Talk:Jazz/Archive 2

message: I have added a template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modernism template 

message: I notice that if you search for Modern jazz you end up here, but the term isn't used in this article. Is it just a British term or something? I realise it isn't an especially useful term and the connotations of modern pose problems, but it is used, at least here in the UK. The first jazz I ever listened to was a CD called 'This is Modern Jazz', and for a long time before I heard the terms bebop and hard-bop, that was what I thought of it as - Modern Jazz. I think it's pretty well understood, here at least, to mean bebop onwards and especially hard-bop. But then, over here we had the whole trad jazz phenomenon, which might explain why the distinction is phrased that way, modern vs. revivalist. Anyhow, I'm not suggesting that we embrace the term 'modern jazz' but an interested newcomer might be fazed by its non-inclusion, so maybe an explanatory note is in order. Mattley 13:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Modern jazz" is fairly commonly used for bop &/or post-bop styles. Perhaps the term is a bit POV. Trivia: the earliest usage of the phrase "modern jazz" I've found is in a 1919 newspaper ad for the Louisiana Five. -- Infrogmation 01:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Jazz

message: I use Wikipedia most often as a science reference. I have a doctorate in math and work in applied statistics.  My "2nd career" is as a jazz musician (saxophone).  When I tell my science friends how great Wikipedia is as a science reference I usually get laughed at and told "but anyone can edit it and write whatever they want (e.g. rampant misinformation), however up until now, I have not found this to be the case. Science entries are usually very accurate. This being said, I have never run across anything close to the level of misinformation that exists in this article. Its a complete disgrace.  Judging by the faint murmurs heard on this page from perhaps the most knowledgable, the real experts (musicians) are staying away from it because a good edit is impossible!!! What it needs is a complete re-write.  For one thing, if any among you has really ventured out to a real jazz club in any reasonably large city (and some small ones) especially one that boasts a jam session, you will discover that Bebob is the lingua franca.  Walk into a jazz jam and find out right away what the definition of jazz is:  open up "the real book" vol I or II and you will have roughly 300 pages of paradigm definition in your hands. Much of it is from the 40's and 50's, some also from the 60's and beyond. The point to be gleaned here, is that although the book spans the 40's even into the 70's, "free jazz", and "avant guard jazz" are extremely rare. There is maybe 1 Ornette Coleman tune. (I love Ornette Coleman).  The point is that Bebop is broken into "waves". The first wave were the innovators--and Monk must be included in the list proper (Parker, Gillespie, Monk and Powell). The 2nd wave consists of their younger collaborators and students, who took over the guard in the 50's and early 60's: Sonny Rollins, John Coltrane, Lennie Tristano, Charles Mingus, Miles Davis]. Next the third wave (Wayne Shorter, Lee Morgan, the other Jazz Messengers, among many many others) and so on.  The most important point to make about John Coltrane is _not_ that he went "spiritual" in the final years of his life (63-67) but that prior to that (beginning in 57 until 62) he stretched 'straight-ahead bebop' as far as it would go (for example, "Giant Steps" and "Live at the Antibes Jazz Festival".  Another point is that chromaticism isn't really dissonance, but rather a logical chord sequence insertion [for example II/V/ with 2 beats to each chord becomes IIIb/VIb/II/V with one beat to each chord. Finally, perhaps the most important missing innovation of the beboppers was the move to harmonic improvisation in which the player uses higher intervals of the chord and arpeggiation in constructing a solo.  Anyway, this rant is so brief maybe it too is useless. One more thing before I go, it would be useful to link audio clips to the chronology. It would be fantastic if this could be turned into something that rivals Ken Burns documentary.  It wouldn't be that hard.  The starting place is to modify the Bebop topic by creating new topics Bebop 1st, 2nd, 3rd waves, and beyond, and devoting a separate article to each one.  Then maybe some experts can find a meaningful place to start uploading their PhD dissertations.128.231.88.4 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel like revising the article, go ahead, but I don't think the entry on bebop is at variance with what you say: see the last paragraph of that section (which I had a hand in) in particular. There is also further info on the Bebop page. -- Lennie Tristano is not second-generation; he was born in 1919 & his first own-name recordings were exactly contemporary with the earliest bebop recordings. -- I have no idea where to begin in sorting out this page; life is short & it would take weeks of serious work to untangle the page with the assistance of good reference books & people I trust like Allen Lowe & Larry Kart. --ND 01:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much more needed!!! Neo-bop / post-bop? 

