|
World of Jazz Rodney Dale
Introduction
Most books on Jazz begin by trying to define Jazz, but even if their definitions are apposite at the time of writing, they may not hold up with the passage of time. Furthermore, there is a fundamental problem in tryin to define Jazz in tersm of other musical forms. It is like trying to describe colours to the blind: we could describe them in terms of the electromagnetic spectrum, but this would not help much. Perhaps we should simply listen to the music itself, even experiment with it ourselves, rather than attempt abstract definitions, but some guidelines are necessary. Jazz is a particular way of playing music, which differs in at least three ways from non-Jaz. First, the player is of far greater importance than he is in non-Jazz: Jazz depends far more on interpretation by individuals than on reproducing a fully annotated score. Following from this is the second element: improvisation – a continual re-interpretation of a given melody of chord sequnce. However simple this framework, and howver strict the rules which govern improvisation, there is still considerable freedom for the player. Third, because of the 'rules' of Jazz, and because there may be more than one musician playing at a time, the rhythms may become very complex – and note that rhythms, internal to the music, must not be confused with beat, which is the fixed timing upon which the rhythms are based. We must never forget that the world of Jaz is part of the world of music as a whole, to which it is related in many, complex ways. Although we are specifically considering the world of Jazz, we must not forget what is 'outside' it, because it is from outside that the influences which shaped – and are shaping – Jazz come. But what should we call the music outside the world of Jazz, which above I called non-Jazz? The word 'Classical' is inadmissable, since it has a strict musical meaning. 'Serious' is often used, but this implies that Jazz isn't. the description 'non-Jazz' is neutral enough, provided that we realize that there is no strict frontier between the two worlds. Trying to strictly separate Jazz from non-Jazz can lead to a pointless debate over undefinable terms. It is more helpful to realize that we have to form our own opinions of the demarcation, perhaps with the help of those whose opinions we respect, and that our opinions are liable to change as our experience widens and – most important – as time brings events into perspective. Consider the world of motoring. This world is concerned with motor cars, but they do not spring into being ffrom nowhere – they are part of a larger world of iron-ore working, glass factories, designers, and so on, which feed materials and labor into a pool which produces motor cars. Now, since motor cars are in general non-political, started their development at about the same time as Jazz did, and were subjected to pressures of development and acceptance as Jazz was, we can carry our comparison a little further. In Britain, enthusiasts classified cars as Veteran (pre-1905), Edwardian (1905-1914) and Vintage (1915-1931), according to their date of manufacture. Enthusiasts suffered from great snobbishness, averring that any acr built after 1931 was worthless. But as time went on, and the patent untruth of this view became clear, the ground was shifted slightly by introducing the category of Post-Vintage Thoroughbred. No one would state categorically that every car made today is a heap of junk, and yet that was a view held by motoring purists thirty years ago – and I know, because I was one of them. We mellow as we age, certainties become duobts, events fall into perspective, and this is as true of Jazz as it is of motor cars. In fact, it is true of all developing art forms. We must be suspect of the need to classify, to hang on to what we 'know' to be good from our own listening; we must work hard to understand the new and the unfamiliar. 'This is old, and therefore good' is countered by the equally invalid 'This is new and therefore better.' 'I know what I like' means 'I like what I know.' We must be sure that we have properly applied ourselves to its study before forming our conclusions. Motor cars and Jazz, as I said, are in themselves non-political, but the history and experience of Jazz are inseparable from the political and social worlds in which it developed, and this may affect our understanding of the music. For example, if we want to discuss the origins of Jazz, we must talk about slavery and the sufferings of black people. To fully appreciate Jazz, we must understand its background and always approach the music with an open mind.
|