Talk:Jazz/Archive 1

message: Removed:  "Musicians have been improvising since at least the time of Bach (who was a very accomplished improviser), BUT IMPROVISATION IN A GROUP SETTING WAS RARE BEFORE JAZZ [emphasis added]."
This is true in a European/neo-European context, but not so in the context of African music, certainly not African-American music -- or even in folk musical expression, generally.  And why the allusion to Bach at all?  Under discussion here is a fundamental characteristic of this African-American musical form.  Such commentary about Bach could be useful in a general discussion of the phenomenon of improvisation, but not here; it is superfluous.  And the "rarity" of improvisation before jazz is simply factually incorrect.deeceevoice 08:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvisation 

message: I'm still hoping for someone to edit the links I provided.  I suppose it's a simple enough thing -- if you know what you're doing.  And I obviously don't.  Something's not working.
Also, I notice there's nothing in the body of the main article about jazz vocalists.  It'd be nice to see something on that -- if anyone's interested.  Will get around to adding the stuff about James Reese Europe, radio and Pullman porters when I have more time.  Peace. deeceevoice 07:19, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Little Help? 

message: As promised, I added info in Pullman porters -- and radio.  Still haven't done James Reese Europe's influence on marching band music, but I'll get to it.  I'm still hoping for someone genuinely concerned about the quality of the article to fix my ailing links.  deeceevoice 04:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Text 

message: I'm reading this thing, and once again I'm tripped up by "conservatory standards to black music."  I'm still waiting for someone -- anyone -- to clarify/decode that phrase.  If no one volunteers anything in the next week, it's gone.  I will substitute something about "formally trained" musicians and their ability to read and write music.  As it reads now, it could seem that conservatory standards -- whatever they are -- are somehow inherently higher (or better) than the standards of black musicians (formally trained, or otherwise), and that smells suspiciously of racism.  And that is the same objection I had with the earlier comment about "mixed-race" musicians.  We must keep in mind here that just because someone wrote it in some source doesn't necessarily make it valid.  Individuals with racial bias can pick up a pen just as easily as someone who doesn't.  That's why I've been pressing for clarification of the phrase.  If no one volunteers anything, I'll simply rewrite it to say what I think its intent MAY, or should, have been -- just so there's no racism implied or inferred. deeceevoice 11:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Absent explanation, as promised, "Conservatory standards" is outta here! :-p deeceevoice 05:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  LAST CALL FOR "CONSERVATORY STANDARDS" 

message: I haven't had any time to do James Reese Europe, Gershwin, Blake and Sissle, or to focus on Latin jazz.  If anyone has an interest, please, please use my notes or strike out on your own and add stuff.  This article still isn't complete by any means.  Peace.deeceevoice 17:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No Time!  My notes aren't proprietary (obviously). Anyone want to jump in?

message: Lots of good work has been going on with this article, mostly much improving it. However it has been listed for featuring on the front page tomorrow; I have objected, as I think it needs some cleaning up first. One of my fields is early New Orleans and up through the 1920s; I will work on the article but don't have sufficent time today. There are a few unfortunate statements, like "most notably, the Storyville district of New Orleans" that need correcting. (While the 1939 book "Jazzmen" does have sections that are better than a number of works that followed, modern scholarship can do much better.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:12, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that, while the article is shaping up and is probably on par with (or better than) some other featured Wikipedia articles, it needs further work -- particularly the sections devoted to later permutations of jazz.  I'd still like to make mention of James Reese Europe, fix that "jazzy writing" section and flesh out the later decades.  But no time right now.  Peace. deeceevoice 19:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Yikes! I just reread that business about Storyville -- for which I'm responsible.  An goofed edit, trying to shorten a disjointed sentence, produced something that reads that black folks migrated to a red-light district.  Thanks for the lookout.  I'm crunching a deadline, though, and won't get to any of this before the week is out.  I hope they're not still going to feature this thing tomorrow. deeceevoice
----
Thanks, Frogman.  It's lookin' much mo' betta. :-p
The whole, though, is still not featured article material, but much improved.  You've definitely beefed up the early jazz portion of this piece.  I'd still like to see (or do) some stuff on James Reese Europe, Gershwin and Eubie Blake.  And the Latin jazz section definitely needs fleshing out -- as well as the decades after.  "Jazz fusion" is weak, as well.  The later decades could be better organized; right now it just reads like an indefinite mish-mash of stuff. deeceevoice 11:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: As a "history of jazz" article, this one's OK (it's not great, because there's too little on fusion). But for an article meant to cover the more general topic "jazz", it is not so good; there is much more to most article subjects than their chronology, this one included.
For a concrete example of how this article fails; an unknowledgeable visitor might want to know what characterizes jazz music. The lead section mentions a few terms, but only one of them (improvisation) is explained in the article.  Another example: what jazz ensemble setups exist and are common? A list of links to the instruments used is not good enough. Same for the "styles" section. What about contemporary jazz culture -- festivals, etc?
For balance, I would suggest moving the history to a separate article and summarizing the history in this one.
There are probably many other things. This article just doesn't strike me as being complete. Fredrik | talk 19:50, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree much more needs to be added. A good part of the improvements recently have been in the history section. This is very important, but it is getting a bit long. Eventually perhaps some of it could be summarized here and most split into a seperate article. What do people think: one "History of jazz" article, or perhaps a small series of seperate ones, along the lines of "Roots of jazz" "Jazz to 1930" (or some such early year) "Jazz 1930s-19yada" etc? -- Infrogmation 20:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One "History of jazz" would be just fine. Fredrik | talk 20:21, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with this article

message: Wow.  This piece is much improved.  But the decades after the '50s still have yet to be dealt with.  And the fusion article treats primarily the fusion of jazz and rock.  What about jazz and R&B?  Black folks normally don't refer to it as "fusion," but that's what musicologists call it.  So...?  And certainly no article about jazz that fails to mention John Coltrane is worth a damn. I'm thinking of all those artists I mentioned earlier who came to prominence during the -60s through the '80s -- but especially during the '60s and '70s, when jazz experienced a resurgence in popularity.  There's a really, really, REALLY big hole.  And the links I added still have to be fixed. deeceevoice 00:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Still Not Ready for Prime Time

message: Infrogmation, you don't seem to have a talk page, so I haven't had an opportunity to thank you for the welcome.  So, thanks.  But I also notice you're from New Orleans -- which may account, in part, for your absence over the last few days.  I hope you and yours are safe. deeceevoice 12:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I have a user talk page in the usual place User_talk:Infrogmation.   -- Infrogmation 14:06, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: BE SAFE

message: Why there's no reference to "The Great Day In Harlem" Photograph ?
see.. http://www.harlem.org/
: The usualy reason why something isn't in an article: Because none of us has put it there. You are one of the "us" which includes all contributors; if you think it's important, add it. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 12:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Day Photo 

message: Don't know how to edit it.  But the quiet storm link is screwy; there's an article on it, but it doesn't provide access.  Anybody wanna fix it? deeceevoice 16:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You can edit it at : Template:Jazzbox.  I've fixed that link by making quiet storm a redirect to Quiet Storm, since that article covers both the show and the genre. -- GWO
Cool. :-) Thanks for the tip, Gareth.  I'm a relative newbie and couldn't think (figure out how to get) inside the box! deeceevoice 19:16, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a few edits to the jazz box. This mainly involved changing from  to a custom one. In my opinion,  was designed for genres of popular music, rather than a seperate artform liek jazz, which is arguably on an equal footing with popular and classical music. The popularity section made no real sense, referencing some popular jazz styles and popular music styles on which jazz has borne influence. No one would suggest that more jazz records are sold than popular music records, but jazz should be considered on its own terms. TreveXtalk 19:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have created a template for smooth jazz.  As it is a subgenre of jazz, it uses the pink color. Andros 1337 19:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The jazz box