Here I address, as all Jazz musicians must do, the question of all questions. One that is profoundly personal, and that we know is impossible to answer. It is impossible to answer because Jazz is an art form, like all music; and like all art, it is always growing, adapting, changing directions. It’s no different from asking for the definition of art itself. But here I am, attempting to answer the question, knowing that I have much more to learn about the music before I can give a real answer. That question, that absurd question, is how do you define Jazz?

As most attempts begin with a recollection of where Jazz (though still undefined) began, it is always said that something swinging began in New Orleans at the end of the 19th century, and gradually worked its way around America, becoming the country’s established form of music. These historic explanations are usually accompanied by a

fairly rigid academic definition, such as having “improvisation“, a strong and prominent metre, and the dotted, or syncopated, rhythm.

To the right is the notation that is used in sheet music to try and replicate this “syncopated” rhythm, which we know as ‘swing‘; and this is where things start to become quite obscure, because I will tell you that this notation does not represent swing, and as a consequence you will ask for the definition of swing. I could throw at you the famous Louis Armstrong quote that is “Man, if you have to ask you’ll never know”, and leave it there. But I won’t, and we will persist in finding the answer to this unanswerable question.

Swing is the backbone of Jazz, it is the blood, the guts, the air that Jazz breathes, and Jazz is not Jazz if it’s not swinging. In an article at jazzadvice.com on “Developing a Concept of Swing”, the author explains “Swing cannot be defined by anything that you can write down. […] The magic of swing is an aural experience and that’s where it will stay. Trying to write down swing and learn it from paper, or trying to learn it from concepts and exercises described in a book is a fruitless pursuit.” In short, the only way to understand swing is to listen to people who swing; and there are plenty out there for you to explore.

Though this does not give us our definition of Jazz, it is a fabulously valuable detail. As I mentioned in my previous post, Jazz is very much a language. Jazz, as a form of music, can convey emotions that simply cannot be articulated with words. The “What is Jazz?” page at jazzinamerica.org opines that this is why music can be found in every culture. In Jazz, this language comes in the form of improvising, which I think has a somewhat misconstrued definition. Improvising is not solely “making up a tune on the spot”, but an entire, informed and educated, conversation with every member with the band, as well as the audience. The same website examines the differences in classical music by stating “Classical music is to Jazz as reading a good book aloud is to having a good conversation.” And here I urge you to note the ‘good’ in the sentence, as Jazz is not superior to classical music, just different.

This idea of Jazz being a language can extend to the thought (again from the website above) that Jazz is a democracy, an “individual freedom, but with responsibility to the group”. Good Jazz represents a perfect democracy, because although every member of the band has great things to say, they know never to talk over one another, or else no one will be heard; in other words, there is no compromise of “artistic individuality”. Following on from that, the idea of variety and diversity is absolutely encouraged within Jazz music. The “music is better because other musicians are different”, each musician can bring a new idea to the discussion, as each musician has lived a different life, and can talk about it with new and exciting words. Each musician has their own personality on their instrument, and are not solely defined by said instrument.

This dialogue naturally extends to the audience, as Jazz is an incredibly inclusive music. Here I quote Sonny Rollins: “The art of improvisation and reaching people with spontaneous music is what Jazz is all about.” This partnership with the audience is key to any Jazz performance. Here some of you may wonder why, if Jazz is such an inclusive music, it is not more mainstream? Though Jazz stands before you with its arms wide and inviting, it can only do just that. It cannot run to you and take your hand. As is often said, particularly by Julian Joseph and his Academy, jazz is a music of initiative. If the listener does not make the effort to listen, they will not appreciate Jazz for all that it is. The listener must be alert to the music, and must join in with the conversation. There is no use in someone sitting at a dinner table in silence with their fingers in their ears while those around them converse in an elegant and intellectual manner, and then declare their distaste for the topic of conversation. Another explanation for its rarity is the way it is so flexible. The “newness” of each second of music, because of the changing dialogue, lacks the familiarity that the casual music listener requires, and that popular music provides. Every person I know who “doesn’t like Jazz”, has simply not listened to it. Not really listened.

So here we are, having explored many different paths surrounding the definition of Jazz, and we find ourselves just about as orientated as one of the persons in M.C. Escher’s ‘Relativity’. Of course this is not an issue, because there was a disclaimer at the start of this, I did say it was an impossible question to answer. And while I do hope all these ideas can bring us a little closer to truly understanding the music of Jazz, it is not entirely necessary to do so. The most important thing is that you find your own personal meaning by listening and absorbing the music, and that you make that meaning known to your band members and your audience when you play.