I forgot to mention that Ross doesn't title his composition "Dixie in Richmond" or use the term "Dixieland" uncritically. He writes: "The term often referred to as Dixieland was used to differentiate between jazz played by white and black musicians. Several serious studies of jazz discuss varying viewpoints in the origin and validity of some of the connotations associated with this word. The student investigating this term may refer to such books as those by Schuller, Stearns, Larousse, Feather, Harvard Dictionary, Hodier, and Hentoff."
I am going to have to spend some time with this important piece, but I do want to cite one disagreement re the statement:
"Jazz is essentially improvisation."
I believe the late great historian Larry Gushee, in his book on The Creole Band, has show this to be a misconception. There is a lot of early jazz that is more rhythmic paraphrase and displacement than improvisation in the accepted, defined sense. Jazz in this way is as much a matter of tonality, timbre, time and, well, attitude of expression. We might argue that some of this is improvisation, but I think, in its early years, the musical evolution of jazz is more complicated than that; look at James Reese Europe, whose earliest recordings swing but do not use improvisation. I would argue that it qualifies as jazz, as does the work of some other early players, including those who "planned" their solos ahead of time.
Thanks for reading and making this great point! That was a quotation from David Baker circa 1975. I think I tend to agree with you, though. Is Ellington's "Tone Parallel to Harlem" not jazz because it is through-composed? Is Illinois Jacquet reprising his famous sax solo on Lionel Hampton's "Flying Home" for screaming, dancing fans not jazz?
James Reese Europe told the New York Tribune in March 1919, "I have to call a daily rehearsal of my band to prevent the musicians from adding to their music more than I wish them to" (i.e., improvisation). In the same interview he describes "jazzing" in the following way:
"With the brass instruments we put in mutes and make a whirling motion with the tongue, at the same time blowing full pressure. With wind instruments we pinch the mouthpiece and blow hard. This produces the peculiar sound...To us it is not discordant, as we play music as it is written, only that we accent strongly in this manner the notes which originally would be without accent."
Baker himself only makes improvisation one of four essential jazz elements, the others being black aesthetics (like what Europe describes above), rhythm (as you pointed out), and personalized expression (like, say, the way Louis Armstrong plays "Stardust" or Jimi Hendrix "The Star-Spangled Banner").
A great jazz education topic for discussion. Thanks again, Allen!
I forgot to mention that Ross doesn't title his composition "Dixie in Richmond" or use the term "Dixieland" uncritically. He writes: "The term often referred to as Dixieland was used to differentiate between jazz played by white and black musicians. Several serious studies of jazz discuss varying viewpoints in the origin and validity of some of the connotations associated with this word. The student investigating this term may refer to such books as those by Schuller, Stearns, Larousse, Feather, Harvard Dictionary, Hodier, and Hentoff."
I am going to have to spend some time with this important piece, but I do want to cite one disagreement re the statement:
"Jazz is essentially improvisation."
I believe the late great historian Larry Gushee, in his book on The Creole Band, has show this to be a misconception. There is a lot of early jazz that is more rhythmic paraphrase and displacement than improvisation in the accepted, defined sense. Jazz in this way is as much a matter of tonality, timbre, time and, well, attitude of expression. We might argue that some of this is improvisation, but I think, in its early years, the musical evolution of jazz is more complicated than that; look at James Reese Europe, whose earliest recordings swing but do not use improvisation. I would argue that it qualifies as jazz, as does the work of some other early players, including those who "planned" their solos ahead of time.
Allen,
Thanks for reading and making this great point! That was a quotation from David Baker circa 1975. I think I tend to agree with you, though. Is Ellington's "Tone Parallel to Harlem" not jazz because it is through-composed? Is Illinois Jacquet reprising his famous sax solo on Lionel Hampton's "Flying Home" for screaming, dancing fans not jazz?
James Reese Europe told the New York Tribune in March 1919, "I have to call a daily rehearsal of my band to prevent the musicians from adding to their music more than I wish them to" (i.e., improvisation). In the same interview he describes "jazzing" in the following way:
"With the brass instruments we put in mutes and make a whirling motion with the tongue, at the same time blowing full pressure. With wind instruments we pinch the mouthpiece and blow hard. This produces the peculiar sound...To us it is not discordant, as we play music as it is written, only that we accent strongly in this manner the notes which originally would be without accent."
Baker himself only makes improvisation one of four essential jazz elements, the others being black aesthetics (like what Europe describes above), rhythm (as you pointed out), and personalized expression (like, say, the way Louis Armstrong plays "Stardust" or Jimi Hendrix "The Star-Spangled Banner").
A great jazz education topic for discussion. Thanks again, Allen!
Take care,
Scott
fascinating post!