SwingDJs

It's interesting how often it comes up. And the perspectives seem to widely vary.
I know some make a distinction between blues and jazz-blues. And some jazz musicians
will say they don't play blues. Whereas others will insist on a close relationship:

"For years Mezz strove to play the true Storyville jazz idiom
and was unable to know the underlying blues deep down
that produces the authentic feeling that the best players
conveyed through their horns." --
http://www.redhotjazz.com/reallytheblues.html


So when i read Stomping the Blues, by Albert Murray I found his assertion that jazz is blues interesting. I'm curious if anyone else has read his book.

Here's an outline of his views from a talk he delivered:

Albert Murray, novelist and literary, cultural and music critic, lectures to an audience of about 140 people in McGraw Hall on Oct. 7. Adriana Rovers/University Photography

Murray talked about the blues and jazz as art forms.

He began by pointing out the difference between "having the blues" and "playing the blues" and laid out one of his well-known critical theses: Jazz comes from, and is a form of, blues music.

"The blues is a device for transcending, or at least coping with, adversity," Murray observed, calling jazz the music used to "stomp away the blues." In fact, he said, far from being maudlin, the blues -- as anyone who has been to a blues club knows -- can create an atmosphere that is "downright aphrodisiac."

"You play the blues to get rid of the blues," he said.

Great jazz artists, like all important artists, derive their styles from their predecessors, Murray argued. One could, he said, describe the legendary founder of jazz, turn-of-the-century New Orleans cornetist Buddy Bolden, as the music's Chaucer, and Louis Armstrong, "who influenced all the rest," as its Shakespeare. "There wouldn't have been a Shakespeare without a Chaucer," he said.

The title Train Whistle Guitar, he pointed out, describes the basic sound on which the blues was developed by its African American pioneers -- the sound of a passing train. "The basic thing in the blues is locomotive onomatopoeia," he said.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/9 ... urray.html

I seem to recall Murray is famed for making controversial assertions about jazz, but I don't quite remember the context.

At any rate, like all attempts to classify music, there are gray zones. Third stream jazz a la John Lewis and MJQ isn't solidly rooted in the blues, but is arguably still jazz. Fusion, a little more controversial. Free jazz, even more controversial. And so on.

I think using blue notes is important to the jazz feeling, albeit not sufficient.

I've read it a couple of times now. It's a great book and one I highly recomend.

Note: I'd write more but I'm too lazt today.

Yeah it's a pretty cool read. . . The first three quarters anyway. . . once he starts talking about marching bands it gets pretty boring.

But as for the relation between blues and Jazz I think the two are linked. I mean Jazz comes out of the blues. Without the blues there never would have been any Jazz. Count Basie, for example, always considered himself, first and foremost a blues musician. Even when his music was rippin' and tearin' he still considered it the blues. I think that deep feeling of having something important to say and needing to say it in soulful way is the blues. It doesn't matter, how its expressed, it's the feel of the expression.

Blues is, I feel, the root of most of our music in North America. Rap is another great example of this. It's a person infront of a mic spilling out whats on their mind and letting everyone know it. Sure it's expression is slightly different than how they were doing it in the 1910's but the soul is still the same. And, on top of it, it's got that very simple beat in the back. And as John Lee Hooker always, "It ain't nothin' if it ain't got that beat."

Joel

Soma-Guy wrote: Blues is, I feel, the root of most of our music in North America. Rap is another great example of this. It's a person infront of a mic spilling out whats on their mind and letting everyone know it. Sure it's expression is slightly different than how they were doing it in the 1910's but the soul is still the same. And, on top of it, it's got that very simple beat in the back. And as John Lee Hooker always, "It ain't nothin' if it ain't got that beat."

