May 21 2012: I think that creativity, open minded-ness, friendliness, arrogance, and elitism/exclusivism are all traits that all people have to one degree or another, at one time or another, in one venue or another. I have witnessed all of these things in just about every kind of musician.
I see jazz as an art culure's response to an imposing popular culture; an attempt to retain some sort of human dignity. I think that it's sound is very reflective of the full-throttle idustrialization that was taking place at it's dawn. It seemed to grow and diversify at the same pace. I also think that because much of the globe can relate to this unprecedented idustrialization, it was also very able to process jazz music and admire it's heroes, which earned it a secondary place in popular culture.
I think that jazz's heroes are admired because thier literal abilities to eloquently improvise through complex changes reflect the 20th century westerner's need to find beauty and cope with the terror and excitement of the quickly changing world.
The great classical composer must have seen a lot less change around them, but no less strife and injustice. There was no less of a need to create beauty. I think that the great European composers must have felt a great need to catch "lightining in a jar" - which is why they went through painstaking lengths to preserve their works on paper. Had recording exsisted in thier time, everything may have been very different!
All of that being said, I think that jazz's great contribution is adaptation, whereas classical's was more about the preservation of perfect moments. The latter has no choice but to be discriminating about who it lets in; but that is not arrogance. Adaptation and preservation are just two different things that are needed for different reasons at different times; ideally, I think anybody would want to be able to be able to eloquently deal with changes while preserving who they are.
TEDCred score: +0.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Is jazz a form of popular culture or art culture?
I see jazz as an art culure's response to an imposing popular culture; an attempt to retain some sort of human dignity. I think that it's sound is very reflective of the full-throttle idustrialization that was taking place at it's dawn. It seemed to grow and diversify at the same pace. I also think that because much of the globe can relate to this unprecedented idustrialization, it was also very able to process jazz music and admire it's heroes, which earned it a secondary place in popular culture.
I think that jazz's heroes are admired because thier literal abilities to eloquently improvise through complex changes reflect the 20th century westerner's need to find beauty and cope with the terror and excitement of the quickly changing world.
The great classical composer must have seen a lot less change around them, but no less strife and injustice. There was no less of a need to create beauty. I think that the great European composers must have felt a great need to catch "lightining in a jar" - which is why they went through painstaking lengths to preserve their works on paper. Had recording exsisted in thier time, everything may have been very different!
All of that being said, I think that jazz's great contribution is adaptation, whereas classical's was more about the preservation of perfect moments. The latter has no choice but to be discriminating about who it lets in; but that is not arrogance. Adaptation and preservation are just two different things that are needed for different reasons at different times; ideally, I think anybody would want to be able to be able to eloquently deal with changes while preserving who they are.