Bruce Wands Comments – Class 5 – Dave Brubeck
This class greatly expanded my knowledge of Dave Brubeck. I was only marginally familiar with him and had only listened to a few recordings. Lewis’s analysis of his playing style was particularly informative. He does play in a unique manner and I “get” his playing much more now. It is a little surprising to me that he is so famous compared to other players. As Lewis mentioned, much of this is due to Dave’s expertise in self-promotion and the crafting of his public image. I did log onto the www.jazzicons.com site and it looks like some great DVDs are there. Lewis’s wrap up conclusion and the five major points about Dave Brubeck helped to give me a better perspective. I would have liked to have more attention focused on Paul Desmond. I think that Desmond played a major role in Brubeck’s success. While Dave’s style was chordal, intellectual and relatively accessible, Paul’s lyrical and “safe” style complimented Dave and I feel it is more the sum of the parts that brought the success, rather than just Dave. In some ways, they should have shared a double bill, rather than being known collectively as Dave Brubeck. However, I did find one DVD released in 2008 titled Dave Brubeck and Paul Desmond: Take Five, which was from 1961.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Dave Brubeck
I have seen Dave Brubeck three times and one time would probably have been enough. It’s not that he doesn’t put on a good show. He has an engaging presence and he really makes you feel, as a member of the audience, that you are taking part in something that he is glad to be doing. (I say ‘glad’ because, personally, I don’t think I could play ‘Take Five’ every performance and maintain my faith in God.) I just feel as though every Dave Brubeck performance is generally the same.
If you didn’t know, he plays ‘Take Five’ every performance—along with most of his other standards: ‘Blue Rondo’, ‘Three to Get Ready’. But as Lewis said, Dave really is a mensch. (His parents must be kvelling in their graves.) He’s a mensch in this respect because, really, he doesn’t have to play ‘Take Five’ every show. People would still come to see him. He is an institution. He does it because, really, it’s what people want to see. And by people, I mean the people who are not jazz geeks—the people who know a little about Brubeck and have no idea that ‘Time Out’ came out the same year as ‘Giant Steps’, ‘Ah-Um’, ‘Kind of Blue’, or ‘The Shape of Jazz to Come’.
Dave might not be playing conventional solos at his shows—but who the hell is going to notice? Nostalgia is a recurring theme in jazz-talk. When people go see Brubeck, I have a feeling he’s regarded as more of an old stand-by than an explorer of sound and harmony. It’s like going to see a Dixieland revival band or something—there’s not much of an emphasis on looking forward. (In Brubeck’s defense, I wouldn’t want to be looking too far forward if I were 90.)
But then again, it’s not like he’s complacent or smug. He probably has more energy than a sixteen-year-old boy when he plays, and his excitement at shows really comes through. He really seems to be a happy guy, unregretful, and it’s nice to see that. (I don’t know if it’s the Catholicism, or the choral music, but whatever.)
And I have a feeling that his happiness is apparent because he’s spent his whole life doing what he thinks is right for himself and his music. I may not be helping the myth of Brubeck, but I honestly think that this is true.
I don’t want to get sentimental (an easy thing to do when talking about Brubeck and listening to him talk.) But looking back, maybe I shouldn’t regret seeing Brubeck so many times—I bet he wouldn’t if he were in my place.
If you didn’t know, he plays ‘Take Five’ every performance—along with most of his other standards: ‘Blue Rondo’, ‘Three to Get Ready’. But as Lewis said, Dave really is a mensch. (His parents must be kvelling in their graves.) He’s a mensch in this respect because, really, he doesn’t have to play ‘Take Five’ every show. People would still come to see him. He is an institution. He does it because, really, it’s what people want to see. And by people, I mean the people who are not jazz geeks—the people who know a little about Brubeck and have no idea that ‘Time Out’ came out the same year as ‘Giant Steps’, ‘Ah-Um’, ‘Kind of Blue’, or ‘The Shape of Jazz to Come’.
Dave might not be playing conventional solos at his shows—but who the hell is going to notice? Nostalgia is a recurring theme in jazz-talk. When people go see Brubeck, I have a feeling he’s regarded as more of an old stand-by than an explorer of sound and harmony. It’s like going to see a Dixieland revival band or something—there’s not much of an emphasis on looking forward. (In Brubeck’s defense, I wouldn’t want to be looking too far forward if I were 90.)
But then again, it’s not like he’s complacent or smug. He probably has more energy than a sixteen-year-old boy when he plays, and his excitement at shows really comes through. He really seems to be a happy guy, unregretful, and it’s nice to see that. (I don’t know if it’s the Catholicism, or the choral music, but whatever.)
And I have a feeling that his happiness is apparent because he’s spent his whole life doing what he thinks is right for himself and his music. I may not be helping the myth of Brubeck, but I honestly think that this is true.
I don’t want to get sentimental (an easy thing to do when talking about Brubeck and listening to him talk.) But looking back, maybe I shouldn’t regret seeing Brubeck so many times—I bet he wouldn’t if he were in my place.
Gretchen's Post--Brubeck's "Coolness"?
Yesterday in class, we determined that one of the issues surrounding Dave Brubeck that bears further scrutiny is whether or not he can truly be categorized as a “cool jazz” artist. The term cool has often been associated with the more subdued, classically-tinged style of the Miles Davis nonet (Gil Evans) and such bandleaders/artists as Stan Getz, Lee Konitz, Chet Baker, etc. How then, does Brubeck’s fiery, wild improvisational style fit into this commonly accepted notion of “cool”? Below, I have researched a range of definitions for cool jazz, hoping to augment our understanding of Brubeck’s place within the style.
“Cool jazz included intricate arrangements, innovative forms, and songs having a thoroughly composed sound (although they included improvised sections). . . . Another variety of cool jazz was that of the pianist Lennie Tristano and his students. Tristano’s music is very different from what Evans and his colleagues were doing: it’s ‘coolness’ was a matter of emotion (Tristano required saxophonists to play with a ‘pure’ tone and to concentrate on melodic development and interaction than overt emotionalism), but his emphasis on sometimes ferociously fast tempos and on pure improvisation rather than arrangement was closer to bebop.” –Wikipedia
The above definition does reflect some of Brubeck’s compositional characteristics—involved arrangements, innovate forms (and meters), with the pieces reflecting unity and thorough composition. As we discussed yesterday, there is also a noticeable similarity between the “cool” styles of Brubeck and Tristano. While both implement the intellectual and highly compositional element to their pieces that embodies the cool style, they also retain some bop elements of breakneck tempos and improvisation.
“West coast jazz is a form of jazz music that developed around Los Angeles and San Francisco at about the same time as hard bop jazz was developing in New York City, in the 1950s and 1960s. [It] was generally seen as a sub-genre of cool jazz. . . . It featured a less frenetic, calmer style than hard bop. The music tended to be more heavily arranged, and more often compositionally based.” –Wikipedia
This additional entry on West coast jazz describes it as a sub-genre of cool, again emphasizing thorough arrangements and compositions. Brubeck is not lacking on the compositional element—it is the “calm” that sometimes seems to be missing from his repertoire. However, I feel that his most famous piece, “Take Five,” does exhibit the cool qualities of calmness, lack of emotion, and a kind of laid-back, subdued feel.
“Tone colors tended toward pastels, vibratos were slow or nonexistent, and drummers played softer and less interactively than in bop, hard bop, and other modern styles that coexisted with cool.”—Encyclopedia Britannica Online
The Britannica entry—succinct if anything—defines what laymen generally thinks of when they think of cool. If we were taking this particular definition as the cut-off for all that constitutes the cool style, Brubeck would probably not make the cut. While he does have some slower, pastel-oriented pieces, his highly improvisatory and frenetic pieces (like some of the examples we viewed/listen to yesterday) would not apply.
Cool jazz: “A term applied to diverse styles of modern jazz variously perceived as subdued, understated, or emotionally cool. . . . Some critics consider that the modern jazz produced on the West Coast during the 1950s constitutes a category of cool jazz. . . . Indeed, although much cool jazz of the 1950s owes a large stylistic debt to groups led by Count Basie and Lester Young in the late 1930s, cool musicians did not ignore the bop approaches that had emerged in the mid-1940s.”—New Grove Dictionary of Jazz Online
The above excerpt went on to suggest that one of the key aspects of the cool style was the resurgence of improvised counterpoint, as demonstrated through the performances of John Lewis and Milt Jackson (MJQ), as well as Dave Brubeck and Paul Desmond. Here, the New Grove takes into account that certain groups associated with the cool style, in this case Brubeck, still retained elements of bop in their compositions.
“Cool jazz features arrangements that are generally more complex than those found in bop. . . .Often complex harmonies were played behind the solos in cool jazz—it was much more a style that emphasized the composer and arranger. . . . Very little cool jazz produced through the end of the ‘50s and ‘60s is strictly cool, but it all has recognizable elements that link the different practitioners of the sound together. For example, Dave Brubeck’s work, while retaining many elements of the cool movement, is often very agitated, searching, and experimental. His quartet’s work with ‘odd’ time signatures opened the door for late-‘60s experimenters like Don Ellis and Brubeck’s piano work has sometimes been described as ‘bombastic’ by jazz critics. But the quartet also featured saxophonist Paul Desmond, who played every bit as lyrically as Chet Baker or Lee Konitz and had a gorgeous, thin sound. An intellectual and talented wordsmith, Desmond became, in many ways, the perfect example of a cool jazz artist—cerebral, clever, humorous. . . .Brubeck, too, came across as and intellectual and something of an avant-gardist.”—Jazzitude.com
The above definition was probably the most helpful regarding the Brubeck “cool” myth-busting. Clearly, Brubeck’s music emphasizes the composer and arranger, implementing complex harmonies and innovative use of meters, polytonality, and polyrhythm. The author of the this particular definition admits that Brubeck’s style is not distinctly cool, but instead exhibits certain elements that allow him to be grouped with that style. Furthermore, Paul Desmond is featured as the “true cool” artist of the DB Quartet—perhaps his performance style has contributed to the mass association of Brubeck’s music with the cool movement.
“Cool music is a fusion of European classical influences, swing music, bebop, and musicians who wanted to make their own distinct voice in improvisational music.”
http://www.oswego.edu/academics/colleges_and_departments/departments/music/classes/MUS_317/cool_hardbop.pdf
See the above sight for an extensive listing of the characteristics of the cool jazz style. Without a doubt, Brubeck wanted to make his own voice in improvisational music—to the point that he would risk just about anything in a solo. There is also a definite fusion quality to his music, featuring elements of not only European classicism, but also bop, swing, and basically whatever came to his mind.
Check out this Youtube video, in which Billy Taylor explains the phenomenon and stylistic aspects of cool jazz. One of his primary arguments suggests that the rhythm “floats,” unlike in previous jazz styles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYTmUOh2Lcc
While I could probably keep researching definitions for ages, it seems that our best understanding of Brubeck’s association with the cool movement is that he exhibits some defining aspects of the style—thorough composition, intellectual arrangements, classical influence—is performing within the right time period (‘50s and ‘60s), and is featuring a soloist highly associated with cool: Paul Desmond. However, his music does not strictly adhere to the definition of cool, implementing bop elements such as fast, fiery tempos and pure improvisation. Since the compositional element seems to be one of the primary defining aspects of cool, Brubeck is often lumped into that category. Perhaps it is best to say overall that Brubeck can easily be linked with the cool movement, but cannot be defined by it.
“Cool jazz included intricate arrangements, innovative forms, and songs having a thoroughly composed sound (although they included improvised sections). . . . Another variety of cool jazz was that of the pianist Lennie Tristano and his students. Tristano’s music is very different from what Evans and his colleagues were doing: it’s ‘coolness’ was a matter of emotion (Tristano required saxophonists to play with a ‘pure’ tone and to concentrate on melodic development and interaction than overt emotionalism), but his emphasis on sometimes ferociously fast tempos and on pure improvisation rather than arrangement was closer to bebop.” –Wikipedia
The above definition does reflect some of Brubeck’s compositional characteristics—involved arrangements, innovate forms (and meters), with the pieces reflecting unity and thorough composition. As we discussed yesterday, there is also a noticeable similarity between the “cool” styles of Brubeck and Tristano. While both implement the intellectual and highly compositional element to their pieces that embodies the cool style, they also retain some bop elements of breakneck tempos and improvisation.
“West coast jazz is a form of jazz music that developed around Los Angeles and San Francisco at about the same time as hard bop jazz was developing in New York City, in the 1950s and 1960s. [It] was generally seen as a sub-genre of cool jazz. . . . It featured a less frenetic, calmer style than hard bop. The music tended to be more heavily arranged, and more often compositionally based.” –Wikipedia
This additional entry on West coast jazz describes it as a sub-genre of cool, again emphasizing thorough arrangements and compositions. Brubeck is not lacking on the compositional element—it is the “calm” that sometimes seems to be missing from his repertoire. However, I feel that his most famous piece, “Take Five,” does exhibit the cool qualities of calmness, lack of emotion, and a kind of laid-back, subdued feel.
“Tone colors tended toward pastels, vibratos were slow or nonexistent, and drummers played softer and less interactively than in bop, hard bop, and other modern styles that coexisted with cool.”—Encyclopedia Britannica Online
The Britannica entry—succinct if anything—defines what laymen generally thinks of when they think of cool. If we were taking this particular definition as the cut-off for all that constitutes the cool style, Brubeck would probably not make the cut. While he does have some slower, pastel-oriented pieces, his highly improvisatory and frenetic pieces (like some of the examples we viewed/listen to yesterday) would not apply.
Cool jazz: “A term applied to diverse styles of modern jazz variously perceived as subdued, understated, or emotionally cool. . . . Some critics consider that the modern jazz produced on the West Coast during the 1950s constitutes a category of cool jazz. . . . Indeed, although much cool jazz of the 1950s owes a large stylistic debt to groups led by Count Basie and Lester Young in the late 1930s, cool musicians did not ignore the bop approaches that had emerged in the mid-1940s.”—New Grove Dictionary of Jazz Online
The above excerpt went on to suggest that one of the key aspects of the cool style was the resurgence of improvised counterpoint, as demonstrated through the performances of John Lewis and Milt Jackson (MJQ), as well as Dave Brubeck and Paul Desmond. Here, the New Grove takes into account that certain groups associated with the cool style, in this case Brubeck, still retained elements of bop in their compositions.
“Cool jazz features arrangements that are generally more complex than those found in bop. . . .Often complex harmonies were played behind the solos in cool jazz—it was much more a style that emphasized the composer and arranger. . . . Very little cool jazz produced through the end of the ‘50s and ‘60s is strictly cool, but it all has recognizable elements that link the different practitioners of the sound together. For example, Dave Brubeck’s work, while retaining many elements of the cool movement, is often very agitated, searching, and experimental. His quartet’s work with ‘odd’ time signatures opened the door for late-‘60s experimenters like Don Ellis and Brubeck’s piano work has sometimes been described as ‘bombastic’ by jazz critics. But the quartet also featured saxophonist Paul Desmond, who played every bit as lyrically as Chet Baker or Lee Konitz and had a gorgeous, thin sound. An intellectual and talented wordsmith, Desmond became, in many ways, the perfect example of a cool jazz artist—cerebral, clever, humorous. . . .Brubeck, too, came across as and intellectual and something of an avant-gardist.”—Jazzitude.com
The above definition was probably the most helpful regarding the Brubeck “cool” myth-busting. Clearly, Brubeck’s music emphasizes the composer and arranger, implementing complex harmonies and innovative use of meters, polytonality, and polyrhythm. The author of the this particular definition admits that Brubeck’s style is not distinctly cool, but instead exhibits certain elements that allow him to be grouped with that style. Furthermore, Paul Desmond is featured as the “true cool” artist of the DB Quartet—perhaps his performance style has contributed to the mass association of Brubeck’s music with the cool movement.
“Cool music is a fusion of European classical influences, swing music, bebop, and musicians who wanted to make their own distinct voice in improvisational music.”
http://www.oswego.edu/academics/colleges_and_departments/departments/music/classes/MUS_317/cool_hardbop.pdf
See the above sight for an extensive listing of the characteristics of the cool jazz style. Without a doubt, Brubeck wanted to make his own voice in improvisational music—to the point that he would risk just about anything in a solo. There is also a definite fusion quality to his music, featuring elements of not only European classicism, but also bop, swing, and basically whatever came to his mind.