message: This article focus on USA, could someone write something about the jazz development in Europe?
:I am not an expert but this article is crying for references to European artists such as Django Reinhardt, Stéphane Grappelli, Michel Petrucciani, Toots Thielemans, Philippe Catherine, Didier Lockwood, Steve Houben to cite the ones I know without presuming of their relative importance. Vb 11:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are interested in jazz in Europe please help improve the following articles: Spanish jazz, Polish jazz, Italian jazz, and French jazz. Thank you.--T. Anthony 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jazz in Europe?

message: I'm not a regular here; I just dropped by to read the Jazz article. I found a typo in one sentence and clicked "Edit" to fix it; but the text that came up in the Edit box didn't exactly match the text in the main window, and the sentence that corresponded to the typo was very different, so I couldn't fix it. No point in responding to this, since I'm unlikely to return to see your response. As a casual visitor I just want to suggest that what comes up in the "Edit" box should match what's in the main screen. Regardless of the explanation of why it didn't (and I'm sure there's an explanation), this is extremely confusing and off-putting to a visitor who's trying to be helpful.
Bye.
:Works for me. It'd help if you could tell us which section you tried to edit, and exactly what text showed up. Fredrik | talk 19:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jazzbox and Jazzfooter are templates.  If you would like to edit the templates, please edit them at Template: Jazzfooter and Template: Jazzbox. Andros 1337 03:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem editing page 

message: In the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the "Other regional styles" section, there is what appears to be a typo:
In the northeastern United States, a "hot" style of playing ragtime developed. While centered in New York City, it could be found in African-American communities from Baltimore to Maryland.
Last I knew the city of Baltimore is in the state of Maryland, so the phrase "from Baltimore to Maryland" doesn't really make sense.  I'm not sure of the author's intent here, and not well-versed on the topic at hand, so don't feel qualified to make the edit myself.  However perhaps something like "...communities as far away as Baltimore, Maryland" would make sense.
Kelly 17:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in 2nd graf of "Other regional styles" 

message: Isn't the external links list getting a bit too long? isn't the article itself a bit too lengthy? I'm sure we could find things to put on separate pages. Karol 09:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The external links section was almost all in the "don't link" category.  I've done a chainsaw slight trim.  brenneman(t)(c) 05:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links list and article length 

message: Shouldn't this article be unfeatured?
*No sample
*Not many references
*No in line references
*Style: regional styles in bullet format
*Contemporary jazz: a list of short paragraph.
*Completeness:
**Neo bob is missing
**Very few European artists are cited.  American point of view.
::Jazz is America's art form. It only makes sense that there are fewer European artists as primarily American artists shaped the music through its evolution.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.29.6.7 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been working on starting jazz articles about Europe. I started Dutch jazz and Polish jazz plus have done a great deal on French jazz and British jazz. That said there doesn't seem to have been much distinctive outside the US before WWII. An exception to that is Gypsy jazz, which I added some information on. The modern era of jazz, after say 1970, is not something I normally feel competent to write about.--T. Anthony 16:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article?? 

