in that (for reasons of racism) they were the first to record the music, which in turn influenced the development of the form in many ways. It kind of depends on when you feel "jazz" actually coalesced as a form. This isn't my main objection however, and if this were all Marsalis said, I probably wouldn't bother mentioning it.

"it said the most profound things -- not only about us and the way we look at things, but about what modern democratic life is really about. It is the nobility of the race put into sound...." What jazz does or does not say about American democratic life and about the nobility of black people is entirely POV. Did Jazz really say profound things about the way all black folks look at things? Haven't there historically been black folks who hated jazz? Do black people really have one way of looking at things? It's because of questions like these that Marsalis is such a controversial figure. Again, he deserves mention, but I don't like the idea of the article endorsing his particular take.

"the highest rendition of individual emotion in the history of Western music" If Marsalis thinks that, that's fine. But to put it in pride of place in the article is simply insulting -- not to other musical forms, but to Jazz. Why do you need to tell the reader that jazz is so darn special? Can't the music sway people on its own merits? Does the article on blues make these sorts of special claims for that music? Country? Hip hop? Classical music? Metal? Again, this is the sort of thing that pissed people off (including me) about the Ken Burns documentary. Why do we need to be told that we should be awestruck by this music? (And that doesn't even get into the question of whether Kenny G tracks --or late Louis Armstrong, for that matter -- are really the "highest rendition" of anything.) People should listen to jazz because they enjoy it or are interested in it, not because it's good for them. That's my POV, of course, but it's been a common criticism of Marsalis' views.

I'm really not interested in an edit war, and I'm not going to move the quote (again, I don't think it should be deleted). I thought it was worth stating my opinion here though. NoahB 18:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a quote -- from someone whose opinion on the subject has weight and merit. And, no. You don't have to agree with it -- but many do. I know I do. There's no question that there have been a relative handful of nonblack innovators in the history of jazz, but it remains at its core an African-American-originated art form. IMO, Marsalis' quote is entirely appropriate, and it's appropriate where it is. deeceevoice 21:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

But the point is not that I disagree with it or that you agree with it. The point is that the quote makes extremely controversial arguments, and that he's singled out for inclusion in the intro, suggesting that Wikipedia endorses that viewpoint. If you contextualized it, by saying something like "Many critics over the years have stated that jazz is a particularly important part of the African-American experience. For example, Wynton Marsalis...." it might be better, especially if you then added a quote from someone who disagreed, or a summary of opposing viewpoints. As it is, it seems like Wikipedia is making this assertion. It violates NPOV. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? (If not, Deeceevoice wins, cause, as I said, I'm not going to try changing it myself.)

Incidentally, as I state in my post above, I didn't argue with the African-American originated part -- as I said, if that were Marsalis' only assertion, I really wouldn't object to the quote at all. As for a "relative handful of nonblack innovators"; black people's contribution to the form has been hugely disporportionate, but many, many whites (and others) have been extremely important in the development of the form. Slighting this by referring to them as a handful (even a "relative" one) is a bad idea for lots of reasons, IMO. (The article itself -- Marsalis quote and all -- doesn't do this, I don't think.)

Well, we clearly disagree. Are there now and have there been lots of talented jazz musicians of all sorts of ethnicities who've turned out some great music? Without a doubt. But, IMO, with regard to the originators and true innovators of the form, nonblacks are but a relative handful. And, no, the article doesn't state that. Presenting a quote by someone who has an informed opinion on a topic doesn't seem to me to violate NPOV. Now, if I'd said it, then it would definitely be. NPOV requires that one not present personal opinions, do original research or advance unsupported statements as fact. This does none of that. Nor does it stand alone. The article makes it quite clear that contributions to jazz have come from many quarters. What this quote does is flow directly from the previous comments regarding the West African/African American origins of the art form. deeceevoice 00:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough; it'd be kind of fun to argue about, but I will resist, since I shouldn't even have brought up this point (that is, the "handful" issue), since it doesn't affect the article. My apologies for wandering off topic.

I see your point about the quote following from the argument about the African-American origins of jazz. However, the quote does a lot more than that, as I tried to show in my post above. I also wonder why so much emphasis is necessary on the origins of the form. Marsalis is kind of obsessed with early jazz in particular, but I don't know why the article should feel the need to hammer away at that era in the introductory section (and I'm writing as someone who listens much more to pre-bop than to post-bop styles.) Would you (or anyone else) care to respond to this or other points I made about the Marsalis quote?

Alternately, the issue may simply be whether the position of the quoteand the lack of context provided effectively means that the article endorses Marsalis' viewpoint. I think it does -- which, again, is why I'd move it further down in the article.

Also, sorry for not signing my earlier post. It doesn't seem to have caused confusion, thankfully....

NoahB 13:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we have simply a fundamental disagreement. Again, the quote is positioned there because it is a natural follow-on to the description of jazz as having been originated by African-Americans, or "Negroes," as Marsalis puts it. Further, no one can read this article and come away with the impression that blacks are the only ones to ever have played jazz, to have contributed to its development, or that one must be black in order to play it. It is, in fact, not something Marsalis himself believes. As I stated earlier, the article, I think, presents quite amply the various multi-ethnic contributions to the development of the music. Marsalis' further comments relate to the general nature of the art form, as he sees it, as well. It seems to me perfectly appropriate/natural where it is. And, again, no. Simply presenting a quote doesn't "endorse" anything. I think we should give our readers some credit here. It is quite clear the quote is Marsalis' opinion, that those words are his. If the same words or similar content were presented without quotation marks (or without being block-indented, as in this case), or without attribution and as part of the general text, however, then that would be POV. Forget what Marsalis actually says for a moment. I seriously doubt that you would have the same objection to, say, an article on Mark Twain that contained a quote from a literary critic three paragraphs down lauding Twain as America's greatest writer, his works quintessential expressions of mid 19th-century American humor and of the American spirit -- even though others might consider Will Rogers more deserving of such praise (well, maybe not the writing, per se -- but I'm sure you get my drift).deeceevoice 00:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not communicating well, I don't think. I'll try again. The problem is not that Marsalis says that only black people can play jazz -- as you point out, he says no such thing. The problem is that the quote endorses the view that jazz's primary importance is as African-American spiritual/cultural expression, rather than as an aesthetic form. Lots of people do believe this, and it's a point that should be made. However, it's also been disputed, directly and indirectly. For instance, I think Louis Armstrong's much-quoted statement that if you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know , could be taken as a refutation of exactly the kind of academicism Marsalis is pushing.

The Mark Twain example is a bit off the mark. All the statements you attribute to the hypothetical critic are less controversial than Marsalis' quote (though I'm just contrary enough to object to the "American spirit" bit.) The content of the quote has everything to do with whether or not Wikipedia is violating NPOV. A better example would be if there were a quote from a critic in the Mark Twain intro claiming that Twain was the best analyst of the racial situation in the America of his day. That's an arguable point, and one that I'm even somewhat sympathetic too. But I would object to it, and would argue that it shouldn't be in the intro of the article. NoahB 19:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Most artists would express the view that artistic expression has a spiritual dimension. No surprise there. And there are those of us who do, in fact, attach importance to jazz as an African-American spiritual/cultural expression -- and here, again, he is speaking of jazz's origins and not (as I pointed out in an earlier discussion on this subject) in an exclusionary sense -- because without African-Americans and an African-American cultural aesthetic, there would have been no jazz. And, no. I'm not missing the point. The Marsalis quote merely is an expression of Marsalis' informed opinion. By virtue of his status as a jazz artist and student of the history of jazz, his remarks have weight and relevance. And because his comments address the origin and nature of the art form, the quote is, IMO, properly placed. Further, the Mark Twain analogy is, IMO, precisely on point. Both the hypothetical comment and the Marsalis quote advance an opinion. And, again, the article "endorses" nothing. deeceevoice 01:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, we're pretty much just going back and forth restating our positions, at this point. It doesn't seem like anyone else wants to weigh in, so I guess that's that. If it were up to me, I would replace the paragraph with the one below.

Jazz has frequently been viewed as an important expression of the African-American spiritual and cultural tradition. For example, contemporary critic and trumpet-player Wynton Marsalis has said, "Jazz is something Negroes invented, and it said the most profound things -- not only about us and the way we look at things, but about what modern democratic life is really about. It is the nobility of the race put into sound ... jazz has all the elements, from the spare and penetrating to the complex and enveloping. It is the hardest music to play that I know of, and it is the highest rendition of individual emotion in the history of Western music." Others have rejected rigid definitions of the forms significance. Most famously, when trumpeter Louis Armstrong was asked to define jazz, he responded, "Man, if you have to ask, you'll never know."

The advantages I see to my version are (1) it explicitly suggests that Marsalis' quote is part of a longer tradition of advocacy for this view, which it is, (2) it identifies Marsalis without giving his resume (I understand in the context of the earlier argument why the resume was given, but it sounds like we're trying to demonstrate his importance, which really isn't necessary -- people can link to the article on him if they doubt his relevance), and (3) it suggests that Marsalis' interpretation is controversial, and provides at least one alternate (and similarly controversial) viewpoint. It also allows us to use the Armstrong quote, which I've always liked (especially since I assume Armstrong perpetrated it while high -- it's my understanding that he was pretty much always high....)