Joel

I came across this quote while waiting to ask a question at Sound Of Market in Philly:

"Once you start getting into blues, you're approaching the whole palette of American music.
There's no good American music that doesn't have a foot somewhere in the blues. I know
this is a broad statement, but if anyone doesn't agree with me, then they've probably
got a white sheet over their head and they're burning a cross at B.B. King's house.
Seriously. Think of some kind of great American music that doesn't have some kind of close
connection to the blues. Can't do it. Who'd want to?" -- Skip Heller "

CafeSavoy wrote:"The blues is a device for transcending, or at least coping with, adversity," Murray observed, calling jazz the music used to "stomp away the blues." In fact, he said, far from being maudlin, the blues -- as anyone who has been to a blues club knows -- can create an atmosphere that is "downright aphrodisiac."

"You play the blues to get rid of the blues," he said.
* * * *
The title Train Whistle Guitar, he pointed out, describes the basic sound on which the blues was developed by its African American pioneers -- the sound of a passing train. "The basic thing in the blues is locomotive onomatopoeia," he said.

I have not read the book, but the exerpt you provided seems to provide two definitions of the Blues--one emotional and one historical--neither of which I agree with.

Under the emotional definition, Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings (the dominent song in "Platoon") could be considered "Blues." So could Bethoveen's 5th: a cure for "angry blues." So could Coldplay or The Cowboy Junkies.... Far too vague and all-encompassing.

Defining something through its historical roots is a common way of defining things, but it is a fundamentally unsound way of doing so, especially when the thing to be defined becomes a foundation for later developments. It misfocuses on the accidents of history on how the thing came to be instead of the essence of what the thing IS. If you define Blues by the accurate historical tie to African rhythms or roots, then you open the door to including everything that the Blues inspired as Blues: Rock music would be Blues, Rap would be Blues, and Hip Hop would be Blues, which does not make sense to me nor would it to the common understanding of what "Blues" is. It results in a fairly useless, overbroad definition that runs contrary to everyone's understanding of what "Blues" music is. Granted, knowing the historical roots is helpful in gaining a more profound understanding of Blues, but it does not DEFINE it.

Instead, I submit that Blues music must be definied musically: either 1) by a musical theory of chord progressions and scales that produces a coherent genre of music or 2) from the ultimate "sound" that that theory produces and that can be produced through giving a rhythmic "inflection" to they way a song from another genre is played. I prefer the former definition that focuses on musical theory, but I understand that people commonly do use the borader, latter approach in everyday discussion.

CafeSavoy wrote:Once you start getting into blues, you're approaching the whole palette of American music.
There's no good American music that doesn't have a foot somewhere in the blues. I know
this is a broad statement, but if anyone doesn't agree with me, then they've probably
got a white sheet over their head and they're burning a cross at B.B. King's house.
Seriously. Think of some kind of great American music that doesn't have some kind of close
connection to the blues. Can't do it. Who'd want to?" -- Skip Heller "

By labeling in advance (ad hominum) any comment or qualification to the contrary as being racist, it becomes a shockingly racist statement, itself.

I got "Stomping the Blues" for my birthday, I can't wait to read it. I have to finish the 3 books I've currently got going first, though.

I've thumbed through it & it looks awesome. Rayned, I'm glad you recommended it to me.

i replaced the word "blues" with "swing just to see what it would read like:

Murray talked about the swing and jazz as art forms.

He began by pointing out the difference between "having the swing" and "playing the swing" and laid out one of his well-known critical theses: Jazz comes from, and is a form of, swing music.

"The swing is a device for transcending, or at least coping with, adversity," Murray observed, calling jazz the music used to "stomp away the swing." In fact, he said, far from being maudlin, the swing -- as anyone who has been to a swing club knows -- can create an atmosphere that is "downright aphrodisiac."

"You play the swing to get rid of the swing," he said.

Great jazz artists, like all important artists, derive their styles from their predecessors, Murray argued. One could, he said, describe the legendary founder of jazz, turn-of-the-century New Orleans cornetist Buddy Bolden, as the music's Chaucer, and Louis Armstrong, "who influenced all the rest," as its Shakespeare. "There wouldn't have been a Shakespeare without a Chaucer," he said.

