Talk:Jazz blues

Jazz blues is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre articles

Jazz

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles

Overhaul

Hello, I overhauled the page. It could still do with some references to some classic jazz - blues, Pastorius or Diorio or something, but I don't know how to reference audio. However, people linking to their own band's myspace I would guess is questionable, so I removed that. 86.148.95.5 (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we delete this article please?

"Jazz blues (or blues jazz) can be any musical style that combines jazz and blues." According to whom? I've never heard of that.

Is this a "genre" (style) or not? Is this article about the type of jazz form? If there is anything worth reusing here, perhaps it can be moved to Twelve-bar blues. BassHistory (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jazz_blues&limit=250&action=history The article was created by an unregistered user, and then turned into a stub by an editor who admittedly knows nothing on the topic (because there is no topic!)! Its a play-by-play on how misinformation is spread.BassHistory (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unregistered does not mean anything but unregistered. Have you tried looking into the source? In any case, you might be right about moving the article contents to a more global article about various blues formats; it is, however, a topic – "jazz blues" is what jazz has done with the 12-bar form at least since Parker. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the article Twelve-bar blues, and consider the possibility of merging this article into a section entitled "12-bar blues in jazz." Jazz blues could always redirect into that section of the article Twelve-bar blues.BassHistory (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

OK, I removed the other info that was rendered irrelevant after your revision. Now it should be merged with Twelve-bar blues.BassHistory (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your removal and explained it in the edit summary. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what is clarified? Please explain. All of that info should be present in the Jazz article, but I fail to see why it is relevant here. This is (now) an article about a type of chord progression. It is not about the roots of jazz, nor is it about other blues elements incorporated into jazz.BassHistory (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified is the connection between the terms "jazz" and "blues", to emphasize that although jazz is rooted in blues, the term "jazz blues" refers to the "jazzification" of the 12-bar blues form. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary to mention "blue notes, blues-like phrasing of melodies, and blues riffs" in the concise lede of a stub about a chord progression? It seems of topic to me. The sentence itself does not explain why the information is relevant.BassHistory (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do whatever you see fit. If you open an AfD request, let me know and I'll support you. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unseemly haste?

This article has now been ported wholesale into Twelve-bar blues. The result is what we in this part of the world call a midden. The article now has two sets of Navboxes, two placements for references, and duplicating sets of interwiki links. Use one "Nederlands" link and you'll get to "Jazzblues", use the other and you'll get to "Bluesschema". So some tidying needed, and I started then abandoned editing, as this first needs consensus on what should be the Interwiki links on this fused article: presumably just those from the original "Twelve-bar blues" article and discard the former "Jazz blues" ones as no longer worthy of an English article and therefore not an interwiki either?

But taking things a bit wider, maybe there's an opportunity for a bit more consensus building on what is the appropriate outcome in article space? A few issues then:

Is "Jazz blues" a total subset of "Twelve-bar blues"? Nothing whatsoever to do with Eight-bar blues or Sixteen-bar blues?
In fact I see there is now a proposal to merge both the 8 and 16 artcles into "Twelve-bar blues" as well. Aside from the numeric consideration, does this suggest that the appropriate overarching title should be "Blues schema" (as on the Dutch article) or "Blues form" (see the section Blues#Form)?
But what then of the wider music readers who do indeed want to read about the 12-bar pure and simple? Do all these merges amount to an appropriation of what was that mainstream article?

Thoughts welcome. I'm not sure this is even an appropriate place any more after today's merger, but the overall target article landscape surely needs to be defined and agreed rather than piecemeal change. AllyD (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there could be two articles:

The first, Blues progression, or Blues form, could mention 12, 16 and 8 bar blues, as well as V-IV-I (as this progression only occurs in the blues). Some of the more detailed/specific information could be moved from Blues#Form, which is a very long section on a music theory topic for an article on a style of music.
The second, Twelve-bar blues, would contain the info from Twelve-bar blues, as well as Jazz blues and Bird changes, which are simply variations of the 12-bar blues (there are thousands of variations of the 12-bar blues).

Any thoughts?BassHistory (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions,

a) Yes, Jazz blues is a total sub-set, as is bird changes, as it is a term used only to denote a type of twelve-bar blues. Nat Adderly's "Work Song", or Wes Montgomery's "Four on Six" (the best examples of what might be called 8-bar and 16-bar blues, respectively, in jazz that come to mind at this moment) would not be referred to as "Jazz blues." (I should note that jazz musicians generally would never use the term "jazz blues", as the V-IV-I turnaround is used much less frequently in jazz)
b) Yes, there is a convincing argument to be made for having an article entitled "Blues progression" that covers all of these forms, as Blues progression currently redirects to Twelve-bar blues.
c) That is why I am suggesting the two-article idea, where Twelve-bar blues and its harmonic variations can have one article, and blues progression, and its various variants in length, including 12-bar, could be mentioned there.BassHistory (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging all these articles to one global article that deals with the musical aspects of the blues at large, with paragraphs listing various forms and harmonic alterations? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. Please see Talk:Twelve-bar_blues BassHistory (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]