Check out this Youtube video, in which Billy Taylor explains the phenomenon and stylistic aspects of cool jazz. One of his primary arguments suggests that the rhythm “floats,” unlike in previous jazz styles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYTmUOh2Lcc
While I could probably keep researching definitions for ages, it seems that our best understanding of Brubeck’s association with the cool movement is that he exhibits some defining aspects of the style—thorough composition, intellectual arrangements, classical influence—is performing within the right time period (‘50s and ‘60s), and is featuring a soloist highly associated with cool: Paul Desmond. However, his music does not strictly adhere to the definition of cool, implementing bop elements such as fast, fiery tempos and pure improvisation. Since the compositional element seems to be one of the primary defining aspects of cool, Brubeck is often lumped into that category. Perhaps it is best to say overall that Brubeck can easily be linked with the cool movement, but cannot be defined by it.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Jim Pepper- Defining Jazz Singers, and the Jazz vs. Pop debates
Throughout our class, we talked about the question addressed in the reading over “what is a jazz singer.” The reading and our discussion show that the answer can vary across the board, and I feel that because of the vagueness of the term “jazz singer,” we will always be able to find an exception whenever we come up with a concrete and solid definition. I think this is in part because of the undeniable importance of particular singers like Billie Holiday and Ella Fitzgerald, who differ so much in style and technique, yet our definition would need to somehow fit both of them because to do otherwise would be seemingly unspeakable. Possibly going along with this, we may feel that particular singers should not be included, so we try to word our definition in a way to exclude them.
The issue of singers and improvisation, discussed in the reading, had me thinking about our first class, particularly the differences of improvisation within jazz. Early solos in particular were more worked out, as we saw with the audio examples of Johnny Dodds from that class. Like the wide range of options of improvisation, from worked out or precomposed to spontaneous creation, we can see that same range of variety among vocalists. Whether the singer is using ornamentation of the melody or scatting over a chorus, there is some form of improvisation that is there. Yet many singers outside of the jazz world use vocal techniques that adhere closely to the melody in a similar way as some “jazz singers” do, which doesn’t help the question here about distinguishing them. Because we may want to include specific key singers like Ella or Billie within our definition of a jazz singer, we will want to keep our definition as vague as possible because of issues with inclusion and exclusion, which is why I still like Dr. Porter’s definition from class as a singer who works with jazz musicians.
Gretchen’s presentation on Harry Connick Jr. was very interesting and well done. It brings up an issue I have been thinking about with the debate over pop versus jazz that many singers face. When someone like Connick does well on the pop charts or reaches pop music fame, it casts doubt or debate over whether they are to be considered a jazz musician. Yet when jazz instrumentalists do any kind of collaboration with popular artists their musical label does not seem to come into question at all.
Coincidentally, I was able to catch this by chance late last night. In addition to the pop versus jazz debate, it also brings up the idea brought up in class of the “new standards,” of jazz musicians performing popular music of today, since Herbie Hancock performed John Lennon’s “Imagine” on Jimmy Fallon's talk show while promoting his newest album (in addition to playing alongside hip-hop band The Roots throughout the show). Here is a link for it, although it’s the whole episode, if you click the last marker that is where it starts (at 36 minutes in). http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video/tuesday-june-22-2010/1235508/
The issue of singers and improvisation, discussed in the reading, had me thinking about our first class, particularly the differences of improvisation within jazz. Early solos in particular were more worked out, as we saw with the audio examples of Johnny Dodds from that class. Like the wide range of options of improvisation, from worked out or precomposed to spontaneous creation, we can see that same range of variety among vocalists. Whether the singer is using ornamentation of the melody or scatting over a chorus, there is some form of improvisation that is there. Yet many singers outside of the jazz world use vocal techniques that adhere closely to the melody in a similar way as some “jazz singers” do, which doesn’t help the question here about distinguishing them. Because we may want to include specific key singers like Ella or Billie within our definition of a jazz singer, we will want to keep our definition as vague as possible because of issues with inclusion and exclusion, which is why I still like Dr. Porter’s definition from class as a singer who works with jazz musicians.
