So really, who the hell is Beiderbecke?

I haven't really explained the title of this blog. The only thing that really tells you what the blog is actually about is the little tagline below the title. I'm assuming you know who Bieber is, but I would actually be surprised if many people knew who Beiderbecke was. Well, I guess it's about time I let you know.



Leon Bismark Beiderbecke (nicknamed "Bix") was a early jazz cornet player born in 1903. Along with Louis Armstrong, Bix was one of the first prominent soloists of the 1920's. He taught himself everything he knew, and ended up having a very large influence