The title Train Whistle Guitar, he pointed out, describes the basic sound on which the swing was developed by its African American pioneers -- the sound of a passing train. "The basic thing in the swing is locomotive onomatopoeia," he said.

Lawrence wrote: Instead, I submit that Blues music must be definied musically: either 1) by a musical theory of chord progressions and scales that produces a coherent genre of music or 2) from the ultimate "sound" that that theory produces and that can be produced through giving a rhythmic "inflection" to they way a song from another genre is played. I prefer the former definition that focuses on musical theory, but I understand that people commonly do use the borader, latter approach in everyday discussion.

I recognize that's it's more elegant to have a simple definition, but defining the blues seems to be an ongoing issue. For example, this exerpt from The Blues Highway:

Conclusion
One of the problems regarding defining what the blues are is the variety of authoritative opinions. The blues is neither an era in the chronological development of jazz, nor is it actually a particular style of playing or singing jazz. (Tanner 35) Some maintain (mostly musicologists) that the blues are defined by the use of blue notes (and on this point they also differ - some say that they are simply flatted thirds, fifths, and sevenths applied to a major scale [forming a pentatonic scale]; some maintain that they are microtones; and some believe that they are the third, or fifth, or seventh tones sounded simultaneously with the flatted third, or fifth, or seventh tones respectively [minor second intervals]). Others feel that the song form (twelve bars, one-four-five) is the defining feature of the blues. Some feel that the blues is a way to approach music, a philosophy, in a manner of speaking. And still others hold a much wider sociological view that the blues are an entire musical tradition rooted in the black experience of the post-war South. Whatever one may think of the social implications of the blues, whether expressing the American or black experience in microcosm, it was their "strong autobiographical nature, their intense personal passion, chaos and loneliness, executed so vibrantly that it captured the imagination of modern musicians" and the general public as well. (Shapiro 13) --- http://www.thebluehighway.com/history.html

Lawrence wrote: By labeling in advance (ad hominum) any comment or qualification to the contrary as being racist, it becomes a shockingly racist statement, itself.

I guess it's true what they say about tone. I think the artist was using humor. You can check him out at http://skipheller.com/

"blues" has about a thousand meanings. the word was around long before the standard blues chord pattern that we think of today. etc.

I think if we limit ourselves to labelling the blues as only having a certain sound or cord progression then we loose the feeling of what the blues means to so many people today. I think if you want to make statements about the blues having a very particular sound then you should say for example, "My definition is about blues from the Delta in the periods of 1900-1950." Then I would agree 100% with being particular about how it needs to sound. But to say the blues is only one thing is something I totally disagree with. Who is to say that a rapper spilling his soul about his experiences is not throwing out the blues? He's just expressing it in a way that's relevant to him. The blues is a lineage in our culture that hasn't been broken. It's the same with hip-hop dancing. You still see many charleston influenced moves in the dance to this day. It's because they are from the same root. The blues has never left our culture. It's always been there. As I said, if you want to pick a specific era or sound then fine. But I have trouble agreeing that it can be pidgeonholed into one easy sound or definition.

Soma-Guy wrote: It's the same with hip-hop dancing. You still see many charleston influenced moves in the dance to this day. It's because they are from the same root. The blues has never left our culture. It's always been there.

There are clips of Sammy Davis Jr dancing as a child and some of the stuff he did looks just like break dancing.

There are clips of Sammy Davis Jr dancing as a child and some of the stuff he did looks just like break dancing.

Ha! And check out the beginning of Spike Lee's "Do the right thing." If that isn't Charleston then I don't know what is.

Soma-Guy wrote: Ha! And check out the beginning of Spike Lee's "Do the right thing." If that isn't Charleston then I don't know what is.

I was at the Smithsonian for their 150th Birthday celebration and one of the acts was these African dancers and their energy and quite of few of their moves looked just like early charleston and jazz steps.