Gretchen’s presentation on Harry Connick Jr. was very interesting and well done. It brings up an issue I have been thinking about with the debate over pop versus jazz that many singers face. When someone like Connick does well on the pop charts or reaches pop music fame, it casts doubt or debate over whether they are to be considered a jazz musician. Yet when jazz instrumentalists do any kind of collaboration with popular artists their musical label does not seem to come into question at all.
Coincidentally, I was able to catch this by chance late last night. In addition to the pop versus jazz debate, it also brings up the idea brought up in class of the “new standards,” of jazz musicians performing popular music of today, since Herbie Hancock performed John Lennon’s “Imagine” on Jimmy Fallon's talk show while promoting his newest album (in addition to playing alongside hip-hop band The Roots throughout the show). Here is a link for it, although it’s the whole episode, if you click the last marker that is where it starts (at 36 minutes in). http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video/tuesday-june-22-2010/1235508/
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Interview of Interest
For those who are interested, this a really interesting interview with Bruce Lundvall, the president of Blue Note, Joshua Redman, and Ben Ratliff: http://www.jerryjazzmusician.com/mainHTML.cfm?page=/roundtable2.html
Gretchen's Post--Jazz Singers
As I mentioned throughout my presentation yesterday, I am intrigued by the “art vs. entertainment” debate that has permeated the jazz community. This controversy is particularly applicable to our discussion of “jazz” singers yesterday. Just like fusion artists, Paul Whiteman, and Kenny G, vocalists have frequently faced the threat of marginalization within the jazz canon and among its critics, resulting from their perceived commercialism and entertainment-oriented performances. As Dr. Porter mentioned at the beginning of class, even though jazz is primarily accepted as an instrumental music, most of its sales and popular appeal are credited to the vocalists (Ella Fitzgerald, Frank Sinatra, Diana Krall). While unfortunate, it makes sense that the mass public might relate more to music with lyrics they could understand over purely instrumental music. However, in the jazz community, as Paul de Barros articulated, “Success in the marketplace is often related in inverse proportion to respect from peers and critics.” It even bears the question—if such jazz-influenced styles as fusion had not reached such mass popularity, would jazz critics have been so quick to condemn them as commercial and “not jazz?” I am by no means suggesting that all fusion is artistically equivalent to the innovations of Charlie Parker and John Coltrane, but the politics behind its relegation at least merit consideration.
It seems that this inverse relationship between marketplace success and respect from jazz critics suggests that performances geared toward audience entertainment lack in musical intellectualism and innovation. It appears that many jazz critics find art and entertainment to be mutually exclusive camps. As a result, they suggest that artists or musical styles cannot equally represent both. As I described yesterday concerning Harry Connick Jr.---Connick’s rise to stardom following his vocal album for When Harry Met Sally, when he originally had recorded as a pianist, led to endless criticism in which he was “accused of everything from dilettantism to downright disloyalty to his jazz roots.” This critical idea that what is entertainment cannot be art seems to have cast its shadow over the position of the jazz vocalist within the larger jazz community. Many vocalists who have sung with jazz bands—including Connick, Sinatra, Rosemary Clooney, Nat King Cole, Bobby Darin—have also (if not primarily) been considered pop singers. So how does a vocalist bridge the gap from “pop” singer to “jazz” singer?
Here, it is necessary to consider the question of the day—as Tara wrote in her first post, “what is a jazz singer?” Of all of the potential definitions we discussed yesterday (improvises, collaborates with the ensemble, simply is associated with jazz music), the one that seemed the most impressive to me was “uses voice like an instrument.” Obviously, this definition in itself is very vague, and can be interpreted on many different levels. However, there is no denying that in their own ways, both Ella and Billie used their voices like instruments. While Ella explored range and harmony in both her interpretations of the melody and improvisatory scat singing, Billie explored nuance and the projection of deep, heartfelt emotions. Similarly, I must say that I consider Frank Sinatra to be a jazz singer. The depth, both emotionally and in vocal quality, with which he performed such selections as “Hello, Young Lovers” is very powerful and personal. Every nuance in his projection of the lyrics sounded deliberate. While pleasant, some of the other vocalists’ versions of “Hello, Young Lovers” did not reveal such musical intellectualism and deliberate consideration of the lyrics. Even the original by Deborah Kerr—which I loved—revealed somewhat of a superficial accuracy and beauty.
