Talk:Jazz/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Needs examples

This page desperately needs an 1-3 examples for each subgenre it's trying to portray. Please help if you can or flag this with the appropriate template -- I'm not sure if there exists a "flagged: this page needs sound samples" template... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.243.2.30 (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1960s and Evans

The section on the 1960s needs some work. Bill Evans was arguably the most influential pianist of this era, but he is only mentioned as an aside in conjunction with modal playing. Evans' modal work was largely confined to his brief stint with the Miles Davis Quintet in 1959; Davis hired him because he knew Evans could do what he wanted done in that department. However, when Evans left Davis and formed his own trios, he immediately became known for his new ideas in voicing (for instance, "chords of omission") and innovative use of rhythm in his improvisations, none of which had to do with modal playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.107.2 (talk) (22:23, 5 January 2007)

Jelly Roll Morton

Am I just missing it, or is he not mentioned anywhere - including the Dixieland/New Orleans, 1920s, and 1930s sections - on this page? I was under the impression he was extremely influential. I'm only getting into jazz though, so I don't feel qualified to add to the main page myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.3.230 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

bent notes

I have just added a wikilink to the reference in the Dixieland section of the article about "bent" and "blue" notes. My doubt now is twofold: whether bent notes also refers to instruments other than the guitar, which is the featured instrument under bent notes, plus the fact that I don't really associate the guitar with Dixieland - please correct me if I'm wrong! - Technopat 09:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can bend a note on a guitar, you can bend one on a banjo. Even easier if you have a fretless banjo, but that's beyond the scope of most banjo playing. If you look in Dixieland, you'll find "guitar" mentioned 2 or 3 times. Just plain Bill 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Just plain Bill - I just had this nagging doubt and not being a musician needed someone to put my mind at rest. Technopat 11:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The bent and blue notes are also made on most other instruments. Techniques vary from the slide trombone where it's inherently easy to the piano where it is technically impossible but the pianist can strike two adjacent keys at the same time to give the impression of a note between. -- Infrogmation 14:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was referring to - so what's the score now? How can the link be fixed to include other instruments? Should a new article be started for Bent notes which will link there rather than to the guitar page? Help, please! Technopat 17:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I have created an pitiful starter stublet at bent note. We clearly need more on the topic. The link in this article should not have been redirected to the guitar only article; I fixed that. -- Infrogmation 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry! And thanx for fixing it! Technopat 21:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Being Jazz and Being Called Jazz

If jazz is simply improvised music, as the article suggests, it is wrong to say that jazz has an African-American origin. If jazz is improvisation, then jazz is as old as music. At this point in time, it also isn't right to say that jazz is improvised music in an African-American tradition, since people improvise in "jazzy" ways based on all sorts traditions, albeit with a level of sophistication first introduced to the world by African-American jazz musicians. It is probably fairest to say that African-American improvisational music was the first music called "jazz" rather than the first jazz. It is just loaded to 1) say the definition of jazz is unclear, but primarily based on improvising, and 2) say that anything was the first jazz. Bsharvy 12:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So, a minor edit based on this idea would be to change the first sentence to "The first musical art form called 'jazz' originated in..." Bsharvy 05:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what you're saying here: If I interpret your statement "It is probably fairest to say that African-American improvisational music was the first music called 'jazz' rather than the first jazz" and extrapolate the logical conclusion, then:
"The first jazz" WAS NOT "African-American improvisational music".
So, you need to be able to say what WAS "the first jazz" (never mind the first "music called 'jazz'") before you can even consider an edit like this.
Basically: If you think that "the article suggests... jazz is simply improvised music" then you're wrong to start with. It's best to leave the editing to the people who know something about the subject in question, rather than taking your own best stab at parsing whatever flawed material is already here to derive your own uninformed editing ideas. 68.124.67.61 17:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Smooth Jazz Article

I was reading this article, and it seems to me that the smooth jazz section here is quite POV, and not very well done. For example: "In the 1980s, drumming became much louder and more active in jazz music. The tones of saxophones were rougher and the bass lines were more invasive. However, when jazz reached the 1990s this harsh type of music was replaced by a refined and quiet style." This is rather obviously pro-smooth jazz bias. Also: "When this music was played, instead of the improvised solos being adventuresome they were actually very stylized. These improvisations are what made smooth jazz an official style of jazz instead of being considered just background music." Since when is smooth jazz 'official'? This sentence makes no consideration of the controversy still going on over whether smooth jazz is jazz or not. Could someone please fix this? 63.16.162.22 03:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

At first glance, here are some things that need to be taken care of before this can be promoted to a good article.

  1. The lead needs expansion per Wikipedia:Lead section. Given the article's length, there should be at least three paragraphs.
  2. There are almost no citations in the article. Any sentence that has the potential to be disputed must have a citation. On the bright side, there are four books listed at the end of the article which may be cited to improve the article.
  3. Most of the citations in the article are improperly formatted.
  4. Image:PaulWhiteman.jpg needs a fair use rationale.
  5. Since the article is divided by time, the music samples would probably be of better use beside the era in which is was performed instead of stashed in the bottom.
  6. There should be no one or two sentence paragraphs.

The biggest issue by far is citations. Unless the article is fully cited, it cannot pass as a good article. Teemu08 00:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Brötzmann's picture?

Does anyone else think it's weird to have a picture of a modern musician next to the 1950's section? 71.246.236.74 00:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the picture is meant to be associated with 'free jazz', not necessarily the year...an unfortunate possibility of confusion that comes with arranging subgenres by date, but I'm not sure another arrangement would be better. ¦ Reisio 04:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


I feel that perhaps a picture of Charlie Parker, one of the main inventors of Bebop and Free Jazz, might be more appropriate hereBifftar (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a put-on? Parker died before free jazz even existed, & it would be completely inappropriate to put his picture in the Free Jazz section. Broetzmann is one of the most respected living free jazz musicians. What's the problem here? --ND (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Not so. Lennie Tristano made the first free jazz records in 1949, during Parker's lifetime.Verklempt (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) No--they are freely improvised, but they aren't "free jazz": they sound nothing like what Coleman, Taylor, Coltrane, Ayler, &c created in the late 1950s to early 1960s, & in fact Tristano's recordings don't seem to have been a direct influence on the free jazz movement (& Tristano himself was not a fan of most later jazz styles AFAIK including free jazz). "Free jazz" as I understand it is a particular genre, not just the result of anybody playing without reference to song form. (2) In any case, the original poster wasn't asking for a photo of Tristano to be added but for one of Charlie Parker, who has no relevance to the free jazz article at all. --ND (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not Eric Dolphy or Ornette Coleman? Maybe Albert Ayler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.114.8 (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill Evans quotation

I removed the sentence following the Bill Evans quotation. Any composer would argue with the point that there is less spontaneous creation in composed music. Also, if you consider the composer the 'artist', there is not a more limited space for interpretation in composed music. I understand the point trying to be made - that there is a basic difference between composing in real time (improvising) and composing in a non-real-time way - and it's a valid point. But that sentence as it stood was inaccurate (in addition to being original research and POV). Perhaps the Evans quote should be moved to the section on improvisation as well, since the improvisation (=real-time composing) aspect of jazz is the aspect it addresses. - Special-T 21:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with the Evans quotation is (1) it's unreferenced and (2) it's in fact suspiciously like a misquoted version of a famous Steve Lacy quotation (which I can give an exact cite for: it's included in Derek Bailey's book Improvisation).
Re: improv vs composed: the sentence was perhaps unsubtle but rather than deletion I'd recommend rewrite, as the distinction is valid. --ND 03:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing on Electric jazz

Perhaps it isn't its own sub-genre, but I feel something should be noted about Electric jazz. Certainly it deserves its own page? Perhaps a simple redirect to a sub-genre it is very closely related to? Gautam Discuss 18:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Electric jazz is like saying 'jazz using only brass instruments' - it's not a style, just a description of the equipment. ¦ Reisio 18:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
But that's anyway something to note, don't you think? I said it wasn't necessarily a different sub-genre, but you would certainly agree that selective instrumentation affects timbre and thus musical quality in general. Gautam Discuss 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There's stuff on fusion, so I can't see there's much of an omission. --ND 22:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
All right, guys. Good call. Gautam Discuss 23:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem mentioning some jazz is made using electronic instruments (among others, and briefly, since it should be sort of obvious). ¦ Reisio 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Jazz History Section

As an amateur Jazz musician and a part-time Wikipedian, I was just browsing through this article, and noticed that the section on the history of Jazz is amazingly long, and I was thinking that maybe it could be split off into a separate article, and summarized more on this page? Just a suggestion. -YK Timestalk 01:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Protect page

This page is vandalized more than any other I have seen. A quick glance at the page history shows that the vast majority of edits are either vandalism or reverts. Should it be semi-protected? TK421 14:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --ND 21:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Free /Avant garde

Why are free and avant-garde filed (the first item!) as being 1950 things (while not being even mentioned in later sections)? For all I know, read, remember, the entire free movement did not begin before the 60s. Seems to me that the history section needs a good shakedown. --Alien Life Form 10:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The foundational documents of the free jazz movement all date from the mid-1950s: the first albums of Cecil Taylor & Ornette Coleman. --ND 19:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Coleman recorded Something Else!!!! in 1958. Taylor was recording in 1956, however his first records are normally considered to contain his later playing only in embryonic form. So we are in 1958 which makes it "end of the 50s" and most of the development of free happened in the 60s (Free Jazz, 1960; Ascension 1965). By this yardstick Cool Jazz is a movement of the forties (as the Tuba Band played in 1948 and recorded Birth of The Cool in 1949), Modal Jazz must be filed under the 50s (Kind of Blue, 1958-1959) fusion under 60s (In a silent way - 1968/1969, Bitches Brew 1969/1970). Methinks not. ---Alien Life Form 14:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

2000s

I think that Chistina Aguilera doesn't play jazz-based music. That's pop with some blues changes, but that's not jazz. If someone doesn't know true jazz music and listens to Chistina Aguilera could think that that's jazz, but we know that that's false. Diana Krall could be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.74.242.143 (talk)

Free Jazz Institute

In general, I am a big fan of the wiki forum, however the sort of comments that I have seen are not as much encyclopedia-esk as they are opinions. I and other students of jazz are not opposed to such discourse (in fact we find it quite stimulating), however we find that we are at odds with many of the "opinions" found here within the general wiki forum (and even at odds within our own community). We have recently come across the Free Jazz Institute site, which as the author states is in its nascent stages of development, but it seems to be in the spirit of not-for-profit spirit of the wiki community. I am not selling this site, as I have no motivation for doing so, but rather offering it up as a better forum for such discourse. If there are better (/other) not-for-profit sites out there I (and others) would be interested. Regardless, we are interested in more in depth analysis and even opinions of "jazz" on a more fundamental level. I think the internet could be used as a great medium for communication of musicians world wide. I know I am only a lowly graduate student in music but I think that significant modernization in communication between musicians could be very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.16.36 (talk)

Miles Davis ...

... doesn't get mention before the 1960s. Given that he made his first album in 1949 and was hugely influential this can't be right. 'Kind of Blue doesn't even get a mention despite being the most popular and influential jazz album ever! Come on people! SmokeyTheCat 09:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He sounded terrible on his first album, and Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie are about 80 bazillion times more influential. It's called _bop_ poisoning, not whiney muted trumpet poisoning. :P That said, if you think more on him should be in the article, be bold and add it. ¦ Reisio 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a bazillion is a real number and you are wrong anyway. SmokeyTheCat 08:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Split link

In the box on musical origins, there is a reference to "African American Folk Music". I suspect this was intended to be a single link to an article under that title, although there is no such article at present. Instead, it resolves ito two separate links - one to "African American", and another to "Folk Music", neither of which seem especially relevant in this context.

212.32.117.134 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

More from Gary Giddins

I see that Gary Giddins is cited once here. There's another matter on which we might want to cite him. In "How Come Jazz Isn't Dead", p. 39–55 in Eric Weisbard, ed., This is Pop, Harvard University Press, 2004, ISBN 0-674-01321-2 (cloth), ISBN 0-674-01344-1 (paper), Giddins essentially makes a case to divide the history of jazz into four periods, which he calls "native" (p. 42), basically jazz as the local music of New Orleans up to and including King Oliver); "sovereign" (p. 45), the Swing era (but also in this period Coleman Hawkins 1939 hit "Body and Soul"); "recessionary" (p. 45), bebop straddling the line between sovereign and recessionary, but other modern jazz being firmly in the latter, "a retreat from marketplace power but not bankruptcy" (p. 47), with continued commercial success for the likes of (for example) Louis Armstrong, Dave Brubeck and Ramsey Lewis and also the greatest years (commercially and artistically ) for "jazz qua jazz—as opposed to jazz qua swing or jazz qua bop" (p. 47) as "Smart music for smart people." (p. 47); and the current "classical" (p. 50) era in which "even the most adventurous young musicians are weighed down by the massive accomplishments of the past." (p. 50)

I see that many capable people are working on this article, so I'm just making this suggestion here and getting out of the way. If anyone wants me to comment or discuss further, please drop a note on my user talk page to get my attention. - Jmabel | Talk 21:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I enjoy Giddens as a journalist, but I don't consider him an expert. He has never taken a PhD in music history, nor published in peer reviewed journals. He doesn't appear to have ever done much if any primary source research, save for listening to records. Jazz history has long been polluted by poorly informed amateurs. We have a long way to go still to excise all of their mythmaking.Verklempt 20:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did the old article go?

What I discovered upon revisiting this page was far from an improvement. Talk about a whitewash! The article is simply less informative, far less interesting -- and less accurate in some particulars, and certainly less accurate in the overall impression conveyed.

Curious. Wikipedia -- unfortunately -- seems to be the site most consulted for information on jazz. Why unfortunately? Because it's the only site where one can go and read about how un-black jazz is and read a long, long list of ALL white and Jewish, many relatively obscure, band leaders of the 1920s. WTF? How's that for cultural appropriation? This just flat-out sux. (No wonder the article was demoted from featured status.) But the treatment of this subject is classic Wikipedia. Oh, yeah. And the hits keep right on comin'. deeceevoice 08:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1)Wikipedia is not a venue for racial politics. If you feel that important artists are missing, then add them in. But musicians are important because of their artistry, not their race. (2) "all reflections of its origins in the music and cultural traditions of West Africa." This is unproven and unprovable. It contradicts the article's earlier (and correct) assertion that jazz emerged in a combination of musical styles, created by people of a variety of cultures. Please justify your inclusion of this sentence. (3)" spirituals, blues and ragtime, stemming from West Africa, western Sahel," Again this is unproven and unprovable. Please justify your inclusion of this sentence. (4) "Small bands of primarily self-taught Black musicians, many of whom came from the jazz funeral procession tradition of New Orleans, played a seminal role in the articulation and dissemination of early jazz, traveling throughout Black communities in the Deep South, to northern cities and westward." Again this is unproven, and incorrect. There are many well-educatedmusicians in early jazz, and many non "Black" musicians. The earliest traveling jazz band went to the West, and played for more than black audiences. Please justify your inclusion of this sentence. (5)"A "...black musical spirit (involving rhythm and melody) was bursting out of the confines of European musical tradition [of the marching bands], even though the performers were using European styled instruments.[1]. This citation does not meet the standards for WP:RS. The cite does not take you to the quote. Also, the quote adds nothing informative to the article. It is simply a claim from the black nationalist perspective, and thus POV. It should come out. Please justify your inclusion of this quote.Verklempt 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a venue for racial politics." I find that amusing, because, curiously enough, Wikipedia is the only place that purports/pretends to be a reputable source of infomration online where one can visit an article examining jazz, its beginnings and history where the role of African-Americans and the distinctly African pedigree of jazz has been systematically de-emphasized:
From: "Jazz is an original American musical art form that developed around the start of the 20th century in New Orleans, rooted in African American musical styles blended with Western music traditions. Jazz uses blue notes, syncopation, swing, call and response, polyrhythms, and improvisation -- all reflections of its origins in the music and cultural traditions of West Africa."
To: "Jazz has roots in the combination of American music traditions, including spirituals, blues, ragtime, religious hymns, hillbilly music, and marching band music. After originating near the beginning of the 20th century, jazz styles spread in the 1920s, influencing other musical styles."
From:

The instruments used in marching bands and dance band music at the turn of century became the basic instruments of jazz: brass, reeds, and drums, using the Western 12-tone scale. Small bands of primarily self-taught Black musicians, many of whom came from the jazz funeral procession tradition of New Orleans, played a seminal role in the articulation and dissemination of early jazz, traveling throughout Black communities in the Deep South, to northern cities and westward.

A "...black musical spirit (involving rhythm and melody) was bursting out of the confines of European musical tradition [of the marching bands], even though the performers were using European styled instruments."North by South, from Charleston to Harlem," a project of the National Endowment for the Humanities

A postbellum network of schools for African-Americans, founded and funded by individual donations and charitable and civic societies, black and white, as well as widening mainstream opportunities for education, produced more formally trained African-American musicians. Lorenzo Tio and Scott Joplin were schooled in classical European musical forms. Joplin, the son of a former slave and a free-born woman of color, was largely self-taught until age 11, when he received lessons in the fundamentals of music theory. Black musicians with formal music skills helped to preserve and disseminate the essentially improvisational musical styles of jazz.

To: "The instruments used in marching bands and dance band music at the turn of century became the basic instruments of jazz: brass, reeds, and drums, using the Western 12-tone scale. Small bands of musicians played a seminal role in disseminating early jazz, traveling throughout communities in the West, South, and to northern cities." That's it. Everything else was deleted. Except that ...
... later in the same section, the language was redacted to give the absurd impression that jazz was taught in "public schools" to -- gee, I don't know -- everyone, including white kids? lol
For comparison, take a look at the following websites treating jazz history:
  • This on early jazz[1]
  • Another. "Jazz Roots." [2] Just scroll down the page and check out the photos. Yes, the montage is repeated several times -- but how many white faces do you see? Check the names under "Early Jazz." I haven't counted, but betcha the vast majority are black.
  • Check the timeline on the PBS website for Ken Burns' film.
And now check Wikipedia's version of "jazz." A day ago.[3]
This article has been gutted -- and it looks to me like it's been gutted with an agenda. In listing examples of bandleaders of the 1920s, ALL of those listed are non-black -- Jewish and (maybe) white. And don't tell me that's just an accident. The fact of the matter is the preponderance of innovators of the jazz idiom, those most seminal to its development and articulation, certainly up to and including that time, were African-Americans. There's no way you're gonna tell me that these obscure people were more important artistically than Kid Ory, Buddy Bolden, King Oliver, Louis Armstrong's Hot Five and Hot Seven, or Jelly Roll Morton. The glaring omission of these GIANTS of jazz -- all black -- can't be mere happenstance. So, don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. The repeated deletion of text referring to Africa and supplanting it such material about whites and Jews is flat-out deceptive, and stinks of intellectual dishonesty and cultural appropriation, if not racism -- not to mention the deletion of black photographs and the insertion of largely inferior (in importance/relevance) white images -- sheet music and a poster.
I've saved the most preposterous of your contentions for last. That quote from a project by the National Endowment for the Humanities is POV and from a "black nationalist perspective"?!! ROTFLMBAO. Yeah, right. The bottom line is jazz was invented by black folks, and it bears all the hallmarks of its African pedigree. Have other artists contributed to its development? Yep. But America's "only original art form" is African-American in origin. And that's a fact. Try as you might, you can't convincingly whitewash that fact. And the innovators, the greatest artists of the form have been overwhelmingly black. The original reference linked to the website/web page. I made sure of it. It should be fairly easy to hunt down. When someone reworked the references, someting obviously went amiss. That's an easy fix.
But slapping a "black nationalist" label -- not a negative from where I sit -- on something just because it doesn't quite sit with your, uh ... unique ... version of jazz history isn't rational or scholarly. But thanks for the laugh.
I'm out for now. No tellin' when I'll be back. I've got some real work to do. deeceevoice 11:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I asked you to provide evidence for the specific sentences under dispute, but you have not offered a single one. Instead, you rant about my motives. This is not productive. I have a number of disagreements with what you wrote. First Kid Ory, Jelly Roll Morton, and King Oliver were Creoles. They did not consider themselves black. To retroactively apply the one-drop rule to these men is to deny their own identity, and to replicate Jim Crow racialism. Second, the NEH cite is incomplete. Without a complete citation, we don't know who the author is, or whether or not it is a reliable source. Even if it is a respectable source, the quote adds nothing encyclopedic to the article. It replicates, yes, the black nationalist version of jazz history. I would remind you again that Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for racial politics or racist utterances such as [[4]] I think that it would be good to have an entire section of this article devoted to jazz and race. It would discuss primitivism, Communism, Jim Crow, Crow Jim, and black nationalism, and how those phenomena relate to jazz history. But your simplistic argument that "blacks invented jazz" is out of line with recent scholarship. I asked for evidence and got a rant instead.Verklempt 21:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
ROTFLMBAO. If you think that's a racist utterance, I think you need a dictionary. Look up "racist"/"racism." deeceevoice 00:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If you read up on King Oliver, you'll find that no, he was not Creole, and yes, he did call himself "black". Not that the two are always exclusive, but partly we shouldn't impose current terminology on that of almost a century ago-- Yes, Jelly Roll wouldn't have called himself "black" but he and his family did call themselves "colored" -- a friend who knew Jelly's younger sister confirms her family rode on the back of the streetcars back in the Jim Crow era. For the record, -- Infrogmation 23:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction on Joe Oliver. What is the evidence that Morton referred to himself as colored? I have never come across such. Even if such evidence is found, it must be carefully interpreted. There were plenty of people in the 19th century who thought of themselves as "colored", but who did not consider themselves "black" or "Negro." The one-drop ideology didn't gain complete hegemony until the Jim Crow era. Even under Jim Crow, many of these folks resisted one-drop -- the "Creoles of color" in NO being a prime example.Verklempt 22:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If I'm reading you correctly, Froggy, your argument just doesn't hold up. So, when writing about black folks of certain eras, we should refer to them as "niggers" and "colored people" because those terms were common parlance? Hell, no! We use words that have meaning to people today. Besides, it is quite clear that one could be creole and African-American/black -- but not creole and white. Creoles were/are a subset of African Americans generally accorded/possessing economic, educational and social privileges because of their lineage and/or skin color. They were never anything other than that. And to somehow pretend today that they aren't black -- because it suits someone's agenda to de-Africanize the roots of jazz is the height of intellectual dishonesty and smacks of something worse.
I'm reproducing here my comments from another section, where I comment on the fact that Verklempt repeatedly has tried to excise the accurate information about jazz originating in African American communities on the basis of a source (or sources) that, puportedly, mention some creole musicians in connection with early jazz:

Ridiculous. I'm from Louisiana. "Creole" is merely a regional term. In New Orleans, my family would be considered Creole, but I'm from Shreveport instead. And I'm black. Mayor Ray Nagin is creole. LOOK at him. He's black. Same thing with the Morials. That term comes from a time when it was useful economically to distinguish blacks by racial admixture because we were bought and sold as property, as commodities, like livestock. The same goes for the "roons." All are from a time when a lot of black folks were seriously color-struck. Outside of New Orleans, almost no one uses the term "creole"; everybody's black. This argument is ridiculous -- a complete fabrication, a means of de-Africanizing, white-washing jazz. Its origins are black and African. Plain and simple. deeceevoice 01:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And back in the day in Louisiana, there were plenty of black folk with virtually the same ethnic admixture and appearance of so-called "Creoles" who were in poverty, enslaved and treated like sh*t because they were black -- my family among them. And I'm astounded that that's not common knowledge. Hell, yeah, we were all in the back of the bus. And pullin' cotton and scrubbin' white folks' floors, get gettin' lynched, too. So now creole isn't black? lol My a**!
Furthermore, the most innovative/roots cultural expression in the African-American community fundamentally and historically has always come those closest to our African roots, and that has pretty much meant the least assimilated/diluted/washed-out among us (certainly culturally, at least) -- and, due to the twinned race- and class-based structure of oppression in American society (witness the footage of Katrina victims at the convention center and how it could have been shot in Haiti, or Cuba, or the Congo), that generally means the poorest of us and, often, the blackest of us. (Or, certainly, those in contact/collaboration with those in our community who fit that description.) Those traditions flow from drylongso black folks and feeds the rest of AA culture. And, yes, what I've just written is a generalization, but one that I'd say is pretty accurate. deeceevoice 09:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No you are not reading me correctly, and I would appreciate it if you didn't try to put words in my mouth, especially such unpleasant ones. My comment above was directed in specifically correcting the incorrect statement above it (Joe Oliver was an Anglophone uptowner, not a Creole, and also he did specifically refer to himself as "black" even before that became the usual term in the African-American community), as well as providing some historical context to avoid any misunderstanding in that if Morton didn't call himself "black" one shouldn't jump to the conclusion that he therefore considered himself "white". There are many other issues in the discussion I could add my perspectives to, but in my above comment I was restricting myself to a couple of narrow points. Thank you for civil discussion. -- Infrogmation 11:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Froggy, chill. There's no way what I wrote reasonably could be construed as me "try[ing] to put words in your mouth." That's really a stretch. First of all, I wasn't sure I was reading you correctly -- and I wrote as much. Second, I was responding to your comment about "we shouldn't impose current terminology on that of almost a century ago," putting it in the context of the "Creole"/"African-American thing. But thanks for clarifying. deeceevoice 13:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hope I don't put my foot in it in this mass of cultural sensitivities, but in researching I came across this article which suggests that the Creole issue was of considerable significance, at the point in 1894 when the Jim Crow laws made the young Morton black. H2g2[5] covers the same story in what's effectively a wiki, so not a reliable source. Obviously this doesn't detract from the significance of African origins and black development, including the blues which surfaced about the same time, but it's one explanation for part of the mix that developed into jazz at that point in the context of segregation. By the way, could you perhaps give a date or a diff of when you think the article was at its best..... dave souza, talk 14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
There are numerous scholarly works that make the same point about the importance of Creoles and Creole identity in early jazz. It is unfortunate that we have an editor who insists on introducing his/her own racial identity politics into this article, insists on replacing erroneous and anachronistic statements that have already been redacted, and attempts to justify it all by cites to web pages that don't even begin to meet WP:RS. There is a large scholarly literature on jazz origins, and I intend to make certain that the errors and POV come out of this article, to be replaced by an NPOV version based on scholarly sources instead of web pages.Verklempt 20:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The scholarly evidence I have to hand is that jazz has African roots, combined with various European contributions one way and another, and that significant contributors such as Creoles both identified with the black side of segregation, and were seen as black to the extent of Morton performing in blackface. This is presented as a significant part of the story, and should be reflected in the article. If you've got reliable sources giving another viewpoint, that too can be proportionately discussed in the article. .. dave souza, talk 22:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
There are some items missing like the 1800s, soul jazz, influential 1920s Performers, "improvisation" section. Are you referring to these items? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 09:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
For some time I've been bothered by various changes over the past couple years may have been well intentioned but have replaced specific information with vague generalities. Portions have been rewritten and rearranged, it looks to my some people trying to improve style but not knowing details of the history, resulting in some misleading sections. Yes, some parts of the article certainly have gotten worse. -- Infrogmation 20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Verklempt (and others): I think the real problem here is that rather than discussion taking place on this page, & potentially controversial claims on the article page getting properly tagged with requests for citations, instead the article is getting frequently reverted or drastically purged without discussion. How about trying to achieve some consensus here first before deleting references to race en masse, or adding them back in en masse? -- These are complex issues about music history, and I'd suggest that anyone who wants to make substantial alterations try to provide citations from good sources. I'd suggest the first two chapters of Kirchner's OUP companion to jazz--on the African and European sources of jazz--as one place to start (not least because they somewhat contradict each other). --ND 00:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The two Kirchner chapters are a perfect example of my argument that the origins of jazz are uncertain and disputed. This is exactly why this article should not take a strong position. I am fully in favor of writing up the debate in its complexity. But until someone takes that on, I think the POV version needs to come out of the article as it stands today.Verklempt 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I may be wrong but here's what the issues seem to be: 1- Verklempt wants sources cited. Nothing wrong with that. 2- Instead of leaving the uncited material in (much of which seemed easily verifiable) and tagging it as needing refs, he removed a lot of it. Nearly all of the text he removed involved mention of black americans. 3- deeceevoice is looking at the current article and concluding that Wikipedia as an institution is racist. Let's scale down our focus to this article and its current situation - one editor, in a recent series of edits, removed much of the material about black musicians, teachers, etc. Another editor disagrees with these changes. I suggest re-inserting that information where it's warranted, and coming up with references. Let's make it a better article. I'm basically saying the same thing as Ndordward. - Special-T 14:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Re your point number two, I disagree that most of what I excised it easily verifiable. I think most of it is either incorrect or unprovable. If I thought it could be substantiated, I would have flagged it. Re your point number three, I mostly agree. I have laid out my specific objections, both in my edit comments and in this section of the talk page. I am more than happy to negotiate these issues with any polite editors who may be interested.Verklempt 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Patience, dearie. I'm busy. The world won't shift on its axis in two or three weeks. I'll get to it -- or someone else will. deeceevoice 00:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The generally accepted process in such cases is to flag the relevant material for citation -- not wholesale deletion and reversion without meaningful comment. As far as I was aware, the quote about the black bands was properly sourced -- and even with an improper link, it's quite clear the quote about African bands came from a reputable source. I mean let's be clear. The National Endowment for the Humanities is hardly a "black nationalist" propaganda vehicle -- is it? And I find it difficult to believe that anyone who would make such an outrageous statement is about being objective in any way, shape or form.
And this is not just about deleting information. It's about what has to be deliberate omission. Take a look at the long list of Jewish (and possibly white) bandleaders from the twenties with nary a single black bandleader among them -- and with such far better-known luminaries to choose from? What? We're supposed to believe that's just some sort of brain fart? An inadvertent omission? Hay-o naw. I ain't buyin' it.
With regard to racism and cultural appropriation, that has been my experience over and over again with this website. It's nothing new. Here, it seems to me this guy has more than a problem with citations. His charge is totally off-the-wall. Again, people can mark the passages that they feel need citation, and I -- or someone else -- will get around to taking care of it when I/they have time. And, hopefully, other editors, like Infrogmation, who made such important and useful contributions to the old article can resurrect some of the stuff we and other apparently more knowledgeable editors contributed in the past which helped to make it a featured article.
Because at this point, frankly, the article just plain sux. deeceevoice 16:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Material that cannot be substantiated needs to be deleted. I am well-read in jazz history, and I know that most of what I deleted can never be proven. (E.g., the notion that spirituals, blues, and ragtime trace back to the Sahel is simply absurd. I have traveled all through the Sahel. They don't have many pianos there, much less a history of ragtime.) I have laid out what I think needs to be documented. If citations are not forthcoming, then I will delete those passages again, and I will be well within Wikipedia policy. I am more than happy to negotiate anything with anybody, but so far no one has put any evidence on the table.Verklempt 21:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
So, that's all you have to say? There're no pianos in the Sahel? lol. I don't have time now, but I'll probably get around to adding citations in the next couple of weeks -- unless someone else does it before I do. Easily done simply by hunting an older permutation of the old, featured article. It's all there. The scholarship asserting the African connections is extremely well known and certainly not new. Besides, where do you think the seminal characteristics that distinguish African-American culture from mainstream American culture came from? Do you think it just sprang from whole cloth once we got here and just sorta grew like Topsy? ;)
Let's apply that same logic to language and evolution: "Because x millions of years ago Europeans did not exist in Africa, the notion that humans trace back to Africa is absurd." "Because x thousands of years ago English didn't exist in Africa, the notion that language traces back to Africa is absurd." In other words, pianos and ragtime don't have to exist in location x to trace the roots of that music (akin to its genetic makeup) back to location x. Yes, that's the same corrupt logic of Young Earth Creationism Verklempt, there is no doubt in my mind that you are "well read" and have much to contribute in terms of notable fact. But you are using some fundamentally flawed logic to draw some starkly racist and unwarranted conclusions that whitewash fundamentally important historical contributions. For the record, I'm about as white as they come.Youngea (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You've got your logical inference entirely backwards. The onus is on you to provide proof that ragtime traces back to Africa. Every scholar I know of has ragtime originating in the U.S. as a hybird of a variety of musical traditions. Your assertion that this common-place history is "racist" is mind-boggling. Why am I even taking you seriously enough to reply?Verklempt (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This is true. And, likewise, the onus is on you to refrain from using bogus asinine logic to dismiss points that you disagree with. Especially ironic for one who supposedly is so well-read in the scholarship of jazz history, as you tout yourself to be. Don't you understand the difference between, "I haven't seen any evidence of that" and "There's no evidence of that?" Even if you are some type of self-styled authority on the subject, it doesn't go over so well with all the ego trips and whatnot without a proper introduction. You could have read all the history there is to know on jazz and it won't make a difference if you draw closed-minded stupid conclusions from the literature, bending it to suit your pre-existing understanding of the subject like what the White House did with intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. If you think you should be a main editor for this article, instead of bullying and belittling other people, why don't you introduce yourself and why you might be qualified as such? You know...a more humble and collaborative approach?Youngea (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the evidence that ragtime traces back to the Sahel? Every time I ask for it, I get ad hominem in response.Verklempt (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hahah, awesome! This is a perfectly reasonable question. Have you asked it bare before (without some jab or barb imbedded or accompanying it)? I don't recall reading, but might have missed it. Regardless, thank you for asking the question now. As it stands, I actually agree with you (did you see that coming?), and for much of what appears to be the same reason: as it is currently worded, saying, "Spirituals, Blues and ragtime traces back to the Sahel" is a poorly worded statement that ignores or twists how I believe the ethnomusicologist and music history scholarship discuss the issue. Thus, I dispute the premise of the question that there is evidence... Can you point me back to the revision that this is specifically about so I can see how it was originally worded in the article-proper? Not that I don't trust you, but I'd like to work with the actual quote in question so I know we're both referring to the same thing. Once I have that then we can discuss what actually exists in the scholarship and whether the article accurately reflects... Youngea (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Your remarks are reminiscent of the AfD discussion for Get down[6].
A wise rule to follow -- particularly if the subject matter is not about a cultural phenomenon indigenous to your own people, is to use your search engine -- assuming you have a genuine interest in obtaining knowledge about the topic. Just because you're unfamiliar with something, or haven't heard of it before doesn't mean it's not valid/true. After all, no one knows everyting about anything. deeceevoice 23:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not dispute that there are Africanisms in jazz, just as there are influences of European and Caribbean musics in jazz. What I do dispute is the article's implication that jazz is a uniquely African music, or that it originates in Africa. This simply cannot stand up to the overwhelming weight of evidence and scholarship demonstrating the contrary. Furthermore, I question the propriety of racializing Wikipedia's presentation of an American art form. As I said, a separate section on jazz and race is appropriate. But labeling the music and its practitioners according to their race is reminiscent of antique Jim Crow racial ideology. Finally, I would ask you to communicate in a more polite and respectful manner, in accordance with Wikipedia's culture and policy. You could have better used the time you've spent today to make constructive edits, rather than wasting it typing out snarky, condescending and dismissive replies. There is little possibility for constructive negotiation pursuant to the discourse you've offered so far. You have yet to address my specific objections.Verklempt 04:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent> I'm addressing the issue, as time permits. The article at present is remarkably incoherent, and would not be helped by segregating race as you seem to want to do. ... dave souza, talk 22:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, who the hell here is talking about "race"? Certainly not I. In fact, the only people who have initiated the issue of "race" here are editors who, presumably, are white and Jewish. This isn't about "race". It's about ethnic cultural expresison -- African-American ethnic expression -- and, yes, black folks. I dare you to discuss klezmer and not talk about Jews. deeceevoice 15:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You're splitting hairs, and avoiding the real issue here. You've insisted that the NO Creoles of a century ago were AA, based on antiquated one-drop essentialism. To label any individual's artistic expression in terms of his racial-ethnic identity is to commite the essentialist fallacy.Verklempt 22:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's simply absurd/pretentious. We're talking about a cultural phenomenon, and so it is proper to place it in the context of ethnicity -- which is about not only biological relatedness, but a shared culture. New Orleans' Creoles always were a subset of African American culture and life -- never outside it. And I defy you to produce an authoritative source that says otherwise. If anyone is "commite"-ing an "essentialist fallacy," it is you. It is absolutely impossible to meaningfully discuss ethnicity without considering history and culture. Again, I point to Jews and klezmer. I see your futile attempts to divorce Creoles from their essential, elemental African-Americanness is merely another in your attempts to whitewash/Jew-ify the article, another attempt at cultural appropriation. deeceevoice 12:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) It's apparent that you don't know Creole history at all, and are equally lacking when it comes to early jazz history. I already pointed you to the standard scholarly reference on NO Creoles. Anyone who is not familiar with Dominguez's work is ill-informed on this topic. Once you've read Dominguez, I'll be happy to point you to some jazz-specific references on Creole identity, and the relevance of its distinction from the NO black community. I plan to enter them into this article when I have time. (2) As to your insistence that racial-ethnic identity is central to jazz performance, that notion was refuted a half century ago by Leonard Feather. He conducted numerous blindfold tests, and found that the leading jazz musicians of the day were utter failures at distinguishing the racial-ethnic identity of the performers they were listening to. If the distinction cannot be perceived by the top jazz players in a controlled setting, then it doesn't exist. (3) "Jew-ify"?! You should be ashamed of yourself.Verklempt 15:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I really don't want to be in the business of stirring this pot, but blindfold tests of mid-20th century performance have squat to do with much earlier cultural factors of the genre's origins. Furthermore, when someone says words to the effect of "I can't talk to you until you've read such-and-such an 'authority' on the subject" it sets my bologna detector a-tingling. Appeal to authority may sometimes aid an argument, but it is always a logical fallacy, and is often an abuse of rhetoric, an attempt to get the opposition to go quiet for a while. As mentioned elsewhere, various jazz idioms speak to different parts of the human condition. Regrettable as they may be, cultural stereotypes do exist regarding the demographic of intellectual forms vs. soulful forms. Is that politically incorrect enough for everyone? Maybe it would be better if we said w.r.t instead of vs. __Just plain Bill 16:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
(1) Your first statment is correct, but misses the point. (2) Your second statement is a straw man. DC requested a cite that contradicted her erroneous and ill-informed contention, and I provided her with the standard one that everyone knows and cites. (3) WP is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but too many people edit articles on topics that they don't know much about. Too many people are unwilling to do the serious reading required to become knowledgeable. Cites to random web pages, in clear violation of WP:RS, are a big problem. This is an important article, and should be founded on the scholarly literature. Anyone who is unwilling to actually read the scholarly literature should stick to copy editing and let the rest of us do the heavy lifting.Verklempt 16:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Condescension is another diagnostic sign of my "straw man" being applicable. I'm willing to do extensive reading, but not willing to credit any one source with being an ultimate authority. I've probed the depth of your understanding elsewhere, and am still exploring your credibility. Have a gorgeous afternoon, __Just plain Bill 16:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
(1) Nobody said that any single source is the ultimate authority. That is a straw man. But certainly anyone who is at all familiar with Creole studies has read Dominguez, whether you agree with her or not. A quick glance at the relevant citation index will prove that in an instant. (2) The ethnic distinction of Creoles in 19th century New Orleans is not even controversial among historians. Anyone who is at all familiar with the literature would never even dream of arguing otherwise.Verklempt 18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Great answer, thanks. Getting huffy when challenged is another sign of a bologna artist, and let me hasten to say that you have not exhibited that sign here, putting your credibility up several notches in my book. Carry on, I'll be happily watching... __Just plain Bill 03:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Bill, but my credibility is not relevant. The central issue is the credibility of the sources we cite in the article, and achieving a balanced presentation when reliable sources disagree with one another. I have been disturbed by edits that are factually incorrect, and either not substantiated by cites, or cited to sources that don't meet WP:RS.Verklempt 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the credibility of any editor is relevant, especially where there are suggestions of non-neutral or biased POV being put into the article. "Even the Devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes."
WP:RS is an admirable thing, but only as good as the intent of the individual applying it. Where there is even a whiff of a suspicion of bias, as there most certainly is here, special effort towards achieving balanced presentation is called for.
Wikipedia's audience is the non-specialized reader; one of them at a time. Gutting the lead of the article, and ignoring large parts of the cultural heritage that led to America's indigenous art form "until they can be sourced in a certain scholarly fashion I approve of," does not help that reader understand it. __Just plain Bill 22:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Racial identifiers

First, I would support the inclusion of a section on jazz and racial issues. There is plenty of material to cover, and it could even be a stand-alone article. However, I cannot support the use of drive-by racial labels for musicians who are notable solely for their artistry, not their race. Second, I cannot support labeling musical elements as "African" or "Western." The inherited musical elements in jazz are not unique to either of these continents. Both continents have traditions of improvisation, non-ET intonation, call and response, polyrhythm, syncopation, etc. The distinctive features of jazz derive from the combination of many traditions, and were forged in the US alone. To label a musical element as either "African" or "Western" is to falsely imply that the element in question is unique to that continent. Hence such labels are factually incorrect. For these reasons, I have made the edits which DC objects.Verklempt 08:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I'd suggest you start working immediately on adding discussion of jazz & racial issues back in. I don't disagree about your impatience with simplified jazz history, but it's pretty obvious that just deleting multiple references to race/ethnicity/cultural origin is going to be a red flag, & you've repeatedly ignored the requests made here for a gentler approach via citation tags or the many other tools Wikipedia offers for indicating that an article is the subject of dispute. --ND 09:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Although you can't support labeling music as being primarily African or Western in origin, the terms are in wide use to distinguish between musical cultures that evolved in nearly complete isolation from eachother. Excising them is opinion and POV. Labeling a musical element in early jazz as deriving from one or the other of those traditions does not imply that the musical element is unique to one continent or the other - that's a specious argument comparable to your assertion above that the reference to the Sahel needed to be excised because they don't have pianos there and couldn't have been playing ragtime. Also, your selective strictness in only applying the knife to sections of the article mentioning race is, as ND says, a red flag at the very least. Race was most surely significant in the southern US only forty years after the end of slavery. - Special-T 14:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Ditto (overall, anyway). What he (she?) said. In spades. deeceevoice 11:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I have laid out specific objections to specific sentences in the talk section above, as well as in edit summaries. Most of the language I reworked was simply inaccurate. For example, blues, ragtime, and spirituals are not African musics. They originate in the US. There is no debate about this in the scholarly literature. To attribute them to the Sahel or any other part of Africa is totally inaccurate. Wikipedia policy does not require that editors leave inaccurate and unsourced data in an article. In fact, Jimbo himself has criticized the practice of flagging obviously wrong statements instead of excising them. If I were to flag them, they would stay flagged forever, because -- for example -- there is no evidence that ragtime originates in the Sahel. No one could ever provide a citation proving such an incorrect assertion, so why even bother to request a non-existent citation? It's better to remove such nonsense. I would appreciate if this Talk Page discussion could focus on the specific passages under dispute, instead of fretting over "red flags." Let's set the ephemera aside and get down to conducting business -- which is to get this article whipped into shape. I agree with DC that it needs a lot of work.Verklempt 21:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your approach to the music is simplistic, utterly ahistorical and completely uninformed/misinformed. There is no question that blues, ragtime and spirituals originated in the U.S.; they are inventions of Africans born here in this country. But that is what they (we) essentially were (are), historically and culturally -- Africans. As did immigrants to this nation, enslaved Africans brought their culture with them. African-American culture did not spring up out of whole cloth on the North American continent. The fundamental, essential distinctiveness of African-American culture from European/Euro-American culture emanates from our African roots. It is what has made African Americans the primary driving and formative force in the shaping of American and world popular culture over the last two centuries; we are not simply white Americans in blackface. As a result, the bold innovativeness of jazz, and the fact that some describe it as America's only original art form, can't be explained away by bland, vague, overly general language that seeks to attribute equal cultural responsibility or input on the part of blacks and whites into the making of jazz for what it is -- and certainly not by the shameless overemphasis on Jewish and white contributions evidenced in this Bowdlerized, expurgated and twisted version I discovered upon returning to the article almost 18 months after my initial involvement. Such an approach stinks to me of white/Jewish wannabe-ism (a la Mez Mezzrow, Lenny Bruce, etc., etc. -- the list is endless), cultural appropriation and possibly racism. Whites did not equally contribute (and have not equally contributed) to the invention and articulation/innovations of jazz. That's just simply not the case. No credible, authoritative source would dare to make such an outrageous assertion. The history is clear. Is jazz wholly African? Of course not! And no one has tried to make such a claim. But the deep and overarching imprint of Mother Africa on jazz is clear and undeniable in any reasoned, dispassionate, critical examination of the subject.

Funny that there are all sorts of sites on the web quoting and flat-out plagiarizing the earlier version of this article -- before it was gutted and twisted into something that, IMO, is a travesty. Why? Because it was a quality article, fully deserving of featured article status. And now it's a mess.

And with regard to Muslim influence on jazz, there is scholarly research that supports such a claim, certainly at least indirectly, through the blues idiom. You need to read more before you make such pronouncements based, apparently, on your unabashed and rather fundamental, appalling ignorance of the subject matter.

And, no, you have not addressed all of my concerns/complaints. I have limited time at the moment, but I will continue to correct what I view as a shameless whitewashing of the subject matter and reconstruct/restore information and sources that have been purged over time. deeceevoice 10:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

While I can't address every concern now, I reviewed the article. Some statements need to be fixed. A few more cites here and there would be helpful. The article is not overtly racist; every image appears to be of a person of African descent. Bearian 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You didn't see it before I returned and before others got involved. It was ridiculous. deeceevoice (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems with recent edits

There are many problems with recent reverts and revisions.

1) The lead paragraph is problematic. While most historians agree that jazz emerged in New Orleans and nearby, I have never seen any historian argue that it was unique to black communities. In fact, there are a number of scholars who observe that Creole musicians were more prominent in early jazz than black musicians. Furthermore, many historians note the importance of Storyville, which was an integrated neighborhood during the earliest years of jazz.

2) http://www.kennedy-center.org/programs/jazz/ambassadors/Lesson3.html

This essay is unsigned. The web site belongs to a concert hall. This source does not meet the standards set by WP:RS. Furthermore, the cite is being used to substantiate a claim that is controversial in the scholarly literature: that early jazz demonstrates "elements which collectively point to its roots in West African music." WP:NPOV demands that such one-sided arguments be modified.

3) "The Influence of African Rhythms"[http://northbysouth.kenyon.edu/1998/music/rhythm/rhythm.htm "North by South, from Charleston to Harlem," a project of the National Endowment for the Humanities Retrieved 10-29-2004

This essay is unsigned. The quote is not attributed to any author. This source does not meet the standards set by WP:RS.

4) "Also contributing to this trend was a tightening of Jim Crow (racial segregation) laws in Louisiana in the 1890s, which caused the expulsion from integrated bands of numbers of talented, formally trained African-American musicians. The ability of these musically literate, Black jazz men to transpose and then read what was in great part an improvisational art form became an essential element in the preservation and dissemination of musical innovation that took on added importance in the approaching big-band era. Black musicians with formal music skills helped to preserve and disseminate the essentially improvisational musical styles of jazz."

The first sentence in this passage is uncited, and I doubt it can be proven. The prominence of Jack Laine's integrated bands well into the 20th century contradicts this dubious assertion. The rest of this paragraph is pure opinion, and violates WP:OR.

5) There is no evidence that spirituals and ragtime "[stem] from West Africa and the Sahel". This statement cannot remain in the article. There is one author who speculates that melismatic blues singing derives from "Muslim" roots in African, but his hypothesis is controversial in the scholarly community, and cannot be presented as gospel in WP.

6)Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, says: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information[.]"[2]Verklempt 03:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I'm from Louisiana. "Creole" is merely a regional term. In New Orleans, my family would be considered Creole, but I'm from Shreveport instead. And I'm black. Mayor Ray Nagin is creole. LOOK at him. He's black. Same thing with the Morials. That term comes from a time when it was useful economically to distinguish blacks by racial admixture because we were bought and sold as property, as commodities, like livestock. The same goes for the "roons." All are from a time when a lot of black folks were seriously color-struck. Outside of New Orleans, almost no one uses the term "creole"; everybody's black. This argument is ridiculous -- a complete fabrication, a means of de-Africanizing, white-washing jazz. Its origins are black and African. Plain and simple. deeceevoice 01:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Trust the fully sourced origins section assists, now to get on to blues and ragtime... .dave souza, talk 15:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with recent edits cont.

Terrific, Verklempt..... you are finally making "Jazz" clearer, certainly more accurate and certainly much more useful: please - everyone - keep going in this spirit... "Jazz" was getting pretty dreadful and sad.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.99.130 (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian Jazz x Bossa Nova

It should be noted in the section that "Brazilian jazz" should be assigned to the music mostly played by americans in a Bossa Nova way, but with a stiffer beat.

Most brazilians don't hear "Brazilian Jazz"; they don't even know what "Brazilian Jazz" is. They do know what Bossa Nova is: the junction in the 60's of a new guitar beat invented by João Gilberto, fancy new harmonies by Tom Jobim and good mood and very poetic lyrics by Vinicius de Moraes, which inspired a whole generation of musicians: the Bossa Nova movement. The harmonies were as non-standard and sophisticated as in jazz at that time, but it is not a solid enough base to oversimplify and reduce this rich genre merely into "Brazilian Jazz". It is not a mere extension of the american jazz culture in Brazil, but a national cultural movement of its own, deeply rooted and influenced by the historical and political moment in Brazil of that time and with its very particular musical characteristics.

This polemic about Bossa Nova being a "brazilian jazz" already existed by that time and to show how a really jazz-inspired brazilian music would be, Carlos Lyra composed "Influencia Do Jazz" (Jazz Influence), with a jazzy derived rhythm and harmony, and lyrics making fun in an ironic way of the blatant difference between Bossa Nova and Jazz.

The more jazzy thing came later, only when these musicians spent some time divulging Bossa Nova in USA, by the end of the 60's - which coincided with a turnover in the social and political scenario of the country, with the ascension of the military dictatorial government, which infringed, among other things, a considerable loss of artistic expression.


Neologisma 06:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Western 12-tone tempered?

Just reverted the addition of a phrase referring to marching and dance band instruments, brass, reeds, and drums, "played in the equal temperament 12-tone scale."

As it stood, this made no sense to me; I'd like to see a credible source before it goes back in. Both brasses and reeds can be lipped a bit, not necessarily confined to equal temperament. If such an assertion is made, it needs a bit of expansion and explanation: What scales were used earlier, how did exposure to tempered tunings affect performance, and where and when and by whom; what reasons were given, if any, for changing, and how did folks feel about it?

Don't know enough to do more than raise the question here... __Just plain Bill 04:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It looked plainly like vandalism to me, but you got there ahead of me to make the edit. It is true that brasses and reeds can be "lipped a bit", but that is necessary to achieve equal temperament, and why would anyone want to do that, when you can play in tune instead? As the statement stood, I assumed it meant that drums were the instuments intended, and that is just plain silly (though, of course, some drums--tom-toms, roto-toms, bongos, timpani--can be tuned very approximately in equal temperament).--Jerome Kohl 06:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
"...why would anyone want to do that, when you can play in tune instead?" Indeed. __Just plain Bill 15:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Guitars, pianos, and mallet instruments have been tuned in 12-tone ET -- or a close approximation -- since before the advent of jazz. I don't think the edit is off the mark at all. On the other hand, it may be too much technical detail for an encyclopedia article on jazz. But it is certainly not vandalism.Verklempt 20:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The edit did not mention guitars, pianos, or mallet instruments at all, so how do you reckon the edit isn't "off the mark"? It might not have been vandalism, but it is certainly "off the wall" enough to require some documentation. It is clearly POV, at least to this reed player.--Jerome Kohl 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
To my eye the problem wasn't accuracy or not (though the listing of drums as playing in equal temperament is ridiculous) but that the information was not necessary at that point in the article. --ND 20:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this (and many other) articles on broad subjects suffer from a surplus of material that is either trivial, tangential, or far too in-depth to be appropriate. - Special-T 21:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps poorly placed in the article, but I can't agree with saying it was too much information. It was too little information, a mere bald assertion of unsupported fact, with no explanation of what the effects on the formation of the genre were, of fixed-tuned percussion instruments such as the piano or the relatives of the xylophone. Guitars are not fixed-tuned by a long stretch. Players routinely adjust their tuning, and can bend the notes various ways.
Verklempt, I also can't agree that equal temperament vs. other intonations is a "technical detail." The difference is as plain as mud vs. porcelain once your ears become sensitized to it. Modern ears may not be very widely so sensitized, a fact which deserves a broader audience, IMO, but the question here is whether (and if so, how) ET made a difference to jazz, and when. __Just plain Bill 01:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there any question but that 12-tone ET is the basis for modern instrument construction and modern jazz harmony? Of course a good musician will often intonate in just when playing with an ensemble, but that doesn't change the basis of the tuning system. It just adjusts for its weaknesses.Verklempt 02:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Modern bowed strings, as well as just about any blown aerophone I can think of, have everything to do with harmonic series, and not much to do with equal temperament, which is a keyboard thing of relatively recent invention. Early frets were tied on, and movable. Modern frets may be equal, but their players can certainly flex their strings.
As I understand modern jazz harmony, it started to come about with jazz musicians playing in venues (speakeasies?) where "the audience" was hardly listening, so the musicians had the freedom to play for each other's enjoyment. I don't believe that was the case in the days of earlier Dixieland bands playing blues-influenced music for funerals, for example. The bebop section of the article mentions notes being seen as melodic that would have been considered dissonant a few decades before. In my opinion, the earlier stuff came from the heart, and spoke to it, while the contrived artistic dissonances speak more to the musician's intellect. That POV probably doesn't belong in the article. __Just plain Bill 03:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

TRANSLATION OF THE ARTICLE

I found the article in English pretty interesting and I'd like to know whether there's any problem or not to translate it into another language. I would like the answer ASAP. thks in advance. willigfreitas@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.75.175.199 (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Translate it for what purpose/media? --ND 23:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I intend to translate it to add to another wikipedia.... to the wikipedia in Portuguese.201.74.143.197 11:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to wait until it's in better shape. Right now, it's pretty bad. deeceevoice 11:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't say that if u could uderstand Portuguese. The article in Portuguese is even worse. I guess I'll get some info from here, and get some other material from other sources. About copying content from other wikipedia, is there any problem about it? 201.75.178.18 11:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Eu acredito que não há nenhum problema. (If that said something stilted (desajeitado), so much for Babelfish ;-) ) Wikipedia being freely licensed, sister wikipedias in other languages, and so on. __Just plain Bill 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
As the man says, it's freely licensed and can be copied, translated or whatever. Just remember that Wikipedia is not at reliable source, and you shouldn't just use the references from here without checking them – other wikis may be more relaxed about that. .. dave souza, talk 17:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


thks for the tips men. I'm already doing sth to make things better. 201.75.178.18 19:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

SLAVERY

what's the problem of adding a link to slavery or abolition of slavery inside this Jazz article? I had addded but someone removed... can it be explained?201.75.183.36 04:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It was removed (along with the preceding edit) with the summary "rev edit warring/whitewashing by verklempt", so my guess is that Deeceevoice accidentally caught it in his reversion of the many edits from Verklempt, which began before yours, and ended after. Indeed, looking at Deeceevoice's page, it would seem delinking "slavery" would be one of the last things he would do on purpose.
I've gone ahead and restored the two edits in question. ¦ Reisio 06:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

thks u all men.201.74.149.190 02:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Comment on WP:RS issues

I'm re-entering my concerns from above, since they did not receive a substantive response the first time around:

There are many problems with recent reverts and revisions.

1) The lead paragraph is problematic. While most historians agree that jazz emerged in New Orleans and nearby, there are dissenters among historians and in musicians' oral histories. Plus, the entire debate is based mainly on speculation. Furthermore, I have never seen any historian argue that jazz was unique to black communities. In fact, there are a number of scholars who observe that Creole musicians were more prominent in early jazz than black musicians. Most historians observe that white and Hispanic musicians were also present at the creation. Furthermore, many historians note the importance of Storyville, which was an integrated neighborhood during the earliest years of jazz.

2) http://www.kennedy-center.org/programs/jazz/ambassadors/Lesson3.html

This essay is unsigned. The web site belongs to a concert hall. This source does not meet the standards set by WP:RS.

3) "The Influence of African Rhythms"[http://northbysouth.kenyon.edu/1998/music/rhythm/rhythm.htm "North by South, from Charleston to Harlem," a project of the National Endowment for the Humanities Retrieved 10-29-2004

This essay is unsigned. The quote is not attributed to any author. This source does not meet the standards set by WP:RS.

4) http://www.cnmat.berkeley.edu/People/Vijay/06.%20Microtiming%20Studies.html

This web page is an unpublished student thesis. Were the author a historian, and were the thesis on a relevant topic, I would not object to it. However, the author is not a historian. Nor does the cited chapter appear to directly support the sentence in which it is cited. It's a musicological essay on rhythm, not a historical essay on the origins of jazz. This source does not meet the standards set by WP:RS.

5) User Deecee's version of the historical dissemination of jazz is not supported by any citation. The extant scholarly literature makes a strong case that New Orleans-style jazz was played in California and the Midwest before it went to New York in 1917. Thus Deecee's version is not only unsourced, it is also wrong in many factual ways. For example, see Lawrence Gushee, Pioneers of Jazz: The Story of the Creole Band, Oxford University Press, 2005.

Verklempt 21:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Will come back to you on this, but as you'll have noted these aren't the sources I'm basing a series of edits on. Your usage of Creole doesn't match up to the information I've been reading, and per WP:NPOV we should be representing notable opinions proportionately, not hiding away mainstream opinion because of some scholarly dissenters. WP:LEAD requires much more than a bland uninformative sentence, and the lead needs a fair bit of work which I'll try to come back to when possible. ... dave souza, talk 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
(1)Which aspect of Creole is problematic for you? On the importance of Creole musicians, see Thomas Fiehrer, "From Quadrille to Stomp: The Creole Origins of Jazz," Popular Music, January 1991; James Collier's "Jazz; The American Theme Song", Oxford University Press, 1993; and the Ken Burns book. On the ethnic distinction of Creoles, see the Virginia Dominguez book. (2) I agree with your conception of an ideal opening. However, when an article is plagued by a dedicated POV-monger, then sometimes bland is the easier solution.Verklempt 23:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(6) Dave, I have to add this to the lsit of WP:RS concerns: www.redhotjazz.com/creole.html. It's a fantastic website, but it doesn't meet the WP:RS criteria. A better cite would be to the Gushee book and scholarly books and articles on Morton.Verklempt 15:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the usage of Creole, Cooke describes "a controversial ruling in 1894 that the Creole population (those of mixed European and black ancestry) was to be classified as 'black', Civil unrest followed..." This usage is entirely consistent with the undisputed importance of Creole jazz musicians, and describes their mixed African American ancestry as well as their official designation at that time as "black", in contrast to the white musicians who were relatively rare in jazz before 1917 or so. Given the definition in Louisiana Creole people that it refers to "refers to people of any ancestry or mixture thereof who are descended from settlers in colonial French Louisiana" (pre 1803), it's evidently useful for our purposes to call these people Afro Creole, or alternatively Creoles of color. If you have scholarly sources giving a different viewpoint, that can be added.
Your concerns about www.redhotjazz.com are noted, and in terms of WP:RS criteria it may help that Scott Alexander's site is given some credence by the Journal of American History and a History Matters review by Burton W. Peretti of Western Connecticut State University. I was citing it for the point that Freddie Keppard's Original Creole Orchestra visited California then toured the northern states from 1914 to 1918, and I'm glad that you have a better reference which you can add in its place. The redhotjazz site is the best reference I've found for Keppard's tour, but it's something I'd like to have mentioned in the article, so it would be useful if you could check to see if the redhotjazz articles are supported by the references you have, and information could then be added for you to verify. Similarly, do you have better references re "Papa" Jack Laine as often credited with being the first White Jazz musician, and having the ODJB members in his band?[7]
Regarding articles plagued by a dedicated POV-monger, I've always found it best to expand the the articles with properly referenced information on the various views as required by WP:NPOV. Even if "sometimes bland is the easier solution", WP is here to provide accurate information in proper proportion on all the notable viewpoints, not to just give in to the easy answer of censorship. .. dave souza, talk 19:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
(1) "Creoles of color" was the common antebellum term. Prior to that, they called themselves "Creoles". What is important here is that most of these people did not consider themselves "black" at the time jazz emerged in NO, even though the laws forced them into that legal category. This is documented in the standard reference, Dominguez, and by Fiehrer and many other scholars as well. The scholarly literature is basically unanimous in noting that they were a distinct ethnic group in NO, with a different history and culture compared to the black musicians. (2) My only disagreement with the redhot essay is that the author does not seem to understand this fine point of Gulf Coast racial history, even though it is significant for early jazz history. (3) I agree with you that multiple viewpoints should be included in order to meet NPOV. However, my attempts to introduce recent scholarship into the article have been met with reverts, mostly without constructive negotiation. I appreciate that you are interacting here in a polite and respectful manner, as a good Wikipedian, thus demonstrating that you are not one of the problem editors.Verklempt 22:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Women in jazz and vocal jazz and some (possibly) omitted notables

Badly overlooked/neglected. Can't have an article on jazz without mentioning some of the "girl" jazz bands (Sweethearts of Rhythm, etc.), or a bunch of sisters who could belt it out, or let it flow smooth and sweet: Billy Holiday, Ellah Fitzgerald, Dinah Washington, Nancy Wilson, Betty Carter, Shirley Horn, Carmen MacRae, Sarah Vaughan, Esther Phillips, Cleo Lane. Male vocalists: Armstrong's scatting, Arthur Prysock, Joe Hunter, Leon Thomas (w/Coltrane), Johnny Hartman. Other important musicians not mentioned for whom there may be a place in this piece, or at least some reference to the milieu/timeframe during their heyday (just some artists I remember off the top of my head): Eubie Blake (I mentioned him briefly already in relation to movies), Erol Garner, Lionel Hampton, Thelonius Monk (may have been mentioned already; dunno), Max Roach, Bobby Hutcherson, Cecil McBee, Freddie Hubbard, Lee Morgan, Archie Shepp, Sun Ra and his (blah, blah, blah) Arkestra, Wes Montgomery, John McLaughlin & the Mahavishnu Orchestra, Julian "Cannonball" and Nat Adderly, Jean Luc Ponty, Modern Jazz Quartet, the Piano Choir, Les McCann & Eddie Harris, Rahsaan Roland Kirk, Yusef Latif, Bobby Humphrey, Sir Roland Hanna, Cootie Williams ....deeceevoice 20:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, how could you, and the article, forget Bessie Smith? Dunno if we can mention Lil Green, whose "Why Don't You Do Right?" blows away the Peggy Lee version used in Roger Rabbit, or the brilliant Memphis Minnie. However, there's probably a good argument for Ottilie Patterson, though this main article must focus on major figures rather than listing lots of fine but less important musicians. Eubie Blake does get an early mention. Anyway, work's in progress. ... dave souza, talk 21:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't forget Bessie. She came to mind along with Billie Holiday when I listed the other performers, but I recently visited Blues and somehow thought she'd already been listed in Jazz. By all means! You're right about Ottilie Patterson, but relatively obscure. Everyone I've mentioned above is/was very well known in their heyday. deeceevoice 21:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OMG. And Alberta Hunter. deeceevoice 21:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a potential problem with the article turning into a list of favorite musicians. Such lists are POV by definition, unless they come from a Reliable Source. I think there was already too much listing and not enough analysis in this article.Verklempt 22:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. That's what I'm working on, but while some of the above are at least mentioned and others aren't really that significant in terms of the development of jazz, others like Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith have considerable significance. Will see what sources say. .. dave souza, talk 22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have great affection for Ma Rainey (love Sterling A. Brown's touching poem about her) and should have included her, but I didn't want to get into a drawn-out discussion about blues vs. jazz. And you will note that I wrote, "Other important musicians not mentioned for whom there may be a place in this piece, or at least some reference to the milieu/timeframe during their heyday...." There's no way all these people can be mentioned, but they serve as reminders of timeframes and periods in jazz that should treated in the article. E.g., some of these people were most prolific during the vaudeville era and just after, others during '40s and '50s. Some were more successful during the resurgent interest in jazz I referred to in the article, during the BAM, all times which probably deserve broader treatment in terms of the trends of the times. The same is true of the sixties and '70s. And, certainly the decades of the '80s and '90s and '00s deserve (better) treatment.

It is quite clear certain segments are very limited in scope and treatment, citing relatively obscure teachers and artists and -- what? -- Amy Winehouse?!! (She might think she's "been black," but she's certainly not jazz -- and I don't know a single black person who refers to her as a "soul" artist. Yuck!) Anyway, I left her in, but reworded the text to something more accurate/realistic and added a number of more substantial, non rehab-wreck-of-the-month artists. deeceevoice 07:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead para

"Jazz is an original American musical art form, traditionally considered to have originated around the beginning of the 20th century in African American communities in and around New Orleans."

I still object to the "African American communities" phrase. The history is quite clear that early jazz was performed on riverboats, at resorts on Lake Ponchartrain, and in the Storyville brothel district. It is inaccurate to describe these locales as "African American communities".Verklempt 16:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your objection is noted. However, communities are people, not locales. Jazz was clearly initiated by people of African American ancestry, whether "black" or "Creole", and their designation as black is a significant part of the story of jazz that should be noted in the lead. Will come back to this in due course. .. dave souza, talk 20:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The Creoles did not consider themselves African American at that time. It is historically inaccurate to label them as such, and denies their humanity by imposing upon them a label that they rejected for themselves. Furthermore, these "locales" and "communities" were in no way racially pure. To label them as "African American" is to implicitly deny the contributions of the many significant New Orleanian musicians in this history who were not AA or who were only part AA. It implies that African ancestry is the single most important determinant of jazz genesis, which is racist and extremely POV.Verklempt 02:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Who said anything about them being "racially pure"? As stated below, ancestry was a significant social factor in creating the conditions for the origins of jazz, and the sources I have to hand support the point that it was seen at that time as black music. .. dave souza, talk 09:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
(1) The term "African American" implies a monolithic racial-ethnic identity, and obscures the fact of extenisve cultural diversity within the early jazz musician population. Why should the article begin by obscuring that undeniable fact of diversity? (2)Another issue here is: How and why did jazz become seen as "black music"? This is a significant historiographical question that has been addressed by recent scholarship. As I said above, our conception of "black music" has been shaped by Jim Crow ideology. Do you want to penetrate the fog of historical racism and look at what actually happened? If so, then you need to read the more recent scholarship that undertakes this project.Verklempt 15:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> See WP:LEAD. The lead should summarise the main points of the article, and a brief statement about the origins of jazz covering the issues you're raising will be appropriate. Jazz#New Orleans discusses the issue – any proposals you have for improvements or for a brief statement to be added to the lead will be welcome. Regarding your point (1), see African American#Who is African American? and W. E. B. Du Bois. The issue should be covered adequately by the origins statement, in my opinion. ... dave souza, talk 18:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Afro-Creole"

This terminology is inaccurate. These people referred to themselves as "Creoles." They identified with their French heritage, not their African heritage. This is well-documented by Dominguez, Fiehrer, Hall, and others.Verklempt 16:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The term is used in the titles of a few books and numerous academic papers on creoles in NOLA and LA. It is used for clarity since not all creole peoples in the world are afro-creole.
It's pretty non-controversial. futurebird 17:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you give some cites showing that Afro-Creole was the relevant term in 1900? My concern is that using this term obscures the identity of "Afro-Creoles" circa 1900, which is an important part of the story of jazz genesis.Verklempt 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Terms used at that time seem to have been "Creoles of color", "mulatto", "black" and "Negro". For modern readers Afro-Creole is clearer, and the point is discussed in the article. We can always expand on the point that they had a French heritage which had been put in a US context, then were redefined as black before 1900 and their caste was put in with the black ghettos. Perhaps you have some proposals you'd like to discuss on this talk page. .. dave souza, talk 20:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Certainly "Afro-Creoles" can be justified under WP:RS, in that there are sources who use this terminology. But it remains incorrect, and looking at the best sources will reveal exactly why it is incorrect. The major reason that these people are of interest on jazz history is that Jim Crow forced them into closer contact with black musicians, and out of this interaction came early jazz. By labeling them as Afro-Creoles, you redefine their black ancestry as their most important feature, even though its was a feature they themselves rejected and attached no significance to. You thus recreate one injustice of Jim Crow, and obscure a crucial historical distinction in the process. You certainly would not be the first writer to do this. Most jazz historians make the same mistake. You have to look to the historians who study race to get a more sophisticated understanding of this issue. I've already recommended Dominguez as the the standard general source, and Fiehrer as the more specific jazz-related source.Verklempt 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting exceedingly tiresome. Afro-Creoles had their own culture which, while not wholly separate from White Creole culture, it was certainly distinct/different in many respects. While they may not have called themselves "Afro-Creoles" (we didn't call ourselves African-Americans back in the day, either), they were in many ways culturally distinct from white Creoles. That is not to say they did not embrace the French part of their heritage -- and, in many cases, more so than their African heritage (there was a distinct advantage in doing so, given that blacks were lynched, enslaved, generally oppressed and discriminated against).

Culture is a persistent thing. So-called Creoles of color were perfectly free to celebrate and observe that part of them that was African as well -- and many did. And certainly there were Afro-Creoles who recognized the beautiy and value of their African heritage as well and who identified with their non Afro-Creole, black brethren on some level. And if many didn't do so before they were reclassified as black folks and treated like sh*t, a lot of them certainly did so afterward! ;) After all, most white people -- French Creole or Anglo -- who considered themselves white wouldn't have been caught dead "slumming" with "n-word" musicians in black New Orleans or, later, in Storyville cookin' up jazz -- even if they'd had the musical/cultural sensibilities to do so. There was a cultural affinity/recognition/resonance there between the two groups that classical music training and moving in "white" circles could not/did not obliterate.

Afro-Creole culture was distinct from white French Creole in many ways and, in fact, brought many Africanisms to (white) French Creole culture. Culture isn't easily discarded like a suit of clothes or an old pair of shoes. It's a come-with kind of thing. E.g., there are many African Americans who wholeheartedly embrace many aspects of American culture and many who may even consider themselves "Americans" -- but that doesn't mean there aren't some -- still, after hundreds of years in this nation -- some very, very African things about who we are as a people and our culture. Witness our culture today, its music, dance and other traditions still very deeply/strongly rooted in Mother Africa and our Africa-inspired innovations/contributions to American culture almost 200 years after we invented jazz.

You would have us believe that there was no difference at all between white Creoles -- whites of French colonial families and Africans mixed with Native American and white French -- which is simply absurd on its face, given what we know of how culture as a phenomenon persists and amalgamates with outside cultural influences. One culture may have been preferred or advanced by some Afro-Creoles for reasons of status, or formal education (in this case, in music), and even because of an internalization of white supremacist beliefs and values. My bet is there was a hell of a lot of code-switching going on between proper French and Creole (language) and other cultural aspects beyond language, depending on the company one kept -- just as today with African Americans across socioeconomic levels and the use of SAE and AAVE. History teaches us that one culture generally does not extinguish or supplant another without wholesale genocide. Not even violence and usurpation can accomplish that -- again, the history of my peoples in this nation (Native American and African) is a prime example. What is usually the case when cultures meet/clash is a dialectic, a confluence, a syncretism -- like Catholicism + indigenous African religious belief and practice = Vodun/Candomble/Santería.

Your argument is an utterly false one -- one, I would argue, contorted/twisted to whitewash/Jewify the article -- and one which certainly does not ring true in any respect. deeceevoice 07:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You're attacking a straw man, and demonstrating appalling bigotry in the process.Verklempt 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Overall, deeceevoice's assessment appears broadly correct to me. If I recall correctly, there were different layers of Afro-Creole society, so it's still a simplification. Removal of all mention of the topic would be an unjustified whitewash, "Jewify" is a bit strong and if sources note significance of Jewish elements of contributions, that can be considered in a way that avoids giving it undue weight. As for "appalling bigotry", that looks close to a personal attack and is unacceptable. Please note that WP:NPA is policy. Also note that in my opinion it's completely unjustified. ... dave souza, talk 18:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
(1)No has argued for removing all mention of "Afro-Creoles". I am the one who has consistently advocated more emphasis on their contributions. (2) You are accusing me of a personal attack? You must be joking.Verklempt 03:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
"Jewify" is a reference to an earlier comment I made about Verklempt's addition of a long string of all-Jewish (possibly some white) bandleaders in the article about th emusic in the 1920s. deeceevoice 21:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not make those edits, but it doesn't matter who made them. "Jewify" is still an ugly word, redolent of bigotry when used in the pejorative manner you employ. You should be ashamed of yourself.Verklempt 03:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I should be ashamed of myself?!!! That's funny. So, what about "Jewify" is pejorative? The suffix? Unless one considers the word "Jew" inherently pejorative -- and I certainly don't -- I just don't see it. Perhaps you might want to rethink or assessment of the term. ;) Or, would you have preferred that I used the term "Jew-wash" instead? deeceevoice (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I note that Verklempt accepts that most historians take the approach we have in the article. It is of course possible that the other sources mentioned could suggest an alternative assessment which can be mentioned without giving it undue weight, and proposals for improvements to the brief statement about their position (which I added) can be discussed here. However, it's clear that the African part of their ancestry was what defined their social position from 1894 onwards, however much some of the Afro-Creole community wanted to remain French. It's also clear that their musical education was part of the mix that began jazz, and the current statement is intended to cover that point. .. dave souza, talk 08:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I accept that most jazz historians have (1) been tainted by Jim Crow ideology, and (2) been unfamiliar with the details of NO racial-ethnic distinction. However, the most recent scholarship is of much better quality. This article should acknowledge that the scholarly understanding of this aspect of jazz history is evolving. The question now is: Are the editors here going to take the time to read up on these issues, or are they going to simply reiterate historical mythology that derives from Jim Crow ideology?Verklempt 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Youre comments here demonstrate once againn that you seem not to comprehend anything I've written. deeceevoice 17:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The origins section at present covers these issues, and wild allegations about "jazz historians... tainted by Jim Crow ideology" are not supported by the edits I've been making, or the sources I'm using. However, if Verklempt has further clarifications from the evolving "scholarly understanding of this aspect of jazz history" then proposals for additions to the article will be welcome... dave souza, talk 18:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way: You don't realize how much you don't know about this topic. I say this with all due respect. What you label as "wild allegations" is in fact the current scholarly consensus perspective about early jazz historiography. I'll be happy to give you even more references if you're serious about catching up with recent scholarship. Verklempt 03:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yet you argue on the MOWA and Lumbee pages using outdated science from the 50's through the 70's in order to support your idea of genetic makeup. So, on the one hand, you use modern historical work and ignore older historical work, but on the other hand you ignore modern science in favor of outdated science?David F Lowry 15:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Ridiculous straw man. Please try to stay on topic. Also consider editing in a productive manner, instead of stalking me from page to page.Verklempt 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain to me how this is an off-topic ridiculous straw man "question"? The question is, how do we decide whether to present both old and new scholarship on an equal footing, or discard the old scholarship when the new scholarship either refutes or lessens the impact of the old scholarship? Or did I misunderstand when I thought you intended to minimize older jazz historiography in favor of more modern jazz historiography?David F Lowry 02:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that both old and new should be presented, with an explanation of the evolution. That's what we've been working towards in the Lumbee article. It's not happening in this article, because the major editors don't seem to be familiar with much jazz scholarship at all. Dave Souza is working from a beginner's book, and not even a commonly assigned one. Deecee works mainly from speculation, and the occasional cite to a non-scholarly web page. When the main editors are not interested in informing themselves about the article's topic, you have a recipe for a weak article.Verklempt 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to respond here and collaborate over there.David F Lowry 20:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I have concerns about the accuracy of Verklempt's representation of this so-called "newer scholarship." Completely putting aside possible nefarious motives, I have serious reservations about his ability to properly interpet what he reads. I mean just read the page. I don't know if he's intentionally obtuse or if he simply cannot comprehend or properly assimilate what he reads. He conflates "Creole" as non-black. He argues against the African foundations of jazz with such comments as, "E.g., the notion that spirituals, blues, and ragtime trace back to the Sahel is simply absurd. I have traveled all through the Sahel. They don't have many pianos there, much less a history of ragtime." I mean you've got to wonder.... deeceevoice 05:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Imagine what an honest intellectual argument would have looked like in the above paragraph. (1) An intellectual argument -- by definition -- would not have succumbed to the ad hominem fallacy. (2) An intellectual argument would not have included several straw men in one paragraph. (3) An intellectual argument would have offered citations to evidence. For example, cites to scholars who claim to trace blues back to Africa are not difficult to find. (4) An *honest* intellectual argument would have acknowledged that there is no evidence that spirituals or ragtime originated in the Sahel or west Africa, and that such claims were overstated.Verklempt 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This now has gotten quite amusing. The point is, Verklempt, no one -- and I mean no one -- has ever contended that blues, or spirituals, or ragtime originated in the Sahel. And that's what I mean by your tragic failure to comprehend what actually was written seriously calls into question your ability to comprehend any written source, including the ones you're so fond of paraphrasing herein. I don't trust your ability to read, adequately comprehend and assimilate information. And the more you write, the more convinced I am that you likely haven't a clue about what you're reading. I'm done discussing this with you. It's pointless. deeceevoice 20:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Bailing from this discussion is probably your best option, considering that there is not the slightest evidence that ragtime has anything to do with the Sahel or West Africa, and considering that you haven't read the scholarly jazz history.Verklempt 21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I wonder. It is a problem with V's edits here and elsewhere. I just try to not lose sleep over it.David F Lowry 05:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Bassists

I started thinking about keyboardist Herbie Hancock (briefly "Mwandishi"; I never bought that one). Don't know exactly where you'd put him. (He came along at the tail end of hard bop.) But I don't recall seeing his name. (I could have missed it.) And then I was wondering if Ron Carter had been mentioned, or Ray Brown or Charlie Mingus -- all extremely prominent and highly regarded jazz masters who deserve a mention in any article on jazz. I haven't had time to read this article in full in its current incarnation (or at all lately, frankly), but if these brothers aren't mentioned, then, someone, please, add them. Let's not overlook that bottom! deeceevoice 10:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Is "Jazz" not getting far too long & bogged down in detail?

For instance Deeceevoice 09:57, 28 October 2007 (Talk | contribs) (60,760 bytes) (→Hard Bop - Reworking... the band was so important, you gotta mention it by name.) Of course he's/she's correct but shouldn't that go in the dedicated "Main article: Hard bop"? At some stage someone is going to have to take this whole "Jazz" article, organise it, stop it being such a mess and turn it into the INFORMATION it is surely meant to be a lot closer to Wikip.so-sensible rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.1.40 (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2007

D.c.v. is correct that Blakey & the Jazz Messengers should be mentioned--one of the most influential jazz groups of all time. The accretion of excessive detail is mostly in the sections about early jazz, some of which is incredibly arcane. As far as I'm concerned the sections on bop & beyond are actually too sketchy & should be somewhat fleshed out while the early sections need to be drastically compressed.
The addition of Tyner however is just wrong: he's great but doesn't belong in a paragraph dealing with 1953-54, at which point he hadn't even recorded. --ND 13:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely we ALL may agree with this re the deserving McCoy Tyner, Blakey et al ....... but shouldn't such detail be in the already-existing Hard Bop article rather than weighing down "Jazz"? The "Jazz" article seems to be losing sight of its WP purpose - a pity for "America's ONLY art form"! So who can whip it into shape?81.156.1.40 16:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to work towards is showing the development of jazz and the influence of major names, rather than listing more or less notable names as some sections do at present. If there are areas you think too detailed, it may be worth splitting them off into a new main article and trimming this article back, summary style. .. dave souza, talk 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

... but surely, Dave Souza, this has already happened [eg Hard Bop article] and surely that's where all this boring-to-so-many] detail belongs?81.156.1.40 16:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've avoided doing so -- for obvious reasons -- but now that people are bringing this up, but for starters, how about whittling down that list of exceedingly obscure Jewish/white bands under the subhead of the 1920s? Also I'm rushing and don't know about the McCoy Tyner thing. When I wrote it I wasn't paying attention to the dates -- just the absence of his name. So, if it's off, then change it -- but please keep him in. Perhaps we could do a separate, annotated list of seminal jazz artists (either alpha ordered or by time period) -- if one doesn't already exist and put it in the "See also" section. (Heck. Maybe it's already there, but I'm rushing to gt out the door and to the bank. Gotta go!) deeceevoice 18:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As always, the best thing is to cite sources for the analysis of what's significant, and lists of bands whether pinko-grey or otherwise are not part of the story of development. Will try to push ahead with some ideas on the 20s shortly. .. dave souza, talk 18:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, big duh on that one, Souza. Time to get out the weed whacker on that list. Obscure, obscure, obsure! (Another friggin' street festival in Adams Morgan. Blocked the street, so no bus service. No bank. :( )deeceevoice 18:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Am working on a little gentle pruning, tho it may not end up shorter as proper coverage of Ory, Oliver, Armstrong, Jelly Roll and Bix is needed :) .... dave souza, talk 00:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC) p.s. have worked out what you were rushing about for, sorry to hear that and trust you'll be ok. As it happens, the bank I used in Edinburgh was in Bread Street, guess you are out of same :( ..... dave souza, talk 00:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha. Actually, I've just been trying to make a deposit for the last week. And w/ATMs all over the place, it's easy to get more dough/plata when I need it. Anyway, thanks for your ongoing efforts on the article. I just haven't had much time.... deeceevoice 05:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, hope that works out. Am struggling to resist the temptation to add the essential Blind Willie Dunn's Gin Bottle Four ;) . . dave souza, talk 13:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Shoot. I'd add 'em just on the name alone. lol But back to women in jazz, it really would be nice to add something (perhaps a separate section) about female singers because of the tremendous role they've played, and then the role of women musicians, especially during the war -- bands like the International Sweethearts of Rhythm. Sorry I can't be of much help. I've got deadlines -- and then, of course, that trip to the bank.... deeceevoice 13:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff, Dave de Souza, you've made the 1920s a whole lot better already... please keep on going. [I personallly feel "Some band leaders, like Armstrong and Morton, broke new ground for African Americans in the film industry and performed in Hollywood movies" should go from an over-long & unfocusses article article cos it sounds as if it properly belongs in Movies rather than Music/Jazz.... but feel that should be up to you rather than me 81.156.1.40 08:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)......... but I did then presume to remove "Oakland" as being too much detail in an overlong article - for the same reason [Dave de Souza!] that I might have been tempeted to remove "Morningside" from your list that might have said, "Edinburgh, Morningside & Glasgow".... ok well "The Dean Village" seeing as how it's over a bridge too or "North Queensferry" if you insist on a bigger bridge but that's a lot further PLEASE KEEP ON GOIUNG Dave de Souza - it's getting better....81.156.1.40 08:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I take the point about Oakland, though no doubt some Oaklanders may be upset. The movies bit was a hangover from the previous opening paragraph, and I've commented it out in the interim. If there's no source or it's agreed as unimportant, it can be deleted. Oh, and my great great grandfather or so dropped the "de", while in the days when you had to turn stencils over to get capitals, I took up the affectation of keeping my name lower case. Not a big deal. .. dave souza, talk 09:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Saxophone: Kings of Jazz

The saxophone is a new instrument to the musical world in terms of time. In the specific realm of jazz is the ring leader of the genre, with the close second being the trumpet. Can you really argue with the fact that the sax has changed jazz in it's entirty, from swing to bop, to samba, to fusion and modern. Charlie Parker revolutionized jazz by playing the sax with a classical ensamble. Stan Getz led the short but very important samba movement with his smooth style and grace on his tenor sax. Michael Brecker, who recntly died of a rare form of Lukemia ( i think), was a beast of a player that revolutionized modern jazz. And then there's Jimmy Picket from Tower of Power who brought sax to the funk style. I rest my case on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.50.153.2 (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency in "Definitional Concerns"

I was trying to find a source for the Ellington quote in the first paragraph. It's supposed to refer to Ellington's definition of jazz. "It's all music." However, while looking it up I found that it is actually a Charlie Parker quote "It's all music, man." and while it doe imply that jazz is all music, it's actually Parker's response to the fact that he use more white musicians than any other band leader at the time. I have the reference.

Anyway, I was wondering if I should just go in and delete that and change it, or how I should move forward with this.

Thanks,

(Imjusttired) 16:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and change it, and cite your reference. Be bold :) It's possible Ellington said it too, of course, but you have a reference for Parker and there is none as yet for Ellington. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

caps

I don't think "bebop" is usually capitalized - it's become a regular noun/adjective in english, like "jazz", "big-band", "swing", "vaudeville", etc. - Special-T (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It has not become such a generalized noun, and when discussing the different subcategories of jazz in the article, it should be capitalized. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't capitalize music genres on Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Musical_genres - nor should we. There is no good reason bebop should be an exception to this that I know of. Also it's consistently lowercase in the article, so you could have at least changed it in every instance. But don't please. :D 86.42.83.73 (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edits

According to the person with a IP address, I have to come here and "discuss" the changes I just made to the page, none of which took out or added any content, but only simplified the page, improving its layout 1000% and removing a duplicated template box. And to that person: asking me to come here was not all you did, what you did was revert my edits twice with no reason. Get an account if you want to go around like you own the place.Cosprings (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for coming. I'm afraid there are some problems with your changes. The most serious ones are content related. For instance, you delete the note under the Origins section which read "See Origin of the Blues" and then change the first sentence to "The origins of Jazz lie in the Origins of the blues." This statement is not true. (Also it has a capital "o" in it that it shouldn't have. Same with other new first sentences.) What's the thinking behind removing the directions to sub-articles and trying to incorporate them as wikilinks in the first sentence? Does it look better to you? Is there a style guide you're following?

Changing the section named Definitional Concerns to Definition, you then put a note in directing readers to an article, despite the fact you've been changing this format throughout. The article you direct them to is about the etymology of the word jazz, which is not what the section is about. Also when you reverted me, you took out content that I had added. So these are some content concerns.

This article has a lot of pictures. It looks a bit cluttered either way. I took one out but you reverted that. I think if you put them all to the right it's a relentless distracting cascade. Also one of them is actually obscuring the text.

So if you could explain your changes, that would be great. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so by way of fixing typos, inaccuracies and obscuring of the text, I'm going to again revert back to RepublicanJacobite's version. Then I'm going to take out Image:Dixie-was-Born-.jpg and add Buddy Bolden info. Any objections to this? I'm not sure having pics both sides looks much better, but it does seem to connect the images to the article and will dispose of the current technical hiccup. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I contented myself with merely cleaning up your errors, though it was more work than reverting. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Origin of Jazz

People need to understand the differences between blues and jazz before they start giving out wrong information concerning the origin of jazz. Blues was originally conceived by African Americans in their communities and among slaves. However, jazz music dates back to the age of Romanticism music (Beethoven, Bach, Chopin, etc).

In musical terms, blues music usually goes along the lines of a 1-4-5 chord progressions. The most famous progression you hear in blues is the "twelve-bar blues", used in such songs as "Before You Accuse Me" by Eric Clapton. The chords go: 1-4-1-1-4-4-1-1-5-4-1-5, each number receiving one bar, or four counts, of music, hence the name "Twelve-bar blues." Practically ever twelve-bar blues song you hear goes along this line of chord changes.

The most famous jazz progression is the 2-5-1. This is also the basic chord progression for Tonal Music, which is basically what Romanticism created long ago. Every jazz song you listen to will usually use a 2-5-1 pattern in order to return to the original key of the song. Other chord progressions such as 3-6-2-5-1 are simply extensions of that pattern. What the African Americans did bring to jazz was the swing feel they used in blues music, but as far as the chord progressions and theories behind jazz, that was invented by Romanticism.

This article is correct in the sense that European music influenced the African Americans. But they did not invent jazz. That is an incorrect statement that has long been stated. It wasn't until slaves were released by the Emancipation Proclamation that white Americans taught them music theory and how to use the instruments. I'm not by any means taking away from the love of African American jazz because they definitely have helped it along the way. But as far as who invented it, white people deserve the true credit.

All music is practically the same in the end. What to credit people with is always questionable. Miles Davis was a racist to the majority of white Americans because he thought they were "copying" the black people. Statements like this only intensify the racial separation in music. Let's face it, the Trumpets and Cornets in which Miles Davis used were invented by white people.

So the inventors of Jazz should be Bach and Mozart or may Adolf Sax. This is non sense. Jazz is a style of music which originated in the USA during the nineteenth century. I believe all encyclopaedia agree on this. Vb 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.222.22 (talk)
To say that "jazz music dates back to the age of Romanticism" is to completely undermine all musical forms today, not just jazz. I think it is well understood where most tonal music (and non-tonal) comes from - classical music - and saying that jazz came from white people 200 years ago in Europe can also be said about most other music today. It is safe to assume that, and in turn we must explain the greater details of jazz's roots. Someone did not just say, "Hey look at this chord progression - if you play it with a swung back beat and improvise, we have jazz!" No, it developed just like every other form of music today. --Ignatiuswiki 02:06 2 March 2008 (UTC)
agreed, this is ridiculously racist. Here's another statement using the same logical incoherency: I know several local Arabs who play khaligi music on electronic keyboards tuned appropriately. The keyboards were designed by Japanese companies, therefore the Japanese deserve credit for the khaligi music. Ya, right. Here's another one: Just because some black folks learned some western music theory to help their music doesn't mean they are indebted to whites. Music doesn't need theory -- theory needs music. Theory can contribute to music or it can bog it down. Jazz thrived in large part because of the absence of any emphasis on theory -- people just learned what the heard and what they liked, and used it. It's the oral tradition, in music, and an African-American heritage.Youngea (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If you were better informed on early jazz history, you'd know that your assumption that early musicans were unschooled or ignorant of theory is an absurd and inaccurate generalization.Verklempt (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, so quick with the ad-hominems, straw men, and pleas to authority. Nowhere did I say that any early musicians were "unschooled or ignorant of theory." What we consider to be theory has likely been around for millennia all over the world. My point was about emphasis on western theory vs oral tradition, or a comment about jazz as existing on the cusp between the written and oral traditions as it now stands. You are failing to make any distinction between how the art form reproduces itself and how it is objectified and studied by musicologists and historians. What makes you so high and mighty and infallible on this subject? If you don't think you are, then why do you act that way? Youngea (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
On the substantive part of your comment: Nearly all of the great jazz musicians are schooled and literate. I reject your false dichotomy "wsetern theory v. oral". Jazz has been reproduced in a variety of ways, since the beginning. On your ad hominem part: You label people "racist" who simply disagree with you, and then you wonder why you get a hostile response?Verklempt (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Subgenres in the lede

Can we have done with the altering of the subgenres in the last paragraph of the lede? The subgenres listed there does not have to match exactly with what is listed in the table of contents, despite what the anonymous user thinks. The subgenres paragraph was written, argued over, altered, and finally a compromise was reached. It has stood, unchanged, for quite some time, and I think it is fine as it is. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My two cents - it's clunky and cluttered as it stands now (and had stood for some time) and was clearer and more straightforward with the changes that were made. - Special-T (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Another option is to remove it altogether. Why list some subgenres in the lede, and leave out others? If we were to list every subgenre in that paragraph, it would be unwieldy, but how do we choose what is important enough to list? I happen to believe it is fine as it stands, but if we cannot agree, it might be best to simply remove it. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that para is fine as is. There are more pressing problems with this article.Verklempt (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I quite agree. Let's leave it as it is. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)