Jazz - European and African influences?

[ksjazzguitar]

So, I've been thinking about this thread. I think that part of the problem is that a lot of people seem to think that jazz sprang up out of nowhere or was solely an African invention. The desire to stress the African-American contribution and perhaps to distance itself from classical music, many seem to think that jazz has little heritage in classical music. (Clearly I disagree. Can you smell my bias? )

One first thing that needs to be clarified is the difference between "African" and "African-American." Since the importation of slaves to the U.S. ended in 1808, by the time jazz was invented, few if any African-Americans with any memory of Africa were still living (unless for perhaps a little immigration.) African-American culture was a mixture of what was left over and what was forced on them by slave owners.

So, what (as I see it right now) are the contributions of each:

African (via African-Americans) Contribution

Improvisation-Of course, we can point out that there was a rich tradition of improv in classical, it had mostly died down by the time of jazz.
Swing - Again, there is an antecedent in classical (the notes inégales) but that tradition was dead by the time jazz came along and there are elements that go beyond the classical technique.
Group Dynamic - I think that the group dynamic of jazz - the group supports while people "step into the center to express themselves." This seems to be of African origin (perhaps in ring dances or ring shouts.)
Call and Response - It is used for composition in classical but there is a level and importance here that is clearly coming from the African tradition.
Blue Notes - We can argue about their origin or placement in the octave, but they are clearly an African contribution.
Rhythm - African music contributed a complex rhythmic system that infused jazz.
Heterogeneous Sound Ideal - In the classical tradition, when instruments play together, if they are starting on the same beat, we expect then to start together and blend (a homogeneous sound ideal.) In African music, it is often preferable for the voices not to start at exactly the same instant or blend. We hear this sometimes in jazz performance, where the horns choose not to blend or start at the exact same instant, keeping things loose.

European (via Americans) Contribution

Chords and Chord Progressions - These are uniquely European concepts. While many cultures have simple vertical harmonic structures, few come close to what we call chords and none have an advanced harmony even close to what we have. Everything we do with chords is of European origin, especially things like functional harmony, modulation, and guide tones.
Scales - I don't know that much about pre-modern African traditional music, but most pre-European-contact cultures concept of note collections is closer to how the ancient Greeks thought of modes or Hinustanis think of ragas. The notion of scales may be necessary for functional harmony and music that spans many octaves - I don't know, I'll have to think about that one.
Meter - The use of fixed meters is more European than African. We even mostly use the most common European meters.
Fixed Composition - Obviously the ability to write down a composition (even a sketch) is a European thing.
Instruments - With the exception of the banjo, all instruments are of European origin. Of course you can trace instruments like the guitar to non-European origins, but only if you go back a millennium or two.
Temperament - Even if you add in microtonal blue notes, the temperament that jazz uses if obviously closer to the European one (if not entirely.)

That's how I see it. This is part of my larger thesis that jazz (contrary to how many of the public see it) is really an extension of the European tradition. For example, all harmonic language in jazz must be traced back to Europe since there is no such thing as harmonic language in Africa. Slaves heard psalms being sung and used that harmony in their spirituals. Many slaves were forced to play European music. After slavery, many African-Americans made a living performing music. For obvious reasons, they made more playing what whites wanted to hear. There was ample chance for African-Americans to absorb the European harmonic language. So, why do so many do somersaults to deny it? Can we imagine jazz without chords, temperament, meter, or scales? OK, I guess that would be free jazz.

Any thoughts? I'm thinking about doing a paper on this, so any input would be appreciated. If you want to tell me it's BS, just back it up with something besides "'cause I say so."

Thoughts?

Peace,
Kevin

[monk]

Kevin,
I would agree that jazz is certainly the product of an admixture of African and European musical elements.

Ragtime, as antecedent and influence of jazz, used classical forms. Scott Joplin was said to have been a great admirer of Frederic Chopin.

If you haven't already done so, I would recommend that you read Richard Sudhalter's book Lost Chords (Oxford Press, 1999). He makes much the same argument as you.

Regards,
monk

[Banksia]

With all due respect Kevin, I was cringing all through your post. The fact that you even use an expression like "African music" demonstrates that you don't know anything about African music.

"The use of fixed meters is more European than African."

What is this statement based on? Repeated viewings of the Lion King? Which African music(s) are you talking about?

"I don't know that much about pre-modern African traditional music"

You got this part right.

I've followed a few of your threads and while I find you pedantic ad nauseam, I understand your motive and, by and large, I have found your position well-stated and I've agreed with most of what you've said.

This time, however, you are way out of your depth. You even admit that, despite your abysmal ignorance of 50% of your subject, you are considering writing a thesis about it! A week ago you were on this forum pleading your quest for academic integrity!

Sorry Kevin. This time, you fail!

[bako]

I agree with Banksia that you would need to be well informed about the music of 2 continents to address this topic well.
We (North Americans) often speak of Africa like it's a country instead of a continent. The original people of African descent in the Americas were kidnapped from specific different countries and specific cultural groups within those countries.

I would contend that the subject would have to include (at least as background research) the emergence and expression of all African American music making in the Americas. One such book that addresses this topic well is The Music Of Black Americans by Eileen Southern, Norton Press 1971, who attempts to uncover this story starting with the source materials available at the time of slavery, newspaper slave sale advertisements, journals and articles. It is a good overview and covers the emergence of early jazz and related styles well, and less detail on later periods.

I never read the Richard Sudhalter book "Lost Chords" that Monk mentions, but I do remember that he made many people angry and it would probably be easy to find articles refuting some of his contentions.

I sometimes postulate that the African American influence, creativity and esthetic is the driving force in American popular music.
My observations appear to bear this out but .......... perhaps that is not proof enough.

[cosmic gumbo]

I always see jazz referenced as African American, which is why Americans want to take credit for it's origin. I don't see many claiming it came from Africa or Europe. I thought it was created by African Americans appropriating western music, not European Americans appropriating African music.

One thing is for sure, it would not have been created without the African American experience. They took a good thing and improved on it. Jazz would not exist without t's African and European elements. Respected jazz pianist Randy Weston said "To me, it's Mother Africa's way of surviving in the new world". Europeans don't seem to have a problem with that.

[ptrallan01]

Pardon me gentlemen but lets deal first with the nature of Africans in the Americas. A huge segement of the population gets left out if we see all African descendants as the descendants of slaves. There were many, many who came here as freemen and their children remained free. Because of our attitude about the evils of slavery this is often omitted.

African migration to America did not start or stop with the slave trade. Free Africans went to Europe and came here, some came directly from Africa, some came through the Carribean. Each brought a different tradition with them. There were Nubian (black as opposed to white) Africans working on Columbus' first voyage.

Three of my grandparents came through Ellis Island and the other through one of the Texas maritime ports. They were a mixture of African, Carribe(american indian) and Scottish genetic background. In the United States that just becomes "Black".