Perhaps “jazz singer” is one of those terms that we won’t ever be able to completely put into words—just like “swing feel” and even “jazz” itself. The question is, how necessary is it for us to establish a definition?
Check out Wikipedia’s list of who is considered a “jazz singer”—pretty much anybody you could ever think of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category%3AAmerican_jazz_singers
Is it our job as jazz musicians and members of the jazz community to make sure that a clear distinction is made between pop singers who sing with jazz ensembles, and jazz singers? If it is, how will we go about doing this?
It seems that this inverse relationship between marketplace success and respect from jazz critics suggests that performances geared toward audience entertainment lack in musical intellectualism and innovation. It appears that many jazz critics find art and entertainment to be mutually exclusive camps. As a result, they suggest that artists or musical styles cannot equally represent both. As I described yesterday concerning Harry Connick Jr.---Connick’s rise to stardom following his vocal album for When Harry Met Sally, when he originally had recorded as a pianist, led to endless criticism in which he was “accused of everything from dilettantism to downright disloyalty to his jazz roots.” This critical idea that what is entertainment cannot be art seems to have cast its shadow over the position of the jazz vocalist within the larger jazz community. Many vocalists who have sung with jazz bands—including Connick, Sinatra, Rosemary Clooney, Nat King Cole, Bobby Darin—have also (if not primarily) been considered pop singers. So how does a vocalist bridge the gap from “pop” singer to “jazz” singer?
Here, it is necessary to consider the question of the day—as Tara wrote in her first post, “what is a jazz singer?” Of all of the potential definitions we discussed yesterday (improvises, collaborates with the ensemble, simply is associated with jazz music), the one that seemed the most impressive to me was “uses voice like an instrument.” Obviously, this definition in itself is very vague, and can be interpreted on many different levels. However, there is no denying that in their own ways, both Ella and Billie used their voices like instruments. While Ella explored range and harmony in both her interpretations of the melody and improvisatory scat singing, Billie explored nuance and the projection of deep, heartfelt emotions. Similarly, I must say that I consider Frank Sinatra to be a jazz singer. The depth, both emotionally and in vocal quality, with which he performed such selections as “Hello, Young Lovers” is very powerful and personal. Every nuance in his projection of the lyrics sounded deliberate. While pleasant, some of the other vocalists’ versions of “Hello, Young Lovers” did not reveal such musical intellectualism and deliberate consideration of the lyrics. Even the original by Deborah Kerr—which I loved—revealed somewhat of a superficial accuracy and beauty.
Perhaps “jazz singer” is one of those terms that we won’t ever be able to completely put into words—just like “swing feel” and even “jazz” itself. The question is, how necessary is it for us to establish a definition?
Check out Wikipedia’s list of who is considered a “jazz singer”—pretty much anybody you could ever think of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category%3AAmerican_jazz_singers
Is it our job as jazz musicians and members of the jazz community to make sure that a clear distinction is made between pop singers who sing with jazz ensembles, and jazz singers? If it is, how will we go about doing this?
Further Thoughts on Jazz Singers
Although I might contradict myself, I just had an idea about jazz singers that might help define them a little more. We were talking about how some jazz singers (and musicians, although we didn’t say it) convey the emotion and feeling of a song in their singing (and playing). But I feel that, more often than not, a jazz singer (and a musician) usually renders the subject matter of a song subservient to whatever the he or she wants to do with the song. This doesn’t necessarily preclude feeling, but it does sort imply that a jazz singer could sing an aria from an opera or a Beatles song or “All the Things You Are” and more often than not, it’s going to be a jazz song regardless of the background of the song itself.
If you asked a rock singer or a folk singer or an opera singer to do this, it probably wouldn’t be the same. I think that’s what sort of makes jazz jazz, and jazz musicians and singers special. Because they can work with material from far-ranging and disparate sources, and still make it what they want, make it naturally their own.
If you asked a rock singer or a folk singer or an opera singer to do this, it probably wouldn’t be the same. I think that’s what sort of makes jazz jazz, and jazz musicians and singers special. Because they can work with material from far-ranging and disparate sources, and still make it what they want, make it naturally their own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)