Re: Is Fusion Jazz?

Date: 20 Jun 2003 15:03:50 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.music.bluenote
Size: 2,870 bytes

Jazz and not-jazz . . .
The boundary between the two may not be scalpel sharp, but it does exist; were
it not so, we would have to say that George Jones' "If Drinking Don't Kill Me
(Her Memory Will)" or KISS' "Almost Human" are just as much jazz as the Duke's
"Jeep's Blues" or Pops' "Lazy River," and I don't think anyone would make that
claim who knows anything about country, rock, or jazz. And it wouldn't make a
form bit of difference if someone insisted on calling Jones' or KISS' music
jazz - if Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong are jazz, then George Jones and
KISS cannot be, regardless of what anyone says. To include them all within
jazz would be like including pork chops, pears, salt, and linoleum in the
category of fruit.
Is it possible to precisely define jazz? I tend to doubt it, having seen any
number of people far more expert than I try and fail to do so. Nor, I think,
is it possible to precisely define rock or country; I've seen people attempt
those definitions as well, with an equal lack of success. However, I know rock
when I hear it, and I know country when I hear it, and I know jazz when I hear
it. There are some who claim to be country but aren't, as I can tell when I
hear their music. The same is true with jazz (thus far I've not had that
experience with rock).
Labels, despite the contempt of some (who yet by their very use of language are
engaged in a copious use of labels), are useful things; they help us
differentiate between jazz and not-jazz. I can tell someone who's never heard
George Jones that he's country, and if that person doesn't like country he
doesn't need any further explanation. With one word - a label - I have
conveyed volumes of information. And when I describe an artist or a song as
jazz, I have with those four letters saved both of us reams of explanation
leading to at best an imprecise definition.
But for any label to work, it must not be all-inclusive. If we expand "jazz"
to include anyone who wants to claim the title, the term becomes meaningless;
pretty soon it will take in territory as broad as George Jones and KISS. Just
as "pear" or "salt" do not mean "earthworm" or "rubber ball," so "jazz" cannot
mean "Muzak" or "rock" without the very word "jazz" becoming a mere empty
sound. Certainly some jazz comes perilously close to being elevator music, or
rock (my favorite example of the indistinct boundary is Glenn Miller; he did
swing, and swing is a variety of jazz, but was Miller jazz?). And equally
certainly there is some Muzak and rock which approaches jazz. But at some
point we have to say "this is jazz and that is not," or we might as well throw
out the word "jazz" and disband this newsgroup. Robert McKay email-address-deleted TANJ