How much jazz was there in these classic rock artists?

Do you bother to read anyone's posts on these threads? I've repeated about 7 times (including my initial post), I'm talking about influence rather than whether something measures up to a purist's notion of what jazz is or isn't.

 

And I guess there are no chord progressions rooted in the blues in jazz....I'm not even going to try to parse what it means that there are "chord progressions" but not "changes"

 

You have to be commercially unsuccessful to be "all about music"?

 

No one has said they are jazz

 

It's called knowing what you're talking about: knowing that certain musicians were listening to, and getting inspired by, and that this made its mark on their music, whether or not the end product sounded like what you consider jazz to be.

Do you have anything constructive to offer here?

 

What a great album! Was listening to it today. Bolin is amazing but I don’t consider his playing on it really jazz. IMHO

 

I guess some these people would give the Minutemen or Sonic Youth one listen and thing euch no, no way are these guys worthy enough to be related to jazz!

 

This is not a straw man because [who?] said that.

 

I think it's important to note that improvising and jazz are not synonymous.

A jazz purist might say that if there is no improvisation, it can't be jazz. But the reverse isn't automatic... just because there is improvisation doesn't mean it is jazz, or even jazz like. Heck, soloists would improvise in classical compositions a century before jazz was even born!

 

Well said.

 

That is an interesting point about improvisation and classical.

I've never been too sure how much there is within classical music, although I know it does exist. I've worked with classical musicians in the past who found it hard to play by ear or improvise, but that's not to say that all cannot. Would be interested to learn more about improvisation in this context.

As for other areas of music, I'm sure it exists too (folk?), although am no expert. I'm of the opinion that genres are necessary to some degree, as a means of identification, music and its influence is more fluid - where there is creativity rather than rote repetition. I think this is even true within classical.

For example, Beethoven did not always conform to genre, but broke the rules.

 

Todd S. Jenkin - "Free Jazz and Free Improvisation"

 

I've attended a great many classical concerts covering centuries of time and most possible forms and subgenres. I can't say I've firsthand witnessed improvisation at any of them.

However, in classical histories I've read, it was noted that some compositions did leave room for improvisation. Also, sometimes when a soloist would commission a piece from a composer, he might even demand some free time.

 

based on your reaction to this clip, I wonder if you understand different forms and stages of jazz evolution.

The influence is there, but perhaps you are looking for Jazz - capital "J" (?)

 

Off the top of my head one of those was Mendelssohn.

 

Good point! Those capitals are a nuisance. It Art or is it art (or ass)?

 

i hope you don't believe everything you read.

about barrett or crosby.

 

I think everyone’s gone off rails here. Influence is one thing, but the thread starter asks how much jazz is in their music. I’m gonna say very little to none. Just because they learned a little jazz lick or chord change and incorporated it to their music doesn’t make it jazz.

 

By the reckoning of the poster, Miles Davis wasn't Jazz.

At various times Miles Davis broke the rules as to what at that time constituted 'Jazz' in terms of how the purists saw it, at therefore at that point (by reckoning of the poster), he was as far away from Jazz as the Grateful Dead were.

Same for Ornette Coleman and various others. They weren't 'Jazz'.

 

well alrighty then

 

Well, I'm seeing an awful lot about jam bands being considered jazzy, Cream and the Dead as two examples. Being a bluegrass guy myself I often cringe when anything with a banjo or mandolin is called bluegrass. Once well immersed a genre it becomes easier to discern the pieces that make that genre unique and therefore easier to say, within reason, what's in and what's out.

 

The question is whether there's any jazz in it, or a jazz influence, which is broader than asking if it is jazz. People call a lot of things bluegrass, but most of them probably have some element of bluegrass when they involve those instruments, for instance David Grisman's music which is not bluegrass but has bluegrass "in it" or as an influence

 

Joni Mitchell a lot. Grateful Dead a little (Bob Weir), Pink Floyd a very little (Rick Wright’s chord progression contributions to Breathe, Great Gig and Us and Them). Not much else on that list. Though other classic rock artists have quite a bit (Van Morrison, Sting, Paul Simon, to name a couple, surely many more if given thought).

 

One gets the impression that certain posters think for music to be called "jazz-influenced", it has to sound like this:



Too bad Perry cuts it off before the cookin' hard-bop trumpet solo comes in, right?

 

Meanwhile the jazz that influenced most of the rockers in question -- especially people like the Dead and the Byrds -- is stuff that, generally speaking, sounds a hell of a lot more like this: