is it true?

[Sibob]

It seems the OP has an interest in Metal, as they seem to be the examples he cites.
It's fairly obvious to me that bands such as Sikth, Dillinger Escape Plan, Meshuggah etc are heavily influenced by Jazz (modal, modern etc) and other such theoretically conceptual genres, the harmonic content, rhythms and general technicality of it.

It's a natural timeline, organic like anything creative. Obviously placing Robert Johnson next to Slipknot wouldn't make a very obvious connection, but missing a few era's out, no RJ means no Zepplin means no Metallica means no Slipknot. That particular example is obviously arguable but it highlights the basic idea behind the all of this.

Si

[ianrunci]

Its all a bit too simplified for me. Modern music stems from lots of sources Jazz included. It also envelopes Earlier black music forms and European classical and folk music.

You can hear lots of early European folk and classical music in some of the prog rock bands like Yes and Genesis and obviously in rock bands like Rainbow and even Sabbath to some extent.

There are obviously elements of all these styles in todays music. Take something simple for instance like the early Oasis tunes. Its all in there blues, Jazz and classical (lots of classical Cello lines)

You can't pin it down to one area of the world nor one Genre

[urb]

I can't really add to the great info here on the lineage of the music - which all seems spot on - I guess what I will say is that a lot of rhythmic influences on today's scene where pioneered by jazz artists - i.e. they got that swing feel happening - and even John Bonham had a killer swing in his time feel! Also look at funk and drum and bass, a lot of the syncopations that are heard with beat displacement, and the really technical side of modern drumming came from the likes of Tony Williams and Billy Cobham et al. The latter famously sampled by Massive Attack etc. But also Mitch Michell and Ginger Baker had serious jazz chops and that in turn gave both Hendrix and Cream's music that more open, improvised feel - and both bands were a sort of mix of blues with a bit of jazz thrown in as well... and if you want to hear some truly ferocious drumming - to rival any metal drummer today - check out Buddy Rich in full flow - that's scary!

The Great American Songbook is also the basis of many great pop songs - jazz was the pop music of the day before the whole rock 'n' roll revolution took over in the late 1950s

As a rule of thumb jazz is often at the cutting edge of musical devlopment - as a lot of very gifted musicians look for ways to extend the possibilities of both the instruments range and also the sonic evolution of each one as well - these innovations eventually filter through to the mainstream. It's not always the case obviously but jazz is best described as the 'sound of surprise'.

Cheers

Mike

[bremen]

[quote name='Jean-Luc Pickguard' post='236030' date='Jul 9 2008, 07:54 PM']why is the R&B section full of spoken word/drum machine nonsense[/quote]

Because when the Yoof say 'R&B' they mean 'Rhythm and Bass' (which is the term for a certain area of spoken word/drum machine nonsense) not 'Rhythm and Blues'.


I only know that because my kid (who listens almost exclusively to spoken word/drum machine nonsense) wasn't born til well after what we old farts call R&B became the fare of Radio 2.

Edited July 10, 2008 by bremen

[Sibob]

Yes of course this is all very over-simplified, there have been entire collections of books, volumes upon volumes, dedicated to the history of music and how EVERYTHING is interlinked (much like notes on a fingerboard hmm!), so I don't think we could cover it all here without applying a bit of historical license

Si

[Hot Tub]

Give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters and wait for an infinite length of time, and eventually one of them will produce a shakespearean play.

Give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of musical instruments and wait for an infinite length of time, and all they will ever do is play jazz.

[Bilbo]

Ignoring that last remark for now (I do bear grudges), I would say it all goes back to the Blues.

A lot of this history of music is tied in with the economy and technologies of the day. Pre-US Europe had lots of sophisticated ways of making music but, when the 'Pilgrims' went to America, they didn't pack a lot of pianos, celestes, harpsicords etc! So early music making in Amercia was done on fairly rudimentary instruments. The absence of a music teaching fraternity also meant that a lot of early US music was religious and fairly basic.

The African contingent brought some sophisticated rhythms and took up things like guitars and violins etc but you have to remember that there was no Manny's, no Denmark Street, no Thomann - it was all pretty basic stuff and most people wouldn't have been able to afford sophisticated instruments or decades of tuition. Lots of instruments were home made. So they knobbed about a bit and, utilising the field hollars, chain gang tunes and hymns, put together a rudimentary form of the Blues. Early recordings are of solo guitar and voice and things like harmionicas and fiddles - little things that don't make much noise.

As instruments became more readily available, people started to play. Jazz, ordinarily cited as being developed in New Orleans, was being created in several areas of the US (Chicago, St Louis for starters) and quickly found its way to New York. It became popular as an instrumental music because, at this stage, there was no real amplification that would allow vocalists to compete with a 13 piece horn section! So the 'big' spectacle music was instrumental not vocal. Bands were working all over the US every night because aLL of this effectively pre-dates recordings. People had pianos, player pianos and pianolas all over and went to see live music all of the time. The radio progammes were made up of live sessions all day; there were no records to play. The big selling medium wasn't recordings like it is today, it was sheet music!

The arrival of recordings and amplification allowed the vocalist to move the the fore and, money being money, the bands got smaller and smaller. Rock n Roll was a simplified version of the Blues and appealed to a new market; teenagers. Rock 'n' Roll changed into 100 different genres; rock, pop, metal, funk, hip-hop etc etc and Jazz went its own way, occasionally interacting with rock and funk but with only limited success. All of these musics are now ebbing and flowing in popularity all of the time. The 1950s jazz scene in the UK (that which spawned Chris Barber etc) was a Dixieland revivial not an originating period. The Stones etc were a UK based Blues revival that the US picked up on and bought wholesale.

If you understand basic music theory and song forms particularly, the twelve bar blues form has spawned hit after hit, generation after generation, genre after genre. I doubt there are many genres that don't have blues sequences in their arsenal of options.

There are other things that happen to form our cultures: a musicians strike/recording ban in the US resulted in a proliferation of doo-wop groups (vocal only), the development of be-bop took place when there was a recording ban and a lot of the developing ideas were lost to posterity. Recordings all took place live in a single take and, because of rudimentary technology, woodblocks were used instead of drums and tubas instead of basses - all now considered to be the 'authentic' instruments in 'trad' jazz. All accidents or borne of necessity!

And you thought there was a master plan!

[Machines]

[quote name='Astronomer' post='236883' date='Jul 10 2008, 09:10 PM']Give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters and wait for an infinite length of time, and eventually one of them will produce a shakespearean play.

Give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of musical instruments and wait for an infinite length of time, and all they will ever do is play jazz.

[/quote]

Lol, even though I have nothing against Jazz this amused me .

[waynepunkdude]

A very good (and stoned) friend of mine always says "punk is blue but faster.........and less talent"

[gilmour]

[quote name='Astronomer' post='236883' date='Jul 10 2008, 09:10 PM']Give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters and wait for an infinite length of time, and eventually one of them will produce a shakespearean play.[/quote]

No they wouldn't, they'd eat the paper and throw sh*t at each other. A monkey has no concept of basic grammar let alone Iambic Pentameter

Edited July 11, 2008 by gilmour

[chris_b]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='237095' date='Jul 11 2008, 09:47 AM']....Jazz, ordinarily cited as being developed in New Orleans....[/quote]
Jazz was created in New Orleans, supposedly between 1890 and 1910, when the marching bands that had been popular since the mid 1800's merged the Blues into their numbers. 90% of Jazz was played in the Storyville (red light) district, where illegal prostitution, bars and gambling clubs were tolerated by the authorities. In 1917 the Navy Department used the excuse of World War 1 to close Storyville down, leaving the musicians with nowhere to play and earn a living. That caused the exodus to all points of the compass, including St Louis, Chicago, LA, New York etc.

[Bilbo]

[quote name='chris_b' post='237188' date='Jul 11 2008, 11:36 AM']Jazz was created in New Orleans, supposedly between 1890 and 1910,[/quote]

Read Alyn Shipton's 'A New History of Jazz': the robustness of the 'jazz started in New Orleans' argument has been questioned by academics for some while now.

There is compelling evidence that New Orleans was not the only place where the music that is classed as jazz was appearing at this point in its history. Like all creative developments, the ideas of individuals get attached to places that have no irrefutable claim to them (like when a newspaper reports the success of a kid who is 'a pupil at XXXX school' when the school played no part whatsoever in the thing that kid is getting credit for). Jazz was created by individuals knew individuals who knew individuals who undoubtedly spent time in New Orleans but the music appears to have sprung up all over the US at the same time.

[chris_b]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='237203' date='Jul 11 2008, 11:51 AM']....Jazz was created by individuals knew individuals who knew individuals who undoubtedly spent time in New Orleans....[/quote]
The only picture of Buddy Bolden in a Jazz band (although it wasn't called Jazz until 1915) was taken around 1895 in New Orleans. That band has the classic New Orleans instrument line up and is credited with being the first Jazz band. If Jazz was being played elsewhere after people visited New Orleans then New Orleans seems to be confirmed as the place where Jazz started.

[The Funk]

I think it's safe to say that New Orleans jazz started in New Orleans. Bebop didn't. Cool Jazz didn't. Latin Jazz didnt. Jazz-Rock Fusion didn't.

Having just come back from New Orleans, I'd recommend that everyone go there at least once. The place is magical. It's like Disneyland/Jerusalem for musicians.