[besson3c]

A jazz trumpet player named Nicholas Payton has sparked a pretty huge debate in jazz, but this actually deals with subject matter far bigger than jazz or any other kind of music.

Payton, to paraphrase, has said that jazz has its roots in white colonialism and supremacy, that many jazz musicians back in the day such as Duke Ellington and Miles Davis rejected the label "jazz", and we should too since jazz is dead and hasn't been cool since 1959. He wants to rename the music "Black American Music", and wants blacks to "take back what was never ours to begin with". The term "jazz" was originally derogatory, and black artists were quite obviously oppressed and mistreated - Louis Armstrong probably worse than anybody (who was probably bigger than any modern pop star we have ever known), but well after the apex of his popularity as well. He feels that white powers and racism at that time were largely what drove jazz to become unpopular and uncool post 1959, and that it has never recovered nor has the term really ever served musicians of any color well.

He has also said that while he'd advocate for the music to be called Black American Music that it is for everyone, and that while jazz is clearly dead improvised music can never really die, because so much of music deals with a component of improvisation, and the art of improv is what is at the heart of jazz.

Anyway, if you want to read more from Payton and his thoughts about jazz and race in America you can do so here: Nicholas Payton | The Cherub Speaks…. . I'm not saying I agree with him on the above points, perhaps I'll get to my beliefs in a subsequent post, but I found all of this interesting nonetheless...


Out of this though I think are some interesting questions that, like I said, go well beyond the scope of music.

At what point is it no longer appropriate to attach the appropriate attributes/inventors to an invention?

Can art be effectively rebranded? We come up with all of these labels to define things that are newish, one label that Payton mentioned was "post-modern New Orleans music", but there are all sorts of musical sub-sub-subgenres, many of them which are just tweaked versions of something else. Can one of these sub-sub-subgenres take on a significant life of its own under a new name, or will it always be limited in popularity? How about "alternative rock", for example?

This isn't the first time that somebody has complained about corporatization ruining something that used to be cool. In this case there is a racial component, but where there is popularity there will always be money and power interested and invested. Do you ever wonder about what could be if money and power didn't drive some things into the ground, or help prevent things that could be cool from being known?

[imitchellg5]

I think that introducing a cultural construction, such as "race" into music, which is an art form enjoyed by all, is a bad idea.

Obviously African Americans have really created and refined the genre of modern jazz, but saying that it has roots in white exceptionalism may be introducing social issues that don't need to be present, especially since, well, to put it bluntly, a large percentage of African Americans wouldn't be here without colonialism and the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

In terms of actual music, I think it's difficult to distinguish between African-American jazz and a white dude playing jazz, at least to my untrained ears, unless there are vocals involved. Therefore I'm not sure it could be a successful sub-genre. There are acoustical and thematic differences between alternative rock and rock, for example, but I don't really see one here.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I think that introducing a cultural construction, such as "race" into music, which is an art form enjoyed by all, is a bad idea.

Obviously African Americans have really created and refined the genre of modern jazz, but saying that it has roots in white exceptionalism may be introducing social issues that don't need to be present, especially since, well, to put it bluntly, a large percentage of African Americans wouldn't be here without colonialism and the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

African Americans have created the genre of all jazz, really, not just modern jazz. If any it would be the reverse - a bigger part of it in its early going.

I also disagree that trying to discount the presence of race in music is a smart thing to do. Do you remember how much Vanilla Ice was mocked and ridiculed? Would he have been subject to this same ridicule if he were Chocolate Ice? Let's face it, music and race are intertwined.

In terms of actual music, I think it's difficult to distinguish between African-American jazz and a white dude playing jazz, at least to my untrained ears, unless there are vocals involved. Therefore I'm not sure it could be a successful sub-genre. There are acoustical and thematic differences between alternative rock and rock, for example, but I don't really see one here.

It depends on the style and period of Jazz, I'd say. It's pretty hard to envision a white dude on some of those early blues records, but I think the whole idea of Black American Music would be to respect the music's heritage, and allow its future to be controlled by its inventors.

I have doubts that this will have a positive impact, but I'm just sharing the thought process here as I understand it.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It depends on the style and period of Jazz, I'd say. It's pretty hard to envision a white dude on some of those early blues records, but I think the whole idea of Black American Music would be to respect the music's heritage, and allow its future to be controlled by its inventors.

I have doubts that this will have a positive impact, but I'm just sharing the thought process here as I understand it.

Yes, in the early records, sure. But nowadays, jazz is just as much a "white" genre. A stupid example, I know, but one thing that always comes to mind is the Cosby Show when you see a group of white and blacks get together in some random Brooklyn bar and have a jam session. That's obviously not representative of the picture as a whole, but if you walk into a bar in New Orleans or Brooklyn today, it's pretty typical to find a "mixed" band playing.

I use quotations because I view race as a societal construction, not scientific fact.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Yes, in the early records, sure. But nowadays, jazz is just as much a "white" genre. A stupid example, I know, but one thing that always comes to mind is the Cosby Show when you see a group of white and blacks get together in some random Brooklyn bar and have a jam session. That's obviously not representative of the picture as a whole, but if you walk into a bar in New Orleans or Brooklyn today, it's pretty typical to find a "mixed" band playing.

I use quotations because I view race as a societal construction, not scientific fact.

It is indeed, and Payton wouldn't deny that. He plays with a lot of white musicians himself.

Is "country" an accurate representation of what country music is all about?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is indeed, and Payton wouldn't deny that. He plays with a lot of white musicians himself.

Is "country" an accurate representation of what country music is all about?

That's sort of a loaded question. Country, especially today, is a very analogous genre. There are variations within country, like pop-country (Taylor Swift or Lady Antebellum), Country Western (John Denver), etc.

I can definitely see your point. However, I don't think that these sub-genres were a result of a conscious push by an artist. They're more a fluid evolution of changing tastes within a larger genre, and artists pop up that identify with those certain aesthetics.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

That's sort of a loaded question. Country, especially today, is a very analogous genre. There are variations within country, like pop-country (Taylor Swift or Lady Antebellum), Country Western (John Denver), etc.

I can definitely see your point. However, I don't think that these sub-genres were a result of a conscious push by an artist. They're more a fluid evolution of changing tastes within a larger genre, and artists pop up that identify with those certain aesthetics.

Well, Payton is not trying to do this single-handedly, he's trying to lead a great many jazz musicians into this direction which is one of the purposes of his blog and other social networking stuff.

I don't understand your point about how genres reflect changing tastes. Genres are a synthetic invention, and a great many artists reject quite vehemently being tied to a genre and all of the stuff that goes along with it. While genres can be confining, they also shape perceptions, and I think the main objective here is to change the perception that the music is uncool.

I don't really understand the essence of cool and whether the music or anything like it could ever be cool again, but it is interesting that artists are trying to shape perceptions in this case, rather than musical sponsors.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't understand your point about how genres reflect changing tastes. Genres are a synthetic invention, and a great many artists reject quite vehemently being tied to a genre and all of the stuff that goes along with it. While genres can be confining, they also shape perceptions, and I think the main objective here is to change the perception that the music is uncool.

I both agree and disagree with your analysis here. Yes, major genres are absolutely a synthetic invention, and yes, many artists do reject them. And they do certainly shape perceptions. However, I think that these sub-genres are more fluid in nature. Certain sounds or styles crop up, and then someone eventually comes up with some catchy name. Synthetic still? Absolutely. But the process of actually getting a sub-genre remains organic. It's all very existential I suppose.

[ebuddy]

The African-American influence on gospel, rock and roll, rap, and hip-hop are also unmistakable and while I might be in favor of replacing "jazz" with "self-indulgent virtuosity", calling it "African-American Music" is not only moronic, but might be downright patronizing to African-Americans who don't particularly care for or about that style of music that they'd want it to somehow be an integral part of their identity.

Besides, most jazz enthusiasts wouldn't simply call it "jazz" anyway would they? I mean, there's a big difference between ragtime and fusion.

[imitchellg5]

You have some good points. Music is a particularly tough subject because, like you say, certain types do form people's cultural identity. In the West especially, we form stereotypes of people based on what we perceive as their musical tastes. For example, Caribbean music that you hear on TV all the time. If you were to actually go to Jamaica, you wouldn't hear kids blasting that music out of their stereos. It'd be Eminem, Rihanna, or Jay Z.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

He has also said that while he'd advocate for the music to be called Black American Music that it is for everyone

If you're looking at music by the color of its roots and feel need to claim some kind of racial ownership for a genre, you've lost the game long before you've even played. Also, what the hell does "for everyone" mean?

[Chongo]

Was Luke the Drifter the first rapper?
I've Been Down That Road Before - Luke The Drifter - YouTube

[Jawbone54]

We should be driving towards a post-race culture, not away from it. Labeling jazz "Black American Music" is not only racist in itself, but also isolates white fans of jazz.

I'm breaking my no Pol/War Lounge rule all over the place this week.

[OAW]

Ok. I read some of Mr. Payton's blog. My take is that he's someone who's made a few valid points but they are unfortunately tied into a fundamentally flawed premise. He wants to take issue with the origins of the term "Jazz"? Fine. That's his prerogative. He wants to rail against major music labels being a form of "corporate slavery". Fine. There's a lot of truth to that as well. But at the end of the day he is stating his opinion as fact .... and he has utterly failed to see the difference. I couldn't put it any better if I tried so I'll just reiterate what my man said because that sums it up perfectly:

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The African-American influence on gospel, rock and roll, rap, and hip-hop are also unmistakable and while I might be in favor of replacing "jazz" with "self-indulgent virtuosity", calling it "African-American Music" is not only moronic, but might be downright patronizing to African-Americans who don't particularly care for or about that style of music that they'd want it to somehow be an integral part of their identity.

Now as to the questions in the OP itself. Jazz has evolved to the point where it can no longer be claimed to be an exclusively or even a predominantly African-American form of musical expression. There are plenty of musicians of varying ethnicities who play jazz. And if jazz musicians had to depend on the African-American audience to make a living ... they would most definitely starve. And in this context when I say "jazz" I mean what many would call "straight ahead jazz". Why? Because the flip side to all of this is that African-American musical expression has evolved to the point where "jazz" is nowhere near as popular as it used to be with African-American audiences. There's a certain audience among the older set for what many would call "smooth jazz". But even that is dwarfed in comparison to the audiences for R&B, Hip-Hop, and Neo-Soul. Now Mr. Payton says that he is not a "jazz" musician ... he plays "Black American Music". But what does that mean really? Considering the fact that "Jazz", "Blues", "Gospel", "Early Rock & Roll", "Soul", "Funk", "R&B", "Hip-Hop", and "Neo-Soul" all fall into that category? Mr. Payton says that he plays "Post-Modern New Orleans music". But again, what does that mean really? Especially considering the fact that Lil' Wayne can say the same thing? I'm going to have to ask the brother to build a bridge and get over himself. Because what he apparently sees as his "intellectualism", "genius", and a capacity for "critical thinking" seems a lot more like he's riding his own d*ck to me.

Which would be one thing if he was still putting out really good music like this ....

iTunes - Music - Into the Blue by Nicholas Payton

But when he puts a self-indulgent post in his blog in the wake of releasing this kind of garbage ....

iTunes - Music - Bitches by Nicholas Payton

... I'm really going to have to ask him to slow his roll. Now if he as a musician wants to explore other forms of musical expression then fine ... whatever. That's on him. Musically it was all over the map. Just not my cup of tea. But I would simply suggest that he seek out medical attention real soon ... because he must have fell and bumped his head and got to thinking that he was a really talented vocalist. Which he assuredly is not. He managed to carry a decent tune on the "Blue" track on that first album. Mainly because it was a simple arrangement well-suited for his mediocre vocal capabilities. But on this latest effort Mr. Payton is a prime example of what the old folks used to say .... "You give some people a rope and they want to be a cowboy!"

OAW

[Doofy]

Solution: Simply change the word "jazz" to "shit". It's more appropriate and descriptive, and since all ethnicities take a shit, there's no racial connotation.

Job done.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

We should be driving towards a post-race culture, not away from it. Labeling jazz "Black American Music" is not only racist in itself, but also isolates white fans of jazz.

I'm breaking my no Pol/War Lounge rule all over the place this week.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I'm breaking my no Pol/War Lounge rule all over the place this week.

I think you're stalking me.

<3

[Jawbone54]

Muah.

[The Final Dakar]

besson?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The African-American influence on gospel, rock and roll, rap, and hip-hop are also unmistakable and while I might be in favor of replacing "jazz" with "self-indulgent virtuosity", calling it "African-American Music" is not only moronic, but might be downright patronizing to African-Americans who don't particularly care for or about that style of music that they'd want it to somehow be an integral part of their identity.

But it is a part of their heritage. Some blacks may not want a history slavery to be a part of their identity either, yet it's there to embrace or ignore.

Besides, most jazz enthusiasts wouldn't simply call it "jazz" anyway would they? I mean, there's a big difference between ragtime and fusion.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If you're looking at music by the color of its roots and feel need to claim some kind of racial ownership for a genre, you've lost the game long before you've even played. Also, what the hell does "for everyone" mean?

"For everyone" meaning that you do not have to be black to make or enjoy the music. Not that "permission" is ever needed, but there is something about genres like Hip Hop and Country that are racially dominated.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

We should be driving towards a post-race culture, not away from it. Labeling jazz "Black American Music" is not only racist in itself, but also isolates white fans of jazz.

I'm breaking my no Pol/War Lounge rule all over the place this week.

That's a valid point, and is part of what keeps me from feeling wholly comfortable with the label.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

"For everyone" meaning that you do not have to be black to make or enjoy the music. Not that "permission" is ever needed, but there is something about genres like Hip Hop and Country that are racially dominated.

Doesn't that strike you as a pretty ****ed up way of thinking?

"I can't prevent you from listening (or enjoying) this, and I wouldn't know either way, but I give you my blessing."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now as to the questions in the OP itself. Jazz has evolved to the point where it can no longer be claimed to be an exclusively or even a predominantly African-American form of musical expression. There are plenty of musicians of varying ethnicities who play jazz. And if jazz musicians had to depend on the African-American audience to make a living ... they would most definitely starve. And in this context when I say "jazz" I mean what many would call "straight ahead jazz". Why? Because the flip side to all of this is that African-American musical expression has evolved to the point where "jazz" is nowhere near as popular as it used to be with African-American audiences. There's a certain audience among the older set for what many would call "smooth jazz". But even that is dwarfed in comparison to the audiences for R&B, Hip-Hop, and Neo-Soul. Now Mr. Payton says that he is not a "jazz" musician ... he plays "Black American Music". But what does that mean really? Considering the fact that "Jazz", "Blues", "Gospel", "Early Rock & Roll", "Soul", "Funk", "R&B", "Hip-Hop", and "Neo-Soul" all fall into that category? Mr. Payton says that he plays "Post-Modern New Orleans music". But again, what does that mean really? Especially considering the fact that Lil' Wayne can say the same thing? I'm going to have to ask the brother to build a bridge and get over himself. Because what he apparently sees as his "intellectualism", "genius", and a capacity for "critical thinking" seems a lot more like he's riding his own d*ck to me.

Yeah, it seems weird to replace one troubled and fundamentally flawed label with another that is flawed if nothing more because it is a label, but I guess there is a need for some sort of labeling to exist, right?

Which would be one thing if he was still putting out really good music like this ....

iTunes - Music - Into the Blue by Nicholas Payton

But when he puts a self-indulgent post in his blog in the wake of releasing this kind of garbage ....

iTunes - Music - Bitches by Nicholas Payton

... I'm really going to have to ask him to slow his roll. Now if he as a musician wants to explore other forms of musical expression then fine ... whatever. That's on him. Musically it was all over the map. Just not my cup of tea. But I would simply suggest that he seek out medical attention real soon ... because he must have fell and bumped his head and got to thinking that he was a really talented vocalist. Which he assuredly is not. He managed to carry a decent tune on the "Blue" track on that first album. Mainly because it was a simple arrangement well-suited for his mediocre vocal capabilities. But on this latest effort Mr. Payton is a prime example of what the old folks used to say .... "You give some people a rope and they want to be a cowboy!"

OAW

I agree with you, but this is all completely irrelevant to the points he was making. This is another problem I have with the dialog going on surrounding his blog. Some people come out in support or against him based on his musical credentials and creds in the world of trumpet playing, but to me getting into the whole line of thinking that involves points only being valid of their music is likable is both problematic in that this means that nobody can say anything since nobody is universally liked, and hurtful to these artists on a personal level.

I know this is going to sound touchy feely, but musical success (i.e. not commercial success, which is a whole other matter) is a combination of natural talent, discipline, vision, perseverance, probably some other similar adjectives, and a bunch of complex mental stuff. What I mean by the complex mental stuff is that different people learn different things at different paces, and sometimes this lack of knowledge can be a bottleneck to music making. Sometimes learning new things can transform a musician seemingly overnight, sometimes it can take years. Other times musicians never figure stuff out and they are perpetually limited.

Therefore, it's never a good idea to start slamming any disciplined and committed musician because wherever they are deficient in today can be overcome and in 5 years or whatever you can go from hating their music to adoring it or at least liking it. Look at all of the artists where you can say that you hate their newer stuff but love their older stuff, or vice versa. Not only have they changed as musicians over the years, but so have their tastes and your tastes as a listener. This is what I mean by "complex mental stuff". If you hate their newer stuff but love their older stuff, how can you hate that musician as a whole? If you hate their present stuff but may love their future stuff, can you say the same?

We are all on different paths. I'm not saying that everybody will eventually find success or even most musicians will, but one has to be careful about slamming committed musicians. To say that you don't care for what they are doing or that you find them musically deficient in specific areas is one thing (and often these areas are completely obvious), but to say that they are a fence musician overall is what I think is mostly smart to avoid. I say "committed" very particularly, because all of this only applies to musicians who have made a very conscious decision to really go after getting better aggressively, not just sort of hobbyists.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Solution: Simply change the word "jazz" to "shit". It's more appropriate and descriptive, and since all ethnicities take a shit, there's no racial connotation.

Job done.

Paging Turtle777: this is the definition of trolling.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

besson?

Hi Dakar, what's up?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Doesn't that strike you as a pretty ****ed up way of thinking?

"I can't prevent you from listening (or enjoying) this, and I wouldn't know either way, but I give you my blessing."

Yes, it is definitely a problematic word choice, but I just used it because he used it throughout his blog.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, it is definitely a problematic word choice, but I just used it because he used it throughout his blog.

Dude, it's not the word choice that's the issue. He's actually thinking that way. He thinking of genres in terms of racial ownership. It's completely backwards and pointless, and in reality, highly counterproductive.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Dude, it's not the word choice that's the issue. He's actually thinking that way. He thinking of genres in terms of racial ownership. It's completely backwards and pointless, and in reality, highly counterproductive.

Right on.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Dude, it's not the word choice that's the issue. He's actually thinking that way. He thinking of genres in terms of racial ownership. It's completely backwards and pointless, and in reality, highly counterproductive.

Don't you think that genres already have a racial ownership?

How about my example of Vanilla Ice?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Don't you think that genres already have a racial ownership?

How about my example of Vanilla Ice?

Vanilla Ice isn't a genre and if we're talking about rap or hip-hop, neither would want in any manner to be associated with Vanilla Ice.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Vanilla Ice isn't a genre and if we're talking about rap or hip-hop, neither would want in any manner to be associated with Vanilla Ice.

That's exactly my point.

Vanilla Ice was ridiculed because he was a white guy trying to be a black guy, or a white musician trying to be a black musician, which is probably the same thing here.

If Vanilla Ice were just your archetypical white guy, what would the results have been? Why was we pretending to be black?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

But it is a part of their heritage. Some blacks may not want a history slavery to be a part of their identity either, yet it's there to embrace or ignore.

Slavery was the plight, spirituals and the blues (which both predate jazz) were an element of that plight. Jazz is considered to be a mesh of African rhythms and European marches and one could argue that jazz would not exist without this combination of stylings. The arguments for the former examples might make more sense, but jazz is a package of genres and really doesn't offer anything to identify with.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Call ragtime, ragtime and fusion, fusion. How does "jazz" even indicate what genre of music you're talking about?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Slavery was the plight, spirituals and the blues (which both predate jazz) were an element of that plight. Jazz is considered to be a mesh of African rhythms and European marches and one could argue that jazz would not exist without this combination of stylings. The arguments for the former examples might make more sense, but jazz is a package of genres and really doesn't offer anything to identify with.

If your point is that jazz has no real definition, this is true and has been since its inception.

Still, and I'm not sure if you are picking this apart because you think this is central to my point or are trying to make a point of you own, my point is that the music that we think of as jazz was invented by African Americans, and is therefore a part of the constitution of what it means to be a black American whether a black American chooses to embrace this or ignore this. That there is a history tethered to a race involving its people and accomplishments applies to every race.

Call ragtime, ragtime and fusion, fusion. How does "jazz" even indicate what genre of music you're talking about?

Like I said, it's vague, ambiguous, and as Payton would say, has roots in white supremacy. Jazz literally has no definition. It certainly generally deals with improvisation, but jazz can even be entirely unimprovised as well. Bach improvised too, so where does that leave us?

It doesn't indicate what style of music one is talking about, but what goes along with it is preconceptions shaped by exposure to a certain kind of jazz, and definitely the notion that it is uncool.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Vanilla Ice isn't a genre

That would be an interesting genre though, you have to admit!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Don't you think that genres already have a racial ownership?

How the hell does someone own a genre?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If your point is that jazz has no real definition, this is true and has been since its inception.

Still, and I'm not sure if you are picking this apart because you think this is central to my point or are trying to make a point of you own, my point is that the music that we think of as jazz was invented by African Americans, and is therefore a part of the constitution of what it means to be a black American whether a black American chooses to embrace this or ignore this. That there is a history tethered to a race involving its people and accomplishments applies to every race.

I wasn't picking anything apart. I just gave my .02 on why I thought the idea was silly. The reason it is distinctly African-American is because it differs enough from its influences to the degree that it would be its own genre of music. Those influences again, include European marches and stylings from an era referred to as antebellum which also gave much to the blues and various, later forms of jazz.

Like I said, it's vague, ambiguous, and as Payton would say, has roots in white supremacy. Jazz literally has no definition. It certainly generally deals with improvisation, but jazz can even be entirely unimprovised as well. Bach improvised too, so where does that leave us?

I get the argument about the ambiguity of "jazz", but I don't think Black American Music offers any more specificity. In fact, I think it lends itself only to more ambiguity. If Nicholas Payton were this concerned for terminology, perhaps he'd offer some articles on the importance of removing the term "n_____" from its common usage among blacks and others who are infinitely more aware of its derogatory roots.

It doesn't indicate what style of music one is talking about, but what goes along with it is preconceptions shaped by exposure to a certain kind of jazz, and definitely the notion that it is uncool

I think this shenanigan is a struggle for the relevance of a genre of music that is frankly above most in its methods. In terms of what to call the various forms? Why not ragtime, blues, fusion, etc? I don't think exacerbating racial division makes it any more cool.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How the hell does someone own a genre?

ownership, domination, whatever word you want to use...

You don't see many successful white Hip Hop dudes and you don't see many successful white Country dudes, right?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ownership, domination, whatever word you want to use...

Don't give me this indifferent crap, define what the hell is meant, otherwise how can a meaningful discussion be had?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Don't give me this indifferent crap, define what the hell is meant, otherwise how can a meaningful discussion be had?

It's not indifference, just an interest in avoiding semantic arguments. I think you know what I was getting at.

[The Final Dakar]

No, I don't, otherwise I wouldn't be asking.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ownership, domination, whatever word you want to use...

You don't see many successful white Hip Hop dudes and you don't see many successful white Country dudes, right?

Actually the most successful Hip Hop artist in the last decade in terms of record sales is Eminem. The only other Hip Hop artists to come close in that time frame are Jay-Z and Nelly. With maybe Lil' Wayne bringing up the rear. Go figure.

Which brings me back to my point. Even when a particular genre of music is originated or predominantly created by African-Americans ... that same community will embrace artists of other ethnicities if they respect the art and bring true skills to the game. Vanilla Ice wasn't ridiculed because he was white. He was ridiculed because his record label promoted him as if he was hood ... when in reality he was a middle-class white dude named Rob Van Winkle. Turned out the fake biography that was put out about him was done by the label supposedly without his knowledge. But anyone who is into Hip Hop and is old enough to remember can recall that although he was the first white Hip Hop artist to really blow up commercially ... he wasn't the first to find and audience in the black community. That would The Beastie Boys with their seminal debut album "Licensed To Ill" way back in 1986. You even had 3rd Bass to a lesser degree. And who could ever forget the Hip Hop classic "Jump Around" by House of Pain?

OAW

[BadKosh]

The HISTORY of Jass/Jazz as relayed in the original post seems somehow incorrect, missing much detail, and ignores the drive to become famous through music. where would modern jazz be without Stan Kenton?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The HISTORY of Jass/Jazz as relayed in the original post seems somehow incorrect, missing much detail, and ignores the drive to become famous through music. where would modern jazz be without Stan Kenton?

Do enlighten us all.

Stan Kenton is a footnote in jazz history. He's not that big of a deal, although I like his bands very much.

[ebuddy]

It's about the dollars y'all! Hard like the streets!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Actually the most successful Hip Hop artist in the last decade in terms of record sales is Eminem. The only other Hip Hop artists to come close in that time frame are Jay-Z and Nelly. With maybe Lil' Wayne bringing up the rear. Go figure.

There have been wildly successful white jazz musicians too, and if you want to talk about commercial success only you have Harry James et all in the big band era.

However, the innovators and pioneers of jazz with real staying power are dominantly African America, and likewise for Hip Hop. When you think of Hip Hop or Jazz sure you think of Eminem and Bill Evans and many of the other important white contributions, but your archetype is African American, the sort of faces that flood to the front of your mind.

Which brings me back to my point. Even when a particular genre of music is originated or predominantly created by African-Americans ... that same community will embrace artists of other ethnicities if they respect the art and bring true skills to the game. Vanilla Ice wasn't ridiculed because he was white. He was ridiculed because his record label promoted him as if he was hood ... when in reality he was a middle-class white dude named Rob Van Winkle. Turned out the fake biography that was put out about him was done by the label supposedly without his knowledge. But anyone who is into Hip Hop and is old enough to remember can recall that although he was the first white Hip Hop artist to really blow up commercially ... he wasn't the first to find and audience in the black community. That would The Beastie Boys with their seminal debut album "Licensed To Ill" way back in 1986. You even had 3rd Bass to a lesser degree. And who could ever forget the Hip Hop classic "Jump Around" by House of Pain?

OAW

I've addressed the point you are trying to make about how there are plenty of successful whites in Hip Hop, but as far as Vanilla Ice goes, I'm not sure how I understand how Vanilla Ice was forced to go along with this entire schtick by his record label against his will. I think that he saw an opportunity to cash in on all of the attention he could get challenging racial barriers and doing what he did.

[ghporter]

Jazz is American music, whether it started with African rhythms and melodies or not. I'll also point out that both Big Band and Rock developed from Jazz, and they're hardly the territory of one "race*" in any context.

l can't say that Jazz has always been "acceptable" in all of American society, but it is truly an American genre. We have a really crappy record of dealing with groups that are "different" from some idealized concept of what America is about. But "claiming" a genre of music as "belonging to" this group or that group is more about separation than about pointing out that a genre, like Jazz, originated with a certain group.

*My personal opinion is that there is ONE race of humans, and that everything else is simply insignificant details.

[quesera]

We spent a nice evening at Tucker's Kozy Korner a few nights ago, listening to Jim Cullum's jazz band. Band was all white, and quite alright, Basie and blues and Body and Soul. The wall of portraits of prominent 20th Century black Americans stared down approvingly, except for Condoleeza Rice's magazine cover, which seemed to harbor some vague discomfort. The black and white and brown clientele cheered and interjected frequently, encouraging the Canadian bassist, and generally whooped it up, as socially lubricated crowds tend to do.

The best part of all, no one talked about what it was or wasn't, musically or otherwise.

God I hate it when people talk about music instead of listening to it, playing it, or loving it.

On a side note, I think I may have scored an apparently scarce copy of the Louis Armstrong box set that came out recently. Keeping my fingers crossed for these interweb tubes to work.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There have been wildly successful white jazz musicians too, and if you want to talk about commercial success only you have Harry James et all in the big band era.

However, the innovators and pioneers of jazz with real staying power are dominantly African America, and likewise for Hip Hop. When you think of Hip Hop or Jazz sure you think of Eminem and Bill Evans and many of the other important white contributions, but your archetype is African American, the sort of faces that flood to the front of your mind.

None of this justifies labeling music by race.

Art is supposed to speak to everyone equally, even if it only resonates with some. I don't see how assigning a racial tag to an entire genre of music is anything less than saying, "This is OURS, get your white hands off it." It's divisive and downright ludicrous.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

None of this justifies labeling music by race.

Art is supposed to speak to everyone equally, even if it only resonates with some. I don't see how assigning a racial tag to an entire genre of music is anything less than saying, "This is OURS, get your white hands off it." It's divisive and downright ludicrous.

I would agree that the effects of this label would be mixed, one of the negatives being what you describe here. I was just speaking to the whole concept of archetypes and associations, as well as inventors. It is accurate to say that jazz is black American music in its roots, but smart is a whole other matter.