Arguably the best known Jazz song of all times, When the Saints Go Marching in traces back to either Bermuda or the Bahama's before making its way to New Orleans. So even some of the songs we work with don't have an exclusive origin.

All society's, and cultures who have heard and interacted with Jazz have added and taken from the mix. African and European both contributed and hopefully will going forward.

[ksjazzguitar]

I would recommend that you read Richard Sudhalter's book Lost Chords (Oxford Press, 1999). He makes much the same argument as you.

Thanks, I've heard the name before, I have to add it to the list.

With all due respect Kevin, I was cringing all through your post. The fact that you even use an expression like "African music" demonstrates that you don't know anything about African music...."The use of fixed meters is more European than African."...What is this statement based on? Repeated viewings of the Lion King? Which African music(s) are you talking about?...

I am basing it on what I've been exposed to in a survey ethnomusicology class. I am not "ignorant of African music" - I just don't have the expertise that I would like. But that does not prevent me from seeing the basic characteristics and contrast them with those of the European tradition.

Perhaps "fixed meter" wasn't the right way to phrase it, but my study has led me to believe that the African sense of meter can be much more complex and sophisticated and malleable than the European sense, where meter tends to get fixed into a simple repeating pattern. It is just my assertion that the meters of early jazz have a lot more in common with the European/American tradition than the African one. In fact, I would say that the use of meter in early jazz were less complicated than what was going on in classical music at the time and much less complicated than African dumb traditions.

As to where in Africa, since most slaves came from the western coast of Africa. Most ethnographers that I have read have grouped these regions together into "West African." No, they are not all one culture, but they are culturally related and this is where the vast majority of slaves came. There is no need to consider the music of Eritrea or Tanzania, since slaves did not come from there.

If you have something constructive to add, please, please, please do. But I reread your post and I mainly see childish insults without any backing. I fail to see one piece of information that you've added. You mock my authority on the subject but you don't say what your authority is, and just seemed to post for the sole purpose of mocking me, without providing a single fact to the discussion. Is that constructive? You know, just starting your post with "with all due respect" doesn't make it not childish and uninformative.

But if you have something constructive to add, please do. I'm sincerely interested in anything constructive anyone might have to add.

...I would contend that the subject would have to include (at least as background research) the emergence and expression of all African American music making in the Americas.

True. Another way is to treat the African-American syncretic process as a black box. If we examine the inputs and examine the output, we can divine what aspects come from where. Clearly if African music has no tradition of chords, and European/American music has the most advanced chordal vocabulary in the history of the planet, then we can infer that the advanced chord language of jazz can be traced to white ultimately. Similarly, if we can see that improv is dead in classical music and it is thriving in Africa, we can trace that back to its African roots.

One such book that addresses this topic well is The Music Of Black Americans by Eileen Southern, Norton Press 1971, who attempts to uncover this story starting with the source materials available at the time of slavery, newspaper slave sale advertisements, journals and articles....I never read the Richard Sudhalter book "Lost Chords" that Monk mentions, but I do remember that he made many people angry and it would probably be easy to find articles refuting some of his contentions.

I've been through the Southern book when I did a grad paper on coon song, but maybe I'll have to check it again to see if it has more that might apply. As to the controversy, I get the impression that it is a knee-jerk reaction to the suggestion that blacks didn't do it by themselves and it's entirely black. After a brief search, I find that most reviews by scholars are positive and most of the negative are by musicians that are somewhat chauvinistic about race issues. That is the problem when you start talking about race - there are a lot of people (on both sides) that will make up their mind about what you are saying before they consider the evidence.

I sometimes postulate that the African American influence, creativity and esthetic is the driving force in American popular music.

I have no problem with agreeing with that.

[quote=cosmic gumbo;119943]I always see jazz referenced as African American, which is why Americans want to take credit for it's origin. I don't see many claiming it came from Africa or Europe. I thought it was created by African Americans appropriating western music, not European Americans appropriating African music..../quote]

Maybe I chose my words injudiciously, but I am not saying that Europeans invented jazz, or even that Americans invented jazz. Clearly the vast majority of the work done was by African-Americans. But contention is that these African-Americans were heavily influenced but European music that they heard and learned in hundreds of years of separation from their African roots and hundreds of years of being surrounded by (and even playing) music of white origin. Indeed, many of the fundamental elements of jazz (harmonic language, modulation, instruments, etc) have no antecedents in African culture.

I am in no way trying to say that jazz in not a product of African American culture. But the point is that "American" is the noun and "African" is the adjective. It is black Americans who built jazz, not Africans. And black Americans at this point were more "American" than "African." Indeed, some of the freed slaves that tried to go back to Africa had a very hard time fitting in - they were now more American than African.

Please don't be fooled by my use of the word European - I'm just trying to avoid using the word "white" and have this denigrate into a racial thing. But when I am talking about European influence, I am talking about the absorption of the "white" music that was surrounding black Americans and often they were playing.

Pardon me gentlemen but lets deal first with the nature of Africans in the Americas. A huge segement of the population gets left out if we see all African descendants as the descendants of slaves. There were many, many who came here as freemen and their children remained free. Because of our attitude about the evils of slavery this is often omitted.

Perhaps, but my perception is that African immigration was low. Even if not, within a generation, they will be assimilated. I'm sure there was some immigration as to the US, but do you have numbers of what percentage of African-Africans had been born in Africa. Maybe in 1900.

All society's, and cultures who have heard and interacted with Jazz have added and taken from the mix. African and European both contributed and hopefully will going forward.

Yes, but I'm talking about origins, not influences. I'm just trying to fight against this notion that jazz was this magical thing that sprang to life with no antecedents, except from Africa. My thesis is that while African Americans may have done work, we look at the color of their skin and assume that therefore everything that they do is "African." But my contention that several core elements of the music theory trace to European influence, not to Africa.

Peace,
Kevin

[keith]

Well it's an interesting topic that I will say off the bat I am not an authority on but will make some comments ( none of them gospel )

Jazz is very strongly steeped in blues from the early African ( no comment on specific country, not trying to lump them together ) There's a guitarist Bob Brozman who has studied this in depth and has noted that the early influence was more rhythmic and not harmonic. Some early blues are modal or include I-V progression only and that more complex progressions in blues developed over time. The primary point he makes is that in noncolonized ( meaning European colonies ) most of the rhythms are polyrhythmic in nature and the melodies rarely are specifically on beat. His premise is that the militarized conquering european nations had a different sense due to the " march " or the need to provide a fixed rhythm for the military ( or even the dances of the time ) He has noticed this phenomenon in most noncolonized island nations and African countries. Hence although African influences have played a role, other island nations ( Carribean in particular ) where slaves also came from also had a role in blues and jazz. You might want to check out his website.

I liked the comment about Joplin because there's a guy I thought never got his full due regarding his music. Some of his " rags " - compositions were just beautiful, clearly classical in nature. This done at a time where we can't even imagine what racism was.

Although this issue is subjective in nature but I wonder how much influence former slaves playing european dance music had on what they played and preferred to play and ultimately created. I had the impression that most of the former slave musicians made money by playing to their own culture and not necessarily whites. There's a link between these musics but I'd be curious to others thought on this.

Again I'm no expert and no offense intended on any of my descriptions but I always learn something from these open issues.

[cosmic gumbo]

Please don't be fooled by my use of the word European - I'm just trying to avoid using the word "white" and have this denigrate into a racial thing. But when I am talking about European influence, I am talking about the absorption of the "white" music that was surrounding black Americans and often they were playing.

I'm just trying to fight against this notion that jazz was this magical thing that sprang to life with no antecedents, except from Africa. My thesis is that while African Americans may have done work, we look at the color of their skin and assume that therefore everything that they do is "African." But my contention that several core elements of the music theory trace to European influence, not to Africa.

Peace,
Kevin

First, I don't think we can dismiss the racial aspect of the equation. The American experience was quite different for blacks, than it was for whites. If Africans had come to this country freely, and been accepted equally as Europeans, there wouldn't be any jazz. We have jazz because it comes from that black experience in America.

Second, I don't believe there is this widespread notion that jazz is 100% African without other influences. If some people did believe this, is it ignorance, or is there an agenda? It's a shame that jazz is not part of every American's public education. Heck, we can't even learn peeple to spell correktly. If it weren't for jazz, would America even have it's own music, separate from European? There's more important fights to be had. When Buddy Bolden was playing "Funky Butt", he was playing to a room full of stinky black butts, not some white society ball.

[monk]

Sam Chatmon of the Mississippi Sheiks said that they played for both black and white audiences in the 20s and 30s. His brother Lonnie, a fiddler, could read notation. The Chatmon brothers took pride in being professional musicians.

Johnny Shines said in several interviews that Robert Johnson was "crazy about polkas" and Muddy Waters claimed that before moving to Chicago that his repertoire included "all of Gene Autry's songs".

Sam Chatmon complained that the record companies didn't allow the black artists in the 20s and 30s to record anything but the blues. He said that he and his brothers as well as other black bands played a variety of music for both black and white audiences not just blues and that much of what was written early on was spun from whole cloth by the record company marketing departments.

I would recommend Elijah Wald's book Escaping The Delta to anyone interested in reading a well researched early history of the blues.

Here's an link to a short interview with Sam Chatmon:

Regards,
monk

[Jazzpunk]

Yes, but I'm talking about origins, not influences. I'm just trying to fight against this notion that jazz was this magical thing that sprang to life with no antecedents, except from Africa.

I don't believe this to be a widely held notion. I think you've read an ignorant statement here and there and have now internalized it as being some big wrong that needs to be whited...I mean righted.

Seriously, is this really a problem that needs to be addressed? If there are historical inaccuracies being perpetuated by historians or musicians in positions of influence that overemphasize the contributions to jazz made by African Americans, I would like to see them.

Any links to books, articles or statements made by credible sources that illustrate that this 'problem' exists in the real world?

[ptrallan01]

You are a bold man!!! I appreciate your starting this discussion!

The number of Free Africans in the America's is something that is virtually ignored. The number was higher in New Orleans because of the history of French relationships than in other parts of the country. This class of Free Blacks was much more formally trained and educated than their enslaved cousins. A similar study might be done of the West Indians who moved to the USA between the end of British Slavery in 1832 and the end of the Civil War in 1865. They brought another wave of culture with them.

As I understood it from my studies which were not at the university level, it was the accomodation of African Traditional music to European Instruments that ultimately led to Jazz. The blending of the two approaches resulted in new art forms. The inability of many musicians to read music also added to it. Europeans and Africans are responsible for the elements of the music but Black, a better term for this discussion since it includes people who were of mixed European and African genetics, are responsible for the product.

Good discussion, thanks everyone for participating.

[Baltar Hornbeek]

...the problem is that a lot of people seem to think that jazz sprang up out of nowhere or was solely an African invention.

This may be evident among your peers, but no one I know has this problem.

[Jazzpunk]

Kevin, have you checked the Wiki definition of jazz? Seems like they already summed up what you are trying to say:

Jazz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Jazz is a musical tradition and style of music that originated at the beginning of the 20th century in African American communities in the Southern United States from a confluence of African and European music traditions. From its early development until the present, jazz has incorporated music from 19th and 20th century American popular music.[1] Its West African pedigree is evident in its use of blue notes, improvisation, polyrhythms, syncopation, and the swung note.[2]"



The thesis behind your original post seems to reflect more of a personal issue that you have rather than that of a widespread misconception that constitutes an actual 'problem'. If you're going to spend the time and energy to write a paper, you could probably find something more substantial to write about.

Just my opinion but you did ask for opinions.

[JohnRoss]

Since the importation of slaves to the U.S. ended in 1808, by the time jazz was invented, few if any African-Americans with any memory of Africa were still living (unless for perhaps a little immigration.) African-American culture was a mixture of what was left over and what was forced on them by slave owners.

I find this very hard to digest. You are suggesting that the 'indigenous' culture possessed by African slaves in America the 1850s, say, was merely vestigial, and I can't believe that. It's a mere two generations of difference, and I know as a European that folk culture lasts a hell of a lot longer than that. There are many examples of nursery rhymes or lullabies people composed as protest songs or whatever three centuries ago, for reasons we have completely forgotten, but we haven't forgotten the tunes, and not a few of them have their counterparts in the American folk repertoire, Appalachian mountain thingies that were originally Scottish reels and so forth. I'm not all that well up on US social history, but I understand the importation of slaves was substituted by their being farmed / bred, which I can only conceive as reinforcing their sense of cultural difference. Even if attempts were made to obliterate their historical culture, it wouldn't have worked - look at the persistence of Christianity in Soviet countries after nearly a century of prohibition, and I speak as a militant atheist.

Sorry, Kevin, you're on thin ice, here. Might be no bad thing, for a thesis, to be controversial and so on (if it's totally obvious, it can't be worth a thesis, can it?), but I just can't see it in the terms you have expressed it here.

[ksjazzguitar]

Keith, I'm not sure I follow Brozman's arguments, but I'll check him out.

Another interesting theory that I once heard at an ethnomusicology conference was that the presence of the English language that helped jazz develop. It was stated that the uniquely unpredictable accents and semi-accents that lent itself to the unpredictable syncopations of jazz lines. Of course, African music already has a very sophisticated rhythmic system, but the speaker was trying to make a case that English was another contributing factor. It was an interesting lecture - I wasn't completely convinced, but he made some good points.

...Second, I don't believe there is this widespread notion that jazz is 100% African without other influences. If some people did believe this, is it ignorance, or is there an agenda? ...

First off, everyone has an agenda. Secondly, I think that this is a notion, while not held in academia, is somewhat widespread if under the surface. In this forum alone, I often get excoriated for daring to suggest that the history of classical music has anything to do with jazz. If we accept the notion that the European (white) tradition was a major influence on jazz (especially on matters of theory, e.g. harmony, tonality, meter, etc) then why do people seem to see jazz as having nothing to do with the European tradition? True, it may not be a common argument among jazz academia, but there seems to be a virulent, even militant fight to deny that jazz has any tradition that goes back beyond African-Americans. Maybe the sheer volume with which they scream their views makes it seem louder than it is.

I don't believe this to be a widely held notion. I think you've read an ignorant statement here and there and have now internalized it as being some big wrong that needs to be whited...I mean righted.

Well, I've read several "ignorant statements" - many on this forum.

Seriously, is this really a problem that needs to be addressed? If there are historical inaccuracies being perpetuated by historians or musicians in positions of influence that overemphasize the contributions to jazz made by African Americans, I would like to see them.

Again, it's often not explicit. Usually it comes in the form of diminishing the white contribution and the affect of European music. In some cases it is explicit. Reading through some reviews of the Sudhalter book (trying to give some of the credit for jazz to whites) most of the reviews by scholars were good, sometimes a little skeptical. Many of the negative reviews were from non-scholars, some of them social critics, some of them chauvinistic about African-American heritage. Many of the negative reviews sounded more emotional (almost hysterically so) as opposed to academic. Branford for example ransacked it. Having lived in New Orleans, I know the reputation that Ellis Marsalis had for his chauvinistic, Afro-centric opinions about jazz history. (Ellis - incredible player, great teacher, lousy historian.) Many of these warnings came from black musicians, some of them in their later years so they'd seen some of the history which was being distorted. Ellis passed this on to his kids, we can see it in some of the remarks that Wynton has made. Maybe my perception is a little jaded by living in New Orleans - a very racial city (don't make me start telling stories!)

But I do find that jazz musicians often want to think of themselves as separate from the classical tradition. They like to think of jazz as the neighbor down the block, instead of a half-brother. And I get this vibe much more from jazz musicians than from classical musicians. Most of the classical guys I meet like and respect jazz and listen to it. Too many amateur jazz musicians I know think that that "other" music has nothing to do with them.

Any links to books, articles or statements made by credible sources that illustrate that this 'problem' exists in the real world?

But that's my point. It's not academia that makes this argument, it's the strong streak of amateurs in the jazz and rock/pop world. Perhaps you'll defend me the next time I compare Bird's use of dissonance to Chopin's and I get jumped from 10 directions.

The number of Free Africans in the America's is something that is virtually ignored. The number was higher in New Orleans because of the history of French relationships than in other parts of the country. This class of Free Blacks was much more formally trained and educated than their enslaved cousins.

That's a good point. New Orleans probably had more free and educated blacks then anywhere else.

...As I understood it from my studies which were not at the university level, it was the accommodation of African Traditional music to European Instruments that ultimately led to Jazz....

But that's exactly my point - in that little summary, it sounds like the only think the the European's offered were the instruments. What about meter, harmony, scales. One of the defining characteristics of jazz is harmony and how it moves. Of course that didn't come from Africa - there were no chords in the sense that we mean. There were no chord progressions. It is this same pat little attitude that tries to diminish the European tradition's contribution that is exactly what I'm talking about. I think that it is common in public perception and is subliminally absorbed by a lot of people even if they don't say it directly.

Kevin, have you checked the Wiki definition of jazz? Seems like they already summed up what you are trying to say: ... [Wikipedia definition] ... The thesis behind your original post seems to reflect more of a personal issue that you have rather than that of a widespread misconception that constitutes an actual 'problem' ...

Perhaps. But am I the only one that notices that that definition only lists African contributions? Sure, it mentions European contributions generally, but fails to list them. The only salient that it bothers listing in it's introduction are the ones from Africa. If you took the words "European traditions" out of there, then nearly everything else is talking about Africa. It is a subtle but important thing, at least it seems so to me. Paying lip service to the European tradition and giving it its due are two different things.

Since the importation of slaves to the U.S. ended in 1808, by the time jazz was invented, few if any African-Americans with any memory of Africa were still living (unless for perhaps a little immigration.) African-American culture was a mixture of what was left over and what was forced on them by slave owners.

I find this very hard to digest. You are suggesting that the 'indigenous' culture possessed by African slaves in America the 1850s, say, was merely vestigial, and I can't believe that. It's a mere two generations of difference, and I know as a European that folk culture lasts a hell of a lot longer than that....

I'm not saying that it was lost out of carelessness. It was forced out of them. Families were broken up. People were put together who didn't speak the same language. They were worked to exhaustion. Slaves could be beaten for practicing certain cultural practices or speaking their own language. The culture that African-Americans formed was a mixture of what they could remember and combined with what was around them. Again, they sang spirituals that were based on the psalm singing that they heard the whites do (in some parts of the country and in traveling tent churches, blacks could actually participate.) Blacks were often expected to perform for whites - performing "white" music. Some black children were given a basic level of education - not the multicultural education that we get today. Yes, some African tradition survived. In some places it was preserved better than others - like the Gullah traditions in the swamps of the East coast where the whites were afraid of malaria. They probably out of any other group of blacks remained the most "African" out of isolation - but even they evolved into something that was clearly no longer purely Africa. And that was the extreme case - no other black group came close to their cultural autonomy. And again, many of the freed slaves that went back to Africa found that they did not fit in - their culture had changed too much, due to white interference and influence.

The European folk traditions go back farther because they were not actively campaigned against and were not in such jarring contrast to other traditions nearby. I am not saying that pure African tradition didn't survive in the Americas because there was something wrong with it, but because it was forced not to. It survived just fine in Africa where it was left unmolested.


And hey, guys. Relax. We're just having a friendly discussion here. I know it's a subject that tends to raise people's blood pressures. I'm just feeling out the topic and picking up some good input.

Most of the input has been constructive, even when it's disagreed with me.

Peace,
Kevin

[Banksia]

I am basing it on what I've been exposed to in a survey ethnomusicology class. I am not "ignorant of African music" - I just don't have the expertise that I would like. But that does not prevent me from seeing the basic characteristics and contrast them with those of the European tradition.

Perhaps "fixed meter" wasn't the right way to phrase it, but my study has led me to believe that the African sense of meter can be much more complex and sophisticated and malleable than the European sense, where meter tends to get fixed into a simple repeating pattern. It is just my assertion that the meters of early jazz have a lot more in common with the European/American tradition than the African one. In fact, I would say that the use of meter in early jazz were less complicated than what was going on in classical music at the time and much less complicated than African dumb traditions.

As to where in Africa, since most slaves came from the western coast of Africa. Most ethnographers that I have read have grouped these regions together into "West African." No, they are not all one culture, but they are culturally related and this is where the vast majority of slaves came. There is no need to consider the music of Eritrea or Tanzania, since slaves did not come from there.

If you have something constructive to add, please, please, please do. But I reread your post and I mainly see childish insults without any backing. I fail to see one piece of information that you've added. You mock my authority on the subject but you don't say what your authority is, and just seemed to post for the sole purpose of mocking me, without providing a single fact to the discussion. Is that constructive? You know, just starting your post with "with all due respect" doesn't make it not childish and uninformative.

But if you have something constructive to add, please do. I'm sincerely interested in anything constructive anyone might have to add.


Peace,
Kevin

Firstly Kevin, my respect for your reference work on the "Modes" thread is sincere, as is my respect for the time you've spent in formal study of the music.

If I "mock your authority" on this subject it's because you were the one raising the bar of scholarship, yet you present a theory with no references to support your sweeping generalisations. You are the one postulating the theory, it's up to you to establish your authority. What African musics were present in New Orleans in the 19th Century? What were the European musical traditions? Surely not everyone listened to Beethoven. What about the "low" Euro cultures, the folk musics?

What is my authority? My formal background is in Linguistics and Law, not Music, but I can see an unsupported contention for what it is.

You think I posted merely to mock you? No, I saw your brief discussion on another thread about Miles, KOB, African music etc. At the time I thought the broad use of "African music" was meaningless but, since the whole issue of modes seemed to have finally died, I didn't want to prolong that thread. Then when I saw you use the term again, without specifying which African musical tradition you were referring to, and drawing a conclusion like "no fixed meter" I assumed you had no idea what you were talking about. Based on the evidence presented in your original post on this thread, I believe that was a reasonable assumption on my part.

[JohnRoss]

I get the feeling here that your thought sequence is the wrong way round. You have a thesis and are seeking evidence to support it, instead of looking at the evidence and formulating a thesis from it. I have always understood the genesis of jazz to be a process of cultural merging (and not a unique one). You want to push it off centre to make it essentially a derivation of European music, instead, and not just European but European classical music. You have protested about precisely that kind of Occident-centrism yourself more than once, so you really can't be surprised that this idea of yours meets resistance.

why do people seem to see jazz as having nothing to do with the European tradition?

I don't think anyone does. Doesn't mean you can go to an extreme and say it has everything to do with it, any more than it would be right to say it is entirely African in origin. To state the obvious, jazz didn't originate in Africa or in Europe, it originated among Africans or their descendants in America. Obliged to perform for white people? And? Fado materialized in cafés in Lisbon, but its origins were in Brazil (where there were far more African slaves than in North America).

But I do find that jazz musicians often want to think of themselves as separate from the classical tradition.

Why not? Many people who listen to or play jazz don't want to listen to or play classical, why should they?

it sounds like the only think the the European's offered were the instruments. What about meter, harmony, scales. One of the defining characteristics of jazz is harmony and how it moves.

I'm not at all sure about that, jazz harmony has always seemed greatly overrated to me. The contrivances of modern jazz, particularly are just not that central to the music. In short, It Don't Mean a Thing if it Ain't Got Coltrane Changes will never catch on.

Of course that didn't come from Africa - there were no chords in the sense that we mean. There were no chord progressions.

Instead, there was a whole continent rich in mostly monophonic musical traditions, often linked to tonal languages (I don't know a lot about that, but I think it's probably important) and of a rhythmical complexity not generally found in the European classical tradition. As I say, jazz would still exist without bebop harmonies, would it without syncopation?

I'm not saying that it was lost out of carelessness. It was forced out of them. Families were broken up... The European folk traditions go back farther because they were not actively campaigned against and were not in such jarring contrast to other traditions nearby.

Whoa, remember The Wearing of the Green? Not to mention the tartan. Gaelic culture was suppressed in Ireland and Scotland and over a more extended period of time than the two generations you mentioned. The Highland clearances pretty well destroyed the entire clan system, the fabric of Scottish society, and almost eliminated the Gaelic language. Yet Celtic music not just survived but in the long term thrived. And I am not claiming any singularity here, similar things happened all over Europe.

Allow me to go step back a little:

Instruments - With the exception of the banjo, all instruments are of European origin. Of course you can trace instruments like the guitar to non-European origins, but only if you go back a millennium or two.

I pick on this because it's a pretty important exception. And because the decline of the banjo in jazz very roughly coincides with a certain transition, towards a jazz more in line with your thesis, a formal music perfectly in keeping with a European, even European classical tradition. On the one hand, jazz has gained in prestige, acceptability, on the other, it has become less jazz, in a sense degenerate in relation to its beginnings. Instead of finding itself, it became more European. (Just as you are declare your pro-classical stance, I declare mine vis-a-vis jazz academia - it sucks, because it has bugger all to do with jazz. My dear old daddy used to say about military bands and jazz tunes that they could play all the notes, but they just couldn't swing, they missed the point. Like jazz schools.)

Temperament - Even if you add in microtonal blue notes, the temperament that jazz uses if obviously closer to the European one (if not entirely.)

So jazz tonality is the result of African tonality meets European tonality. Yes, that's what I always thought. What are we arguing about?

[ksjazzguitar]

If I "mock your authority" on this subject it's because you were the one raising the bar of scholarship, yet you present a theory with no references to support your sweeping generalisations.

True, but if I supported everything that I said, this would turn into 20 pages. (There is a limit to how much you can put in one post. Is it said that I know what the limit is from several times butting up against it? ) And most of the things that I said are generally accepted and therefore don't require support. Even in a grad paper, most of what I said would not require citation as it is accepted by the scholarly music community at large. I'm sure a few things might have fallen through the cracks, but again, this is not me writing a grad paper, but sketching out and sounding out some ideas - not writing a grad paper.

And perhaps I'd hoped that my reputation had preceded me that I make my arguments carefully and try not to say something authoritatively unless I have a reason.

Please understand the context for me when I make a statement like, "I don't know that much about pre-modern African traditional music." The confusion that many people think that to read the Wikipedia article makes them an expert. To me the fact that I've only had an undergrad survey class in world music (with a few chapters of African music), having done grad projects that tangentially touched on African music, having attended a few lectures on African music, and having done a grad paper on 19th century African American music - to me, that still means that still means that I "don't know that much about pre-modern African traditional music" - I just have different standards of "authority" than many here.

Then when I saw you use the term again, without specifying which African musical tradition you were referring to, and drawing a conclusion like "no fixed meter" I assumed you had no idea what you were talking about.

Again, I assumed that it was common knowledge that the slaves came almost entirely from a small section of West Africa. This is a section that ethnographers tend to group together as (relatively) culturally homogenous. Again, things that are understood in the field do not need to be defended, especially when I'm just sketching out ideas. If people want to ask me why I assume that, but that can be done, without mocking lines like, "What is this statement based on? Repeated viewings of the Lion King?"

And on the comment, "The use of fixed meters is more European than African." - I would think that that is obvious to anyone who's studied or even heard both. Let me make this clear - it is not a value judgement. I am not saying that "fixed" meter is better. I am just saying that the West African concept of meter is much more flowing and malleable than the European one. I would even argue that the African one is more advanced and sophisticated. (Which is fine, European music just expresses itself in different ways.)

I think that many non-music-scholars mistakenly think that musicologists think that anything not of the European tradition is inferior. This hasn't been true for a century. Much research in music is devoted to zealously cataloging and studying folk traditions around the world. My most recent music history teacher spent years in Mongolia with nomadic tribes to document their music traditions. If I was willing to do field work, I might have better luck getting into a doctoral program - but sadly I'm married so I can't make the commitment.

But it sounds like we've had some misunderstandings, so lets get passed that.

I get the feeling here that your thought sequence is the wrong way round. You have a thesis and are seeking evidence to support it, instead of looking at the evidence and formulating a thesis from it. I have always understood the genesis of jazz to be a process of cultural merging (and not a unique one). You want to push it off centre to make it essentially a derivation of European music, instead, and not just European but European classical music.

First of all. This is a fairly common way to develop a thesis. You look at the data, come up with a preliminary thesis. Then you test it. You get some people to play Devil's advocate and see if it can stand up. At least it was a technique taught to us in my grad research class. I think this notion of someone who remains 100% objective is an illusion. Most of us have an idea where the research might be going. That is fine as long as we're willing to change our minds if the data points somewhere else. And again, I'm just feeling out the topic here.

I'm not saying that jazz is entirely of European origin. But several structural elements cannot be traced to anywhere else. Harmony is the best example. And whether I say that it is from European classical music that it is from European classical music via the psalms and fold songs that they were hearing is a minor quibble - the origin is still the same. I was stressing the origin of the harmonic language, not the specific route. If someone asks me where I'm from, I tell them where I came from, not the route I took to get there.

"[KS says] why do people seem to see jazz as having nothing to do with the European tradition?"
I don't think anyone does.

Perhaps I overspoke, but I do think there is a certain bias. Can you imagine if that Wikipedia (*sigh*) quote had been the opposite? Listing only European contributions to jazz and paying only lip service to the African heritage? And I have been chastised several times in this forum alone for daring to compare jazz and classical, as if the two had nothing to do with each other. My point is that classical is the uncle of jazz - there is a strong relationship. But maybe this is how the the topic could be narrowed - in what ways and why do the general public and some jazz musicians downplay the European heritage of jazz/blues and over emphasize the African elements.

"[KS says] But I do find that jazz musicians often want to think of themselves as separate from the classical tradition."
Why not? Many people who listen to or play jazz don't want to listen to or play classical, why should they?

Because their musicians. Because it's part of their musical heritage. It's the same thing I say to young cats who never listen to anything before Miles. I know guys who never listen to any jazz before 1970. This sort of musical egocentrism that jazz sometimes has is something that I find disturbing. Taking it to an extreme would be someone like Yanni, who I once heard in an interview when asked what he listened to, said something like, "I don't listen to other musicians, I only listen to my own recordings." Is saying "I don't listen to other styles, I only listen to my own" much better?

It's funny, because classical musicians are usually considered the snobs. But when they have clinics and lectures at the university on world music, it is usually the classical cats that show up. There is even a healthy showing of classical guys at the jazz clinics. But jazz guys? All they care about is jazz - they live in their own little world. (JohnRoss, I know you have a varied background so I'm not saying this about you, but my experience with jazz in general.)

I'm amazed how narrow the knowledge of many jazz guys is. This is not true of most of the high-level guys I've met - they are usually very eclectic in their tastes, but many of the mid-level guys and far too many of the amateurs just pretend like there is nothing to offer them. Jazz has the most sophisticated harmonic vocabulary on the planet - except for classical. Why wouldn't jazz guys want to want to open up their ears? Many of the greats did. I would even go so far that there is nothing in the harmonic language of jazz that doesn't have antecedents in classical. (I'm sure someone can find an exception - if so, please point it out.)

So jazz tonality is the result of African tonality meets European tonality. Yes, that's what I always thought. What are we arguing about?

Again, I disagree with your use of the word "tonality." "Tonal" in it's most common current usage means "functional harmony" - African music (as I understand it) would more accurately as modal, in the sense that the Greeks used the term. I would say that jazz uses European tonality with some colorful scalar options that come from the African tradition. Again, nothing in the way of functional harmony can be traced to Africa since it didn't exist.

But my point isn't that this is a new theory, but apparently unknown to the general public and many jazz players, who seem to downplay their European musical heritage, sometimes militantly. I wasn't trying to sketch out the list of European and African contributions as if this was groundbreaking news, but just as a backdrop. And again, I have many bruises from the times that I have tried to suggest that classical harmony and jazz harmony have anything to do with each other - attesting to my assertion that many do not see the connection of jazz to European music.

Peace,
Kevin

[MartinsGUITAR]

An african guy like me,realy into jazz guitar playing understands really wat i meant by TRADITIONAL JAZZ, AFROSOUL MUSIC, i am not proofing any history about it now,but what i am all about here is Introducing my favourite musical genre to The world,..

[Jazzpunk]

Perhaps I overspoke, but I do think there is a certain bias. Can you imagine if that Wikipedia (*sigh*) quote had been the opposite? Listing only European contributions to jazz and paying only lip service to the African heritage? And I have been chastised several times in this forum alone for daring to compare jazz and classical, as if the two had nothing to do with each other. My point is that classical is the uncle of jazz - there is a strong relationship. But maybe this is how the the topic could be narrowed - in what ways and why do the general public and some jazz musicians downplay the European heritage of jazz/blues and over emphasize the African elements.

Sorry I posted that wiki quote Kevin. I didn't realize that it was going to get your scholarly knickers all twisted lol.

The quote was simply to point out that even on a site like wiki which is about as generalized as one can get, it is acknowledged that jazz is a mixture of European and African (via African Americans) influences.

Again, I don't see the big 'problem' you allude to in your original post. So far all I see is one guy ranting about how African Americans have received a disproportionate amount of praise and credit for their contributions in creating jazz music. I think that's ridiculous but that's just my opinion.

The burden you'll have in writing this paper will be to prove that, culturally speaking, there is a real 'problem' and that Europeans have truly been slighted by historians as well as the majority of musicians and fans that make up the jazz community. If you don't make this case in a logical fashion with evidence beyond chat room arguments and hearsay, you'll just come off sounding like 'white guy with chip on his shoulder'! I'm not trying to poke fun at you either. I think you are dangerously close to coming off that way in some portions of your rant already so it's definitely something to consider if you want your paper to be taken seriously by a diverse audience.

It seems to me that you want to emphasize the European building blocks that African Americans assimilated instead of emphasizing the unique language they infused upon them. That is like emphasizing the techniques in painting that were in place when Michelangelo picked up his brush instead of emphasizing the unique art that he himself created and the resulting impact his work would have on the generations that followed!

It's great that you yourself hold academia and classical music in such high regard. However, trying to over emphasize the European building blocks that were assimilated by jazz musicians as they created a new language really misses the point of what makes jazz so uniquely wonderful.

Your thesis is akin to writing a paper on how water has been grossly undervalued when discussing why lemonade tastes so good. Most people who read it will probably think, 'Yeah, I know there is water in my lemonade but the lemon and sugar is what makes it taste so damn good!' To down play the lemon and the sugar is to miss the true essence of what lemonade is all about.

[ksjazzguitar]

Sorry I posted that wiki quote Kevin. I didn't realize that it was going to get your scholarly knickers all twisted lol.

Wikipedia has it's place. I love Wikipedia - I can't remember how I lived without it. But it is only useful for getting a generalized background on something. The problem is that people are thinking of it as "research." It's amazing how many times that I get into a disagreement with someone here and their "proof" is the Wikipedia article - which somehow trumps all else. It's fine for general stuff, but when you get into the nitty-gritty, your job isn't done until you get a real source.

The quote was simply to point out that even on a site like wiki which is about as generalized as one can get, it is acknowledged that jazz is a mixture of European and African (via African Americans) influences.

But it's funny because I read that paragraph and think that it makes my point. It give only lip service to the European contribution while it goes out of its way to enumerate African contributions. Again, imagine if it was reversed - there would be an outcry from the people.

Again, I don't see the big 'problem' you allude to in your original post. So far all I see is one guy ranting about how African Americans have received a disproportionate amount of praise and credit for their contributions in creating jazz music. I think that's ridiculous but that's just my opinion.

First of all, most research papers are not on "big" problems. Those get handled and disposed of quickly. Most research papers address small problems or just answer small narrow questions.

I agree that the tenor of my original statement was too strong and the topic too broad. That I may have oversold the "problem" is a valid criticism. But I think that there is clear indication of a bias in some segments of the jazz community. There is a tendency to play down the contribution of whites and the European tradition. The sometimes viscous (even childish) attacks against Sudhalter by non-scholars for his book are a good example. Many other examples can be found, especially when looking outside academia. There does tend to be this tendency - there is a tendency to downplay the contribution of whites and the European tradition and an almost knee-jerk reaction against people who try to say otherwise - if not in academia then in the mind of the public and many jazz musicians.

One could argue that a paper could be looking at the artificial line that jazz musicians draw between their harmonic practice and what the classical tradition does. On this forum alone I could get several examples. There are many, many others. Just look at the sheer volume of jazz players (mostly mid and lower level players) that argue that classical has nothing to teach them. Again, jazz history and theory does not go back just to Jellyroll Morton, a very important and interwoven branch extends back to Pythagorus, through Debussy, Wagner, Chopin, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, et al. Too many jazz musicians fail to see this, IMHO. Paying lip service to it is not enough. It's hard enough to get them to acknowledge that anything before Bird is worth knowing - how many people have transcribed anything before Bird? (OK, guitarists do Christian, but he's an exception.) And judging by some of the explanations people give about what bebop is, I doubt that even that many have really even looked into Bird. Too many jazz musicians have too narrow of a focus, IMHO.

Another paper topic I have looked at is tracing the actual effect of the classical music tradition on jazz. Either through the historical absorption of the practice (via American folk tradition being absorbed by African-Americans) or directly by jazz musicians studying classical music. This was actually a doctoral dissertation topic that I suggested.

It seems to me that you want to emphasize the European building blocks that African Americans assimilated instead of emphasizing the unique language they infused upon them.

No, I want to put them back in balance. It is my opinion (for now, it may change) that the European tradition provided much of the structural elements (harmony, meter, temperament, etc.) while the African tradition provided many of the surface elements (swing, improv, blue notes, etc.) Now, please keep in mind, by "structural" I don't mean better or more important - it's just how it functions in the texture. Possibly this is part of the problem - people tend to hear and remember the surface elements. They tend to be what draws us and charms us.

I'm not saying that jazz is European music. I'm contending that jazz is music, made primarily by African-Americans that is based on a European (white) model that had been "Africanized" to fit their tastes. It is a wonderful synergy.

But I'm just feeling this out. In grad school, we would often test our paper topics like this. Someone would say what they were thinking and state their case and we would say what we liked and didn't like. We would say what needs to be researched more. We would say where we thought the argument was weak. We would suggest how the topic should be narrowed. It's just how I'm used to working things out and I thought it would be interesting to try it out with this crowd. Especially considering a recent thread where I was lambasted for daring to suggest that we could compare jazz harmonic practice to classical. (Next time you can come to my defense, yes? )

But I won't be surprised if not everyone agrees. Where is the fun in making the case for an argument when everyone agrees?

I just thought it would be fun to get away from the "What scale do I use?" questions, get into something deeper.

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnRoss]

My point is that classical is the uncle of jazz - there is a strong relationship.

Of all the different kinds of Western music, why single out classical here? You have mentioned psalms, OK, though many musical settings of the psalms would, I imagine, have been pre-classical two hundred years ago (no real evidence, apart from several years singing the damn things in a church choir as a kid). That aside, a more natural choice would have been hymns which, with notable exceptions, are generally not particularly classical, but more like applied popular song. Psalms may be for listening to, hymns are for singing. OK, as Wikipedia says, hymn music "shares many elements with classical music," especially in four-part choir arrangements, but they aren't conceived in the same way or for the same purpose, if they were they would be opera or lieder or whatever. And the kind of interaction between African and European cultures we are considering would not have involved a great deal of Mozart, but it would have included a whole lot of popular / folk songs, including the music of the Scots and Irishmen obliged to emigrate because they were forced off their lands by clearances or famine. That music did not remain static when it reached America but evolved and became something else, even though it was still being performed by the same people, just in a different place, so it is only natural that it should change even more when adopted by people from an entirely different culture. The English "The Unfortunate Rake" became not just the American "The Streets of Laredo," but also "The St James Infirmary Blues," without the interference of a single classical musician or composer. The whole subject of plantation songs, Stephen Foster and minstrel shows and their interaction can be discussed without once mentioning classical music, and that brings us to the doors of the 20th century. I'll grant that classical music was an important influence on ragtime, but so were plantation songs and dances like the cakewalk (possibly a parody of classical music). And ragtime was only one of the precursors of jazz, the other important one being the blues, and I can't imagine you're going to say that the blues derived from the European classical tradition.

Because their musicians. Because it's part of their musical heritage.

Oh well, there is just so much heritage, not everyone can or wants to spend as much time on it as you or I. Come to that, rhythm and blues is also part of a jazz musician's heritage, and I wouldn't blame anyone for not knowing all about Louis Jordan, either.

Again, I disagree with your use of the word "tonality." "Tonal" in it's most common current usage means "functional harmony"

I'd have let that by if you hadn't snuck that "functional" in there. Tonality is first of all the concept of "tonic" or key (hence the name, do buy a dictionary) and the scales with which it is related, generally diatonic, but also including modes. Harmony is subsidiary (it usually is), just as the relationships between harmonies, the functional bit, are secondary to the relationships between notes.

African music (as I understand it) would more accurately as modal, in the sense that the Greeks used the term.

I'm not sure about that, the idea of modal implies one mode at a time to me, and I'm not sure that is generally true with African music. It's certainly not true about the North African music I am best (still not very, I admit) acquainted with.

I would say that jazz uses European tonality with some colorful scalar options that come from the African tradition.

You're making up your own definitions again, with a deliberate choice of words to suggest that, e.g., blue notes are mere 'colour,' additions rather than intrinsic. This is a very personal interpretation on your part, I feel.

[ksjazzguitar]

Of all the different kinds of Western music, why single out classical here? You have mentioned psalms, OK, though many musical settings of the psalms would, I imagine, have been pre-classical two hundred years ago ...

Not that are extant. There are no doubt precede the writing of music, but of course we have no record of them by definition. They are irrelevant as the African-Americans would have had no knowledge of them. This is a red herring.

That aside, a more natural choice would have been hymns which, with notable exceptions, are generally not particularly classical, but more like applied popular song. Psalms may be for listening to, hymns are for singing.

Sorry, but you're getting your definitions confused. Keep in mind that some of these definitions change over time and place. But in this time and place, psalms are sung too. The distinction is the text of psalms come from the Book of Psalms and hymns were written by man. The practice of psalm writing and singing was hugely important in our early history. I just finished a grad class in pre-civil war American music, so this is one area where I am particularly fresh.

And to say that it is not classical music is a bit of a red herring again. True, it is not classical music, but it's melodic and harmonic language is taken from classical music. As I said before, whether jazz is influenced by classical music directly or indirectly through other American music is a moot point at the level at which I am looking - the point is that there is still an influence. Claiming that the influence is indirect does not negate the influence.

[on jazz musicians who only listen to jazz]Oh well, there is just so much heritage, not everyone can or wants to spend as much time on it as you or I.

I'm not saying that everyone needs to become experts on everything. I guess I'm struck by the lack of curiosity and the self-imposed musical quarantine. Even if they are too busy, the real reason is the resistance to the idea that exposure to anything other than jazz would be worthwhile. Go hear a Beethoven symphony, hear a Bartok string quartet, go see The Rite of Spring, go see a raga group, listen to a real African drum group (not just the hippies in the park.) I'm not saying that it should take over people's lives, but most truly creative people that I've had the pleasure of knowing have had an insatiable curiosity - I see too many jazz musicians fighting to insulate themselves. I find it sad and damaging.

[on my restriction of "tonal" to functional harmony] I'd have let that by if you hadn't snuck that "functional" in there. Tonality is first of all the concept of "tonic" or key (hence the name, do buy a dictionary)

When we had this same discussion before, you used the Wikipedia definition. But if you'd read further, you would have read, "today the term ["tonality"] is most often used to refer to Major-Minor tonality (also called diatonic tonality, common practice tonality, or functional tonality), [emphasis added]" That is the meaning that is in use today. Your broader definition is no longer the preferred meaning, and the more narrow definition is preferred. Hence "modal" is not considered "tonal" in the modern use of the word. Again, the text for my 18th century counterpoint was called Tonal Counterpoint, to contrast it with the modal counterpoint of the past. True, "tonal" may have had a broader meaning in the past, but now it defaults to the narrower meaning.

You are making the etymological fallacy - you are assuming that by taking apart the word and seeing what the constituent components mean, then you can understand what the true meaning of the word is. But language is not that logical and meanings change over time so it just doesn't work. I could give you a long list of English words that mean something different than what they used to mean or than their parts would imply. There is even a long list of words that are their own antonymns - they can mean the opposite things. Language is not based on logic, it is based on usage.

The word tonal, in its modern usage, refers to music that is centered on a pitch which is supported by functional harmony. If there is no functional harmony, then it is essentially modal. If there is no center pitch then it is atonal. You are assuming that tonal and atonal are binary opposites, but in modern usage, they are trinary opposites with modal. Yes, I sometimes hear "tonal" used as the binary opposite of "atonal" but it must be qualified. I've heard professors say things like, "In contrast to atonal music, we have tonal music - and I'm using the word in it's broadest sense..." Without that qualification, the statement is confusing since the narrow definition is the default meaning for musicologists, if not for pedantic amateur linguists.

I'm not sure about that, the idea of modal implies one mode at a time to me, and I'm not sure that is generally true with African music. It's certainly not true about the North African music I am best (still not very, I admit) acquainted with.

But again, we are not talking about North African music. It's a big continent. There's a desert in between North Africa and where the vast majority of slaves are from.

But again, if it is centered around a pitch and there is no functional harmony, then we are essentially talking modal, which is the melodic tool of almost all folk traditions around the world and even of Europe until the development of tonal harmony.

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnRoss]

The distinction is the text of psalms come from the Book of Psalms and hymns were written by man. The practice of psalm writing and singing was hugely important in our early history. I just finished a grad class in pre-civil war American music, so this is one area where I am particularly fresh.

The text of psalms is biblical, the tunes to which they are sung are not. The practical difference is that while psalms are of course sung by both choir and congregation, they tend to be choir-led, as their melodies are less than catchy. Hymns, however, are generally intended to be sing-along-able, like popular song - almost everyone in England including the atheists would be able to belt out a hymn or two from memory, few would be able to do the same with a psalm. Perhaps 19th-century American psalms had more of a beat to them.*

And to say that it is not classical music is a bit of a red herring again. True, it is not classical music, but it's melodic and harmonic language is taken from classical music.

We discrep. You are giving classical music an umbrella position I don't feel it is entitled to. By this token, you could say the musical language of the Rolling Stones is taken from classical music, which is evidently a nonsense. Even if ultimately true, it does not further understanding in any way.

Hence "modal" is not considered "tonal" in the modern use of the word.

OK, I cede the point.

...if not for pedantic amateur linguists.

Hey, mind the language. I may be pendantic, but I am not amateur. When I'm wrong about language, I'm wrong in my capacity as a professional.

But again, if it is centered around a pitch and there is no functional harmony, then we are essentially talking modal, which is the melodic tool of almost all folk traditions around the world and even of Europe until the development of tonal harmony.

You're always making this assumption as well. Just because a tune is modal doesn't mean it lacks functional harmony. The relationships between the scale notes may not be as clearly defined terminologically as for diatonic scales, that doesn't mean they aren't there. For example, the subtonic in most modes, maybe all the minor ones, works very much like a dominant, pushing towards the tonic. I know the term is usually used about diatonic music (and as the opposite of 'afunctional harmony'), but I see no reason it should not be applicable to modal music as well. Many Irish reels are essentially minor arpeggios on the tonic alternating with major arpeggios on the subtonic. That isn't functional harmony? Even modal tunes resolve. And we aren't looking at music that came into being after the (late 19th-century) development of the theory of functional harmony, either.

*But I think John Brown's Body would have totally flopped as a rabble-rouser if they had chosen a psalm tune instead.