Someone'd need to double-check Armstrong's exact words -- I'm quoting from memory. I'm not inclined to do it myself since the paragraph is never going to be used anyway. I had a couple other changes I thought might be a good idea, but they're more or less from the same perspective, which doesn't appear to have much (or any) support. So probably best to leave well enough alone. Thanks for the feedback, deeceevoice. Take care. NoahB 14:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Hold up one minute. Let me tell you something about Louis Armstrong. There was a hell of a lot more to him than some smiling trumpet player. He was sly, tremendously self-possessed and fiercely proud of his African-American roots. He was a jazz master, a consummate artist -- and a showman. He knew how to make white folks comfortable. He knew they loved to see a smiling blackman. The blacker the man, the whiter the teeth, the better. A lot of whites were beguiled by that smile of his and simply didn't listen closely to him when he spoke. They let their assumptions take over. With his age, assured stature as a national treasure and the changing times, though, he spoke his mind more and more frequently in his later years. A lot of times he was putting white folks down (or on) -- and all the while with that brilliant smile of his. It wasn't mean-spirited; more dismissive. A case in point. It's the "Tonight Show" sometime in the early '70s, and Armstrong is the featured guest. Johnny is clowning, talking about jazz and makes some comment about attempting to play -- that he could do something of his own if Armstrong would just give him a few pointers. Armstrong looks at him and drawls, "Naw, man. You'd jus' go on playin' in your own, white way." And then he flashes those pearly whites, just cool as you please. Carson and the mostly white audience just laughed. Funny, huh? :p What Armstrong was saying with the quote you cite is that jazz is something you feel, not something you think; that the truest swing comes from a sense of rhythm, from understanding and surrendering to it, rather than from a command of it; it is not something one can be taught. And I do believe if he were alive today, Louis would agree wholeheartedly with Marsalis about the true nature of jazz and its origins. deeceevoice 05:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Armstrong could be quite sly -- that's why I like the quote. My own guess is that he would have found Marsalis' pronouncements unbearably pompous, whatever he thought of their merits -- but it's impossible to know, of course.

I think your interpretation of Armstrong's quote is too narrow, but I refuse to generate additional verbiage about an injunction to silence.... NoahB 18:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My statement was that Louis very likely would agree about the quintessentially African-American nature of jazz, that it was conceived as an artistic and aesthetic expression of the African-American spirit. Now, as far as Wynton's arguably hyperbolic appraisal of jazz, I can't say. He probably would have shaken his head, laughed, slapped Marsalis on the shoulder, pronounced him a "crazy, cerebral cat," lit up a blunt and left it at that. I don't think he concerned himself with such matters. deeceevoice 19:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Marsalis' statement is (even though it is obviously true that blacks contributed more to jazz than anyone else, so that much doesn't have to be debated) the statement and wording that he uses that jazz was something that blacks "invented" is really poor musicology. I hope we can all understand that blanket statements like this are stupid. While jazz would obviously not exist without black people, and black people contributed more to it than anyone else, jazz would still not exist without the contributions of non-black people. I would like everyone to get beyond a political or social fight and think about many musical aspects of jazz. The saxophone, so vital to jazz instrumentation, was invented by a French/Belgian and the creation of the saxophone had absolutely nothing to do with America. The trumpet (not earlier forms of the trumpet, as I know that there were actually trumpets in ancient Egypt, as well as obviously the shofar and other instruments, but the former has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of the specific type of trumpet used in classical and jazz music, so I can say already that any references to trumpets in ancient Africa is irrelevant), both in its medieval valveless form and post-18th century valve form) was developed and created by Europeans. The trombone was created and developed by Europeans. The piano was invented by Italians and Eastern Europeans. The double bass was invented by Europeans. The guitar was developed by the Arabs and Spanish. So without the contributions of non-blacks, what instruments would jazz use? Also think of music theory. Seventh chords and ninth chords were discovered and their use standardized by European music theorists. The modes, which are extremely important in jazz music theory, were discovered and standardized by the Catholic Church. The jazz system of chord symbols from which players improvise comes from the Baroque use of figured bass for basso continuo accompaniment.

Responding by the various ways blacks have contributed to jazz is uneccessary because its not something that I deny or reject. What I do reject is the exact wording of Marsalis' statement. He says Jazz is something Negroes invented, and as a Juilliard School former student and professor, he really should know better. A correct statement would be something like this: jazz is a fusion of various styles deriving from various cultural traditions. While the form itself would not exist without African-Americans, it would also not exist without pre-existing Western music. There is nothing wrong with Marsalis having pride in the black contributions to jazz, but that doesn't change the fact that his specific statement is wrong and I seriously do suggest that a better one is found. Yid613 | Yid613 23:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Blues people" by Le Roi Jones is a book you should all read.The first book on Jazz history written by a black man.It details the cat and mouse game between black musicians and white musicians.Black players would inovate and white players would appropriate and inovate further.That would force the black musicians to inovate further to keep themselfs working.Racial inequality it a huge part of the growth of Jazz as an art form.

As I have shown above, if white people "appropriated" the styles and sounds of black people, thnn black people "appropriated" the instruments and music theory techniques of white people. Speaking in terms of musicology, however, it is likely that the history Jazz is not one of two groups stealing things from each other but rather a cultural fusion. Did blacks play a larger role than whites? Of course. That is not being contested. What is being contested is Marsalis' quote, and Marsalis' quote is wrong.

I have a problem with this statement:

In addition, it could be argued that jazz would not exist without both instruments invented or developed by Europeans (the trumpet, saxophone, trombone, double bass, etc.) and the previous work of Europeans in music theory, which was explored in different ways by jazz musicians, such as increased use of the seventh chord and extended chords.

This statement is too obvious. Do we describe the invention of the television partly to Edison (or Swan or Göbel, depending where you're from) for his invention of the light bulb? Or do we partially attribute Gumbo to Asia or Africa for having the first species of rice consumed by humans? Modern instrumentation and music theory is always based, even if lossely, on what came before it. This time, the connection is too obvious and unnecessary to mention. What do you all think? --Mcmachete 20:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You whites want to take credit for everything good the black man creates huh?

None of the comments here so far have addressed the fact that many of the early jazz originators were Creoles. They did not consider themselves black or white. They would have been highly insulted to be labeled as black or negro. It saddens me to see this argument here about racial categories. It's like the mythology of Jim Crow is still important to people today, when we should really all know better than to label individual according to ridiculous notions about skin color.Verklempt 02:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you're all verklempt, Verklempt. But save your tears. No one is talking about "race" here. Creoles are blacks. In the 1950s, today's black people/African-Americans wouldn't have accepted the term "black" either. That doesn't mean we weren't and aren't. I have no problem with mentioning if someone were Creole. But understand that, bottom line, they were, and are still, black people culturally and ethnically. Creole culture is not separate and distinct from black culture; it is a subset of it -- another flava only sometimes. Beyonce Knowles comes from Creole people, too. But is she black? Most certainly. Is Mayor Nagin black? Most certainly. The Morial family? Most certainly. And anyone attempting to say otherwise would be laughed out of the room. Creole jazz musicians moved in the same circles as other blacks. And, certainly, they were -- are are -- all African American. deeceevoice 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about the turn of the 20th century and before, when things were different. I would recommend reading "White by Definition", by Virginia Dominguez, which is the standard scholarly reference on Creole identity in NO. After that, have a look at the oral histories of the early jazz musicians. There is no question that the Creoles were a distinctive group back then. It is anachronistic to impose the one-drop rule on historical individuals who rejected it. To do so is not only a methodological error, it also replicates Jim Crow racism. It also ignores a whole lot of crucial recent scholarship in jazz history.Verklempt 23:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Typo in 2nd graf of "Other regional styles"

In the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the "Other regional styles" section, there is what appears to be a typo:

In the northeastern United States, a "hot" style of playing ragtime developed. While centered in New York City, it could be found in African-American communities from Baltimore to Maryland.

Last I knew the city of Baltimore is in the state of Maryland, so the phrase "from Baltimore to Maryland" doesn't really make sense. I'm not sure of the author's intent here, and not well-versed on the topic at hand, so don't feel qualified to make the edit myself. However perhaps something like "...communities as far away as Baltimore, Maryland" would make sense.

Kelly 17:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

External links list and article length

Isn't the external links list getting a bit too long? isn't the article itself a bit too lengthy? I'm sure we could find things to put on separate pages. Karol 09:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The external links section was almost all in the "don't link" category. I've done a chainsaw slight trim.
brenneman^(t)(c) 05:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article??

Shouldn't this article be unfeatured?

• No sample
• Not many references
• No in line references
• Style: regional styles in bullet format
• Contemporary jazz: a list of short paragraph.
• Completeness:
  • Neo bob is missing
  • Very few European artists are cited. American point of view.

Jazz is America's art form. It only makes sense that there are fewer European artists as primarily American artists shaped the music through its evolution.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.29.6.7 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

• • Django Reinhard

We need a better featured Jazz article! Vb 15:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on starting jazz articles about Europe. I started Dutch jazz and Polish jazz plus have done a great deal on French jazz and British jazz. That said there doesn't seem to have been much distinctive outside the US before WWII. An exception to that is Gypsy jazz, which I added some information on. The modern era of jazz, after say 1970, is not something I normally feel competent to write about.--T. Anthony 16:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Piano/guitar comping described as "ostinato"

I don't agree with this comparison. Ostinato implies an incessantly repeated, stubborn riff that does not change. (I've also heard that it has to be at the same pitch in order to be considered ostinato.) That's not really how it works in jazz; the character, variety, and spontaneity that you hear in a professional [pianist,guitarist,vibist]'s comping does not remind me at all of ostinato. TheBoyNextDoor 01:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to comping and removed the link to ostinato. Hyacinth 10:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Check, one two... is this thing on?

There is a book, off Oxford Press, called Word Myths by a man names Milton, I believe. He pretty clearly states where the term jazz comes from, and cites his sources, too.

Maybe someone should look into it, as the etymology is not what is on this page.

I have added a second link to a second Daniel Cassidy article and inserted his version of the etymology into the main article; unlike all his predecessors, Cassidy backs up his argument with a careful analysis of periodicals tracing a pretty iron-clad case of the San Francisco Bulletin jazzing up the vernacular use of teas, and it's pretty plausible that the use of the term clearly as prior-art in regards to baseball would then find use in other aspects of american popular youth (and black) culture. Cassidy also addresses those prior writers, and finds their stories seriously lacking in credibility. Jasmine perfume? That's a new one on me: I've read what Ellington, Morton, Armstrong, Ra and others have said, and I'm convinced Daniel has a very good case; the match between the meaning of the original Irish term is more than motive, and the journalism and sports angle is clearly opportunity for nearly instant mass-adoption, and the need of the early Jazz empressarios to jazz up their PR (a custom deeply rooted in black entertainment) is more than enough good cause to adapt the term in the service of selling this new music. True, it's all circumstantial, but that's a great deal more probable cause than is given for any of the "sexual connotation" yarns. -- garym

Cassidy's pseudo-etymologies do not belong here. If you want critiques try Language Log (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003326.html) or the curt but just dismissal at http://www.grantbarrett.com/index.php/grantbarrett/crank_etymologist/ -- I don't know anything about the "jasmine" derivation either, which looks dubious to my eye. A few cites from credible etymological research would be nice here. ND 02:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd then that the worldly journal like the SF Bulletin would risk using a sexual term in the very proper society days of 1913. FWIW, Michael Quinion (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-jaz1.htm) ties a direct line of communications from Scoop Gleason to King Oliver, who if not the first to use the term in his advertising was certainly among the first.

Is this article too long?

I ask this not as a Wikipedian but as a reader, coming to the article for information about jazz. For someone like me who has had casual exposure to jazz--liked some styles; others not so much--it is an extremely large, sprawling, nebulous genre of music, very formidable and difficult to penetrate and learn about and get deeper into. I came here hoping to find a somewhat concise breakdown of the various styles and how they evolved, and the notable artists within those styles, as a sort of map with which to explore. Unfortunately, it seems that one must read the entire long history of jazz in full detail or not at all. Now, I typically don't like it when I see people saying articles should be shortened or condensed, as I think an online encyclopedia like this is a great opportunity to compile as much information about any given subject as possible--but I have also seen articles in which the subject was summarized in a shorter format at the top of the page, followed by a much longer and more detailed article below, expanding on and filling in the details of all the points mentioned more briefly in the beginning of the article. I wonder if this article could benefit from something like that, some kind of concise map of the evolution of jazz styles, somewhere easily accessible and approachable? thoreaubred 05:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. The article is ~6,200 words long. The WP guideline for article length says articles become unreadable from 6,000 words and more. And myself I even find 6,000 words are too many for an encyclopedic article.

I suggest that the sections are greatly shortened, and that the full text be included in separate articles. I think I can safely say nearly ALL sections are too long. The text is too prozaic and includes too many examples.

Example:

But Pullman porters were more than solicitous, smiling faces in smart, navy blue uniforms. The most dapper and sophisticated of them were culture bearers, spreading the card game of bid whist, the latest dance crazes, regional news, and a heightened sense of black pride to cities and towns wherever the railways reached.

I mean, what the heck? The one who wrote that should go write a novel, not an encyclopedia.

The sections about Latin jazz / Free jazz / Jazz fusion have their own articles, the information doesn't need to be included here. MrTroy 12:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I really wonder what a discussion of George Pullman's invention of the sleeping car has anything to do with "jazz" and I think this article could be shortened by removing random information such as that.AllTalking 00:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's way too long. I think the detailed stuff should be moved to separate articles on each style; the point of this article should be overview. The immense detail on early styles versus the perfunctory & random info on recent jazz history is also strikingly disproportionate. ND 20:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject

Any interest from fellow jazz fans in getting a Jazz project started under WP:GENRE? If so, please leave a note on my talk page. --cholmes75 16:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have added WikiProject Jazz music to the list on Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects. If anyone wishes to sign up please do so there. Once we get enough people (5 or so should cut it), we can safely promote it to a regular project. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect usage

The Dutch Wikipedia article includes this text, would anyone think it's a good idea to include it in this article too? I think it would be a rather useful addition.

== Incorrect usage of the term jazz ==

Contrary to popular belief, it's not true that contemporary jazz is slowly evolving into pop music. This misunderstanding is caused by the tendency of naming alternative pop music jazz. This happens with several kinds of music.

• Music that is a mixture of jazz and pop music, such as the recent albums of Jamie Cullum. Although this music is indeed influenced by jazz, it would be incorrect to classify it as jazz. In most cases, the artists themselves acknowledge this, however, often the general audience isn't aware of this.
• Sometimes music entirely unrelated to jazz is said to be jazz. Well-known examples are James Blunt and Joss Stone. This incorrect naming can be caused by misinformed radio DJ's, and record label promotors who use the term jazz to get more attention for their artists. Another cause can be the artist performing at a jazz festival. It's becoming more and more accepted that non-jazz artists perform at these festivals. This can lead to the misconception that those artists are in fact jazz artists.

Mind that it's just a rough translation of the Dutch text. If it is going to be included, some rewording might be needed. --MrTroy 19:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good addition to me. I've had to correct more than one friend after they say something sounds "jazzy," and I'm sure I'm not the only one. JoeTrumpet 11:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the affirmation. I added the text to the article. MrTroy 12:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering the enormous length of the article, & the fact that this subsection contradicts stuff said elsewhere in the article on Jamie Cullum, I think this entire passage could be boiled down to one or two sentences. ND 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the shortest way you can get. Making it shorter would remove essential information. There are much better ways of shortening this article, such as removing useless examples and prozaic, unencyclopedic pieces (like I said above in the "is this article too long" discussion).

Also, it doesn't entirely contradict the other stuff on Jamie Cullum, as that other piece too questions the usage of the term "jazz". I agree however, it seems a bit silly to say it's incorrect here, and elsewhere in the article say it's OK to call it jazz.

Nevertheless, the "incorrect usage" section is much more detailed about why the naming is incorrect. I think if one of the two has to be deleted, it should be the other one (that basically only says 'the instrumentation and rhythms are similar, so it can be called jazz'). MrTroy 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

AllTalking---edits for 9 July

You fail, as seems to be your wont, to provide any references whatsoever for the numerous edits you made on 9 July. Please do not make unsubstantiated claims, as this seems an awful lot like POV pushing. If you can, find some references for the opinions expressed, i.e. the popularity of Paul Whiteman, etc. Thank you. ---Charles 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that Whiteman was indeed enormously popular. Cf. e.g. The Rough Guide to Jazz which says that by 1930 he was "an internationally known showbusiness figure" & that his 1930s band was "hugely successful". ND 17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing whether he was or was not---I will assume your reference is accurate---my problem is AllTalking's penchant for making claims and assertions in articles (I have seen this before) and feeling no need to provide references for same. You were able to provide two quotes on the topic, so why could he not do the same? And, it is not just Paul Whiteman---he has made other assertions that are similarly unreferenced. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an opinion forum. ---Charles 18:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to step into the larger issue/argument about citation, but myself wouldn't see the need to include cites for statements like this. Whiteman's popularity is well-known to anyone familiar with early jazz/pop music. ND 19:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jass

I find the long well doccumented incident of the "J" in "Jass Band" advertising posters being scratched off being alternately labeled a "theory" by people adding it and "vandalism" by others removing it very annoying. Rather than getting into an edit war on the article page, please take your discussion to the talk page, though I think the involved parties might benifit from reading some early jazz history first. -- Infrogmation 14:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a much easier solution: the people adding that "theory" should cite a reputable source for it. We could have an 'it's true / no it's not' discussion for ages, but just citing sources would solve the whole discussion.

And what do you mean by "reading some early jazz history first"? Obviously, you know everything about the subject, so please enlighten us about whether it's a genuine theory. MrTroy 16:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"long well-documented incident": where & by whom? Sounds like yet another bunch of cute pseudo-etymology to me. ND 17:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking for a source. For one, "The Story of The Original Dixieland Jazz Band" by H. O. Brunn, page 57 ("LaRocca avers that the word 'jass' was changed because children, as well as a few impish adults, could not resist the temptation to obliterate the letter 'j' from their posters."). It is is a story told by individuals who were there at the time. One may judge the account credible or not. However, mentioning it is neither a theory nor vandalism. Sorry if I came off as snarky, but I found the terms by which the dispute was being argued inappropriate and annoying. -- Infrogmation 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You can hardly blame me for deleting something sounding so untrue. No, I never read a book about jazz history. But that's not the point, <anonymous user> should've cited a source for the statement. Besides, the phrasing was fairly poor - it suggested the name was created by scratching away the 'j' from 'jass' - which of course isn't right, that would make "ass", not "jazz". Your explanation makes clear what actually was meant. MrTroy 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Prose question

I thought this "[...]black-established and -operated[...]" was a smart bit of prose (found somewhere near the bottom to the intro section of History). It is, I think, the first time I've come across this structure and certain emphasis, and I wonder where it comes from and whether it's common. -Bordello 04:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean the implicit repetition of the word "black", indicated by the second hyphen? It's a common device in formal prose, yes. ND 05:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that's what I wanted to know. -Bordello 10:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening

Mrmusichead has deleted the rewritten opening I contributed on July 16th with no other explanation than that he desires "the traditional clear wikipedia opening". Any votes on this? Needless to say, I'm not at all pleased to see my work junked, especially considering that I was trying in good faith to improve an article which many people seem to agree needs a major overhaul (for instance, it's ridiculous that the enormously long piece waits till the end to explain about improvisation!). & what I wrote seems to me neither unclear or even all that atypical. I also think (hope?) that given that my rewrite stood nearly unchanged for a week, other readers/contributors were OK with it. Anyway, I'm tempted to simply revert it but thought that before I did so I should solicit a few opinions. If you have suggestions for improvement that'd be useful too. But now we're just back to the original, (IMHO) unhelpful opening. ND 06:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Revert. "Return to clear traditional Wikipedia opening" is not a good argument to make such a drastic change. MrTroy 07:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• On principle, I'd say revert. For an article of this size, a lead of more than one paragraph is most definitely warranted. That being said, you may want to be careful not to stray too much into an essay-style opening. If this article is ever to be returned to Featured Article status, all the claims made in it must have citations (even if they are obviously true to jazz fans). In particular, I would stay away from getting into any musical theory (defining swing, for instance) in the opening, and save that for later on. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 18:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, when I have a sec I'll revert & try to condense/reorganize a little. One thing that needs to be done is dealing with the "Improvisation" section of the article, which is currently (absurdly) at the end, after 1000s of words about jazz--surely it needs to come early. That's one reason why I got into a little more detail at the start. -- I left an invite to Mrmusichead on his talk page to rewrite, as opposed to simply junking, the opening, but no dice so far. -- I keep trying to find time to sit down with a few good reference books (like Lewis Porter & the Kirchner OUP book) to see how they deal with jazz history & do some factchecking: will try to get around to that this week. ND 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your writing was informative Ndorward, please don't take offence by the revert. But it was simply too detailed for what needs a be a clear and concise opening. I would support a version of your intro under a "Background" section above the "history" section. Sometimes being bold and removing material aids the editing process.--Mrmusichead 02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Jazz

In the article, it is not described that jazz originated from the songs sung by the elder to accompany the work on the fields. It traces back to the homelands (West Africa) of the black community in America. -KVDP 08:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly that is not the sole direct origin, but it's a very important topic in historic African American music. We have a stubby article at work song; serious expansion would be good. The early jazz standard "Rip 'em Up Joe" was said to have been based by Joe Oliver on a work song he heard upriver. -- Infrogmation 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

eh?

"Today, the only remnants of the true bebop sound and style exist in New York through a club called Smalls on 7th Avenue South."

Is this a joke? Atraxani 07:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is, indeed, filled with non-sequiturs of individuals' opinions and views. I hope we can whip it into shape eventually, but it's a big job! Special-T 13:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Smalls club & record-label are indeed a vital place for music in the bebop tradition (but not merely "retro"). That said, it's hardly got a lock on intelligent bebop playing. -- I have no idea even where to begin with the "Jazz" article"--I suppose the first thing would be hiving off some of the accumulated detail into the separate articles on each period. ND 14:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Commercial links

Several of the links listed seem to be primarily commercial, or don't have enough info about jazz to merit inclusion. Specifically:

• A Passion for Jazz! Music History and Education
• All About Jazz jazz portal
• Jazz Web Site at About.com

I'm admittedly no expert on what makes the cut as far as external refs, so I'd like some other editors' input before removing these. Perhaps I'm not being bold enough... Special-T 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with omitting all those links. AAJ is a reviewing organ & discussion board but it's loaded with advertising, paid features & other moneymaking schemes which make it kind of borderline. ND 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

AAJ is far more than a "reviewing organ & discussion board" if you take a closer look at the information content it offers. Sure, there are a lot of CD reviews (>18,000, all archived and fully searchable), but there are also a variety of different article types, including interviews (>100 so far just this year, and plenty more in the archives). Plus international coverage, a huge musician directory, news updates, daily downloads, and guides to radio stations, venues, schools and festivals. All of these features are available to every reader and contributor totally free of charge. I'm not sure why the advertising ("& other [unspecified] moneymaking schemes") should disqualify this site from being linked at the bottom of the Wikipedia entry on jazz. None of the advertising interferes in any way with access to all this free content, and it pays the bills so the site can remain active and keep growing. How does any of that make AAJ "borderline"? -- Nilinator 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with removing AAJ links. More editors' input: [1]. BNutzer 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me what "AAJ is a reviewing organ & discussion board" means? And as an example, I view this page on Miles Davis as invaluable to anyone who is interested in his music (scroll down to view the countless article links). And seeing how All About Jazz has made the most significant contribution to the jazz web, it should without a doubt be included on the general "jazz" page at Wikipedia. It's also not "loaded with advertising". Our sponsors are listed here. Considering the depth and breadth of the site, these six banners and four box ads hardly constitute "loaded". I think the jazz editors at Wikipedia need to take some time and familiarize themselves with AAJ. I or any of the current (volunteer) senior staff members would be more than happy to assist you. Michael 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I added it myself, even though I didn't notice this discussion until just now. AAJ is VERY invaluable and was got me so interested in Jazz since I started listening to it recently. I think the removal was in part because of stimpulations at WP:EL, particularly WP:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest. Since you work for the page, adding it here is a "conflict of interest." WP's solution is "consider mentioning [the link] on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines." -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ron, this is all great to hear (aaj playing an instrumental role in your appreciation for jazz). i could certainly be more discriminating in the links i add, though i haven't added many to date, and what i did add, i'd like to see restored. my main concern here is that the jazz editors at wikipedia have difficulty determining what is actually important. we have many definitive interview links that should be added. we can't expect the artist, the artist's manager or the artist's publicist to add the links. it's up to us. Michael 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the point of the conflict of interest guidelines is that the best way for Michael to go about adding links to Wikipedia entries is to suggest them on the relevant talk page(s) and then let the editors take action. In the meantime, the mass deletion of the relatively limited links already in place (as "linkspam," with no more explanation in situ) seems rather inappropriate given the substantial information content they lend to the Wikipedia community. They should receive consideration by editors based on their merits before they are deleted wholesale. In any case, I'd hope that the editors who view AAJ as "borderline" or "commercial" spend some more time exploring the site before they reach such hasty and unjustified conclusions. It would be very discouraging to Michael Ricci and all the contributors who volunteer for AAJ if the Wikipedia editors presented a blank wall to potentially very helpful information they can share through these links, especially if it's based on what seems to be a pattern of ignorance and misunderstanding. -- Nilinator 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

See also the discussion at User_talk:Infrogmation#Jazz_link_-_spam.3F. The conflict of interest aspect led me to conclude that removing those links was justified. The editor who inserted those links is connected with the website, and his only edits have been insertions of those links. I have looked at the site, and there is some valid info there - if someone else chooses to judiciously re-insert some links, I'm not opposed. Sorry that my edit summaries were uninformative - there's such a thing as being too concise. - Special-T 04:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Special-T, who is that "some other person"? who else knows what's important besides myself and the senior staff at all about jazz? no offense, but i'm the most qualified person, though i could assign this task to an aaj contributor. also, it's impossible to get a handle on aaj with a one-time visit. we've been producing the site since 1995--the depth and breath is staggering. also, we're not a corporate/commercially-driven entity--though we obviously want to be profitable, it's run on a shoe-string out of my home. like wikipedia, we have the support of countless volunteers around the world. also, jazz is unlike other commercial forms of music. aaj is providing an essential service to the entire industry--primarily for musicians/artists. it was mentioned before, but perhaps i should suggest what i deem to be essential (aaj) links and allow the jazz editors at wikipedia to determine whether they're a good fit. Michael 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the AAJ link was restored. Thank you! Now I'd like to address the sequence of links. I'd like to see them listed in order of importance/significance or in alphabetical order. Placing AAJ at the very bottom (with no descriptive text), is certainly less useful as less readers will find it. Michael 13:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful for participants in this discussion to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, especially the section entitled "Personal benefits". I removed those links to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines in this area. No-one has stated that there is not valid information at the website in question. But insertion of those links by the website's owner/administrator/employee, etc. is explicitly "very strongly" discouraged under Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Also see Wikipedia:Spam: "Adding external links to an article for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." - Special-T 16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How about if I added it sometime? I do not work for AAJ, far from it. I have some doubts about it, but it seems useful. Particularly with jazz outside North America, which is not well-covered by some sites.--T. Anthony 07:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Jazz

In efforts to shorten this article, we've lost a good deal of important information on jazz history that hasn't appeared elsewhere in Wikipedia, and there are many points that could be expanded on. I suggest we need a "History of Jazz" series of articles. A short summary could go here, with main articles broken down by major periods-- for example something like "Jazz before 1920", "Jazz in the 1920s", "Jazz from the Depression to Bebop", "Jazz from Bebop to 1960", etc. Thoughts? -- Infrogmation 17:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Go thou and do likewise. If you start the articles, they will come. __ Just plain Bill 18:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Audio samples

If "Birds of Fire" is jazz (or at least has something in common with it), then I am Charlie Parker. And how "The Jazzstep" can be called modern jazz, while it is just a simple tune played over a synthesized background? --A.M.L. 15:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you are Charlie Parker and/or haven't read the article, you indeed wouldn't know that the development of Jazz didn't completely halt after the exploration of Bebop. The Mahavishnu Orchestra's Fusion is just as much Jazz as the first Dixie bands and Ornette Coleman's free experiments. — Mütze 15:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't judge the whole jazz fusion genre. I just state that this particular audio sample of 30 seconds isn't ever jazz fusion, it's straight rock. The caption says "this piece by the Mahavishnu Orchestra merges jazz improvisation and rock instrumentation into jazz fusion". The guitar solo can be called improvisation, but what makes it jazz improvisation? As to me, it is played in a typical rock manner. --A.M.L. 17:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

origin of word jazz

The word jazz relates to Jism / jizz. Narrow minded admin here disagree so remove it. Even from the discussion page. Even reference at the bottom of page suggests this - # ^ University of Southern California film professor Todd Boyd, the term was originally slang for sexual intercourse

That's one etymological story but not the only one, & my understanding is that many professional linguists are pretty dubious about the jazz=jism theory. Why a film studies prof should necessarily be an authority on etymology is beyond me. --ND 17:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well ignoring my vandalism history...another issue, thanks for taking me seriously on this one. I was beginning to think this wikipedia was one sided. 86.138.189.255 21:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've heard this from many other sources, of course not book sources. I think due to the nature of the other word, makes this a taboo linking and so people would rather forget it. 86.138.189.255 22:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if someone has access to Lewis Porter's Jazz: A Century of Change or to Dick Holbrook's article on the origins of the word, then the matter can get sorted out more authoritatively. See this posting from a linguists' discussion list: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0303d&L=ads-l&P=21158 (and also here: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0308c&L=ads-l&P=3343). --ND 02:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

jazz musician of the week

want to make a jazz musician of the week template??? Flying Hamster 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What is a jazz musician of the week?? --Gautam3 18:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Junglebop

In Jazz#Electronica I read This has been variously dubbed "future jazz", "jazz-house", "nu jazz", or "Junglebop".. Is Junglebot notable? If you have some comment, please write it to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Junglebop. Cate | _Talk 10:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jazz/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Lead section my understanding is that the first section is supposed to contain statements which summarize more detailed key points and conclusions from the article-proper -- like an article abstract. if this is true, it seems inappropriate to have citations in the lead paragraph, as they should already exist somewhere in the article body where it goes into greater detail.Youngea (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Ragtime and the Sahel Verklempt had indicated that there were previous revisions that indicated that ragtime "originated in the Sahel." Does anyone know if there is a way to search article archives for keywords to identify the particular revision(s) where mentions of the Sahel exist...? thanks Youngea (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC) I think that was a failed attempt at reductio ad absurdum on Verklempt's part. He also contested facts in the lead—we must add cites when that happens. Searchable archives do not exist, but are of course a brilliant idea. Please suggest it on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or better yet, file a bug report requesting it (just don't ask me how). 86.44.28.245 (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC) You're right though that the cited facts should be iterated and expanded upon in the Origins section. I may take a shot at that at some point. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)