message: I don't agree with this comparison. Ostinato implies an incessantly repeated, stubborn riff that does not change. (I've also heard that it has to be at the same pitch in order to be considered ostinato.) That's not really how it works in jazz; the character, variety, and spontaneity that you hear in a professional [pianist,guitarist,vibist]'s comping does not remind me at all of ostinato. TheBoyNextDoor 01:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a link to comping and removed the link to ostinato. Hyacinth 10:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piano/guitar comping described as "ostinato" 

message: There is a book, off Oxford Press, called Word Myths by a man names Milton, I believe. He pretty clearly states where the term jazz comes from, and cites his sources, too. 
Maybe someone should look into it, as the etymology is not what is on this page.
I have added a second link to a second Daniel Cassidy article and inserted his version of the etymology into the main article; unlike all his predecessors, Cassidy backs up his argument with a careful analysis of periodicals tracing a pretty iron-clad case of the San Francisco Bulletin jazzing up the vernacular use of teas, and it's pretty plausible that the use of the term clearly as prior-art in regards to baseball would then find use in other aspects of american popular youth (and black) culture.  Cassidy also addresses those prior writers, and finds their stories seriously lacking in credibility.  Jasmine perfume?  That's a new one on me: I've read what Ellington, Morton, Armstrong, Ra and others have said, and I'm convinced Daniel has a very good case; the match between the meaning of the original Irish term is more than motive, and the journalism and sports angle is clearly opportunity for nearly instant mass-adoption, and the need of the early Jazz empressarios to jazz up their PR (a custom deeply rooted in black entertainment) is more than enough good cause to adapt the term in the service of selling this new music.  True, it's all circumstantial, but that's a great deal more probable cause than is given for any of the "sexual connotation" yarns. -- garym
:Cassidy's pseudo-etymologies do not belong here. If you want critiques try Language Log (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003326.html) or the curt but just dismissal at http://www.grantbarrett.com/index.php/grantbarrett/crank_etymologist/ -- I don't know anything about the "jasmine" derivation either, which looks dubious to my eye. A few cites from credible etymological research would be nice here. ND 02:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Check, one two... is this thing on? 

message: Any interest from fellow jazz fans in getting a Jazz project started under WP:GENRE?  If so, please leave a note on my talk page.  --cholmes75 16:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject 

message: You fail, as seems to be your wont, to provide any references whatsoever for the numerous edits you made on 9 July.  Please do not make unsubstantiated claims, as this seems an awful lot like POV pushing.  If you can, find some references for the opinions expressed, i.e. the popularity of Paul Whiteman, etc.  Thank you. ---Charles 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can assure you that Whiteman was indeed enormously popular. Cf. e.g. The Rough Guide to Jazz which says that by 1930 he was "an internationally known showbusiness figure" & that his 1930s band was "hugely successful". ND 17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not arguing whether he was or was not---I will assume your reference is accurate---my problem is AllTalking's penchant for making claims and assertions in articles (I have seen this before) and feeling no need to provide references for same.  You were able to provide two quotes on the topic, so why could he not do the same?  And, it is not just Paul Whiteman---he has made other assertions that are similarly unreferenced.  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an opinion forum. ---Charles 18:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not going to step into the larger issue/argument about citation, but myself wouldn't see the need to include cites for statements like this. Whiteman's popularity is well-known to anyone familiar with early jazz/pop music. ND 19:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:AllTalking|AllTalking]]---edits for 9 July 

message: I thought this "[...]black-established and -operated[...]" was a smart bit of prose (found somewhere near the bottom to the intro section of History). It is, I think, the first time I've come across this structure and certain emphasis, and I wonder where it comes from and whether it's common. -Bordello 04:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the implicit repetition of the word "black", indicated by the second hyphen? It's a common device in formal prose, yes. ND 05:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks, that's what I wanted to know. -Bordello 10:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prose question

message: Mrmusichead has deleted the rewritten opening I contributed on July 16th with no other explanation than that he desires "the traditional clear wikipedia opening". Any votes on this? Needless to say, I'm not at all pleased to see my work junked, especially considering that I was trying in good faith to improve an article which many people seem to agree needs a major overhaul (for instance, it's ridiculous that the enormously long piece waits till the end to explain about improvisation!). & what I wrote seems to me neither unclear or even all that atypical. I also think (hope?) that given that my rewrite stood nearly unchanged for a week, other readers/contributors were OK with it. Anyway, I'm tempted to simply revert it but thought that before I did so I should solicit a few opinions. If you have suggestions for improvement that'd be useful too.  But now we're just back to the original, (IMHO) unhelpful opening. ND 06:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *On principle, I'd say revert.  For an article of this size, a lead of more than one paragraph is most definitely warranted.  That being said, you may want to be careful not to stray too much into an essay-style opening.  If this article is ever to be returned to Featured Article status, all the claims made in it must have citations (even if they are obviously true to jazz fans).  In particular, I would stay away from getting into any musical theory (defining swing, for instance) in the opening, and save that for later on.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, when I have a sec I'll revert & try to condense/reorganize a little. One thing that needs to be done is dealing with the "Improvisation" section of the article, which is currently (absurdly) at the end, after 1000s of words about jazz--surely it needs to come early. That's one reason why I got into a little more detail at the start. -- I left an invite to Mrmusichead on his talk page to rewrite, as opposed to simply junking, the opening, but no dice so far. -- I keep trying to find time to sit down with a few good reference books (like Lewis Porter & the Kirchner OUP book) to see how they deal with jazz history & do some factchecking: will try to get around to that this week. ND 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your writing was informative Ndorward, please don't take offence by the revert. But it was simply too detailed for what needs a be a clear and concise opening. I would support a version of your intro under a "Background" section above the "history" section. Sometimes being bold and removing material aids the editing process.--Mrmusichead 02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening 

message: In the article, it is not described that jazz originated from the songs sung by the elder to accompany the work on the fields. It traces back to the homelands (West Africa) of the black community in America. -KVDP 08:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly that is not the sole direct origin, but it's a very important topic in historic African American music. We have a stubby article at work song; serious expansion would be good. The early jazz standard "Rip 'em Up Joe" was said to have been based by Joe Oliver on a work song he heard upriver. -- Infrogmation 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Jazz 

message: "Today, the only remnants of the true bebop sound and style exist in New York through a club called Smalls on 7th Avenue South."
Is this a joke? Atraxani 07:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is, indeed, filled with non-sequiturs of individuals' opinions and views. I hope we can whip it into shape eventually, but it's a big job! Special-T 13:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Smalls club & record-label are indeed a vital place for music in the bebop tradition (but not merely "retro"). That said, it's hardly got a lock on intelligent bebop playing. -- I have no idea even where to begin with the "Jazz" article"--I suppose the first thing would be hiving off some of the accumulated detail into the separate articles on each period. ND 14:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  eh? 

message: Several of the links listed seem to be primarily commercial, or don't have enough info about jazz to merit inclusion.  Specifically:
*A Passion for Jazz! Music History and Education
*All About Jazz jazz portal
*Jazz Web Site at About.com
I'm admittedly no expert on what makes the cut as far as external refs, so I'd like some other editors' input before removing these. Perhaps I'm not being bold enough... Special-T 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm cool with omitting all those links. AAJ is a reviewing organ & discussion board but it's loaded with advertising, paid features & other moneymaking schemes which make it kind of borderline. ND 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with removing AAJ links. More editors' input: . BNutzer 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I added it myself, even though I didn't notice this discussion until just now. AAJ is VERY invaluable and was got me so interested in Jazz since I started listening to it recently. I think the removal was in part because of stimpulations at WP:EL, particularly WP:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest. Since you work for the page, adding it here is a "conflict of interest." WP's solution is "consider mentioning [the link] on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines." -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the point of the conflict of interest guidelines is that the best way for Michael to go about adding links to Wikipedia entries is to suggest them on the relevant talk page(s) and then let the editors take action.  In the meantime, the mass deletion of the relatively limited links already in place (as "linkspam," with no more explanation in situ) seems rather inappropriate given the substantial information content they lend to the Wikipedia community.  They should receive consideration by editors based on their merits before they are deleted wholesale.  In any case, I'd hope that the editors who view AAJ as "borderline" or "commercial" spend some more time exploring the site before they reach such hasty and unjustified conclusions.  It would be very discouraging to Michael Ricci and all the contributors who volunteer for AAJ if the Wikipedia editors presented a blank wall to potentially very helpful information they can share through these links, especially if it's based on what seems to be a pattern of ignorance and misunderstanding. -- Nilinator 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Special-T, who is that "some other person"? who else knows what's important besides myself and the senior staff at all about jazz? no offense, but i'm the most qualified person, though i could assign this task to an aaj contributor. also, it's impossible to get a handle on aaj with a one-time visit. we've been producing the site since 1995--the depth and breath is staggering. also, we're not a corporate/commercially-driven entity--though we obviously want to be profitable, it's run on a shoe-string out of my home. like wikipedia, we have the support of countless volunteers around the world. also, jazz is unlike other commercial forms of music. aaj is providing an essential service to the entire industry--primarily for musicians/artists. it was mentioned before, but perhaps i should suggest what i deem to be essential (aaj) links and allow the jazz editors at wikipedia to determine whether they're a good fit. Michael 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful for participants in this discussion to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, especially the section entitled "Personal benefits".  I removed those links to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines in this area.  No-one has stated that there is not valid information at the website in question.  But insertion of those links by the website's owner/administrator/employee, etc. is explicitly "very strongly" discouraged under Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Also see Wikipedia:Spam: "Adding external links to an article for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." - Special-T 16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about if I added it sometime? I do not work for AAJ, far from it. I have some doubts about it, but it seems useful. Particularly with jazz outside North America, which is not well-covered by some sites.--T. Anthony 07:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial links 

message: In efforts to shorten this article, we've lost a good deal of important information on jazz history that hasn't appeared elsewhere in Wikipedia, and there are many points that could be expanded on. I suggest we need a "History of Jazz" series of articles. A short summary could go here, with main articles broken down by major periods-- for example something like "Jazz before 1920", "Jazz in the 1920s", "Jazz from the Depression to Bebop", "Jazz from Bebop to 1960", etc. Thoughts?  -- Infrogmation 17:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go thou and do likewise. If you start the articles, they will come. __ Just plain Bill 18:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Jazz

message: If "Birds of Fire" is jazz (or at least has something in common with it), then I am Charlie Parker. And how "The Jazzstep" can be called modern jazz, while it is just a simple tune played over a synthesized background? --A.M.L. 15:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you are Charlie Parker and/or haven't read the article, you indeed wouldn't know that the development of Jazz didn't completely halt after the exploration of Bebop. The Mahavishnu Orchestra's Fusion is just as much Jazz as the first Dixie bands and Ornette Coleman's free experiments. — Mütze 15:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't judge the whole jazz fusion genre. I just state that this particular audio sample of 30 seconds isn't ever jazz fusion, it's straight rock. The caption says "this piece by the Mahavishnu Orchestra merges jazz improvisation and rock instrumentation into jazz fusion". The guitar solo can be called improvisation, but what makes it jazz improvisation? As to me, it is played in a typical rock manner. --A.M.L. 17:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio samples 

message: The word jazz relates to Jism / jizz. Narrow minded admin here disagree so remove it. Even from the discussion page. Even reference at the bottom of page suggests this - # ^ University of Southern California film professor Todd Boyd, the term was originally slang for sexual intercourse
:That's one etymological story but not the only one, & my understanding is that many professional linguists are pretty dubious about the jazz=jism theory.  Why a film studies prof should necessarily be an authority on etymology is beyond me. --ND 17:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if someone has access to Lewis Porter's Jazz: A Century of Change or to Dick Holbrook's article on the origins of the word, then the matter can get sorted out more authoritatively. See this posting from a linguists' discussion list: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0303d&L=ads-l&P=21158 (and also here: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0308c&L=ads-l&P=3343). --ND 02:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin of word jazz 

message: want to make a jazz musician of the week template??? Flying Hamster 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a jazz musician of the week?? --Gautam3 18:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  jazz musician of the week 

message: In :Jazz#Electronica I read This has been variously dubbed "future jazz", "jazz-house", "nu jazz", or "Junglebop"..  Is Junglebot notable?  If you have some comment, please write it to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Junglebop.  Cate | Talk 10:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junglebop 

message: Substituted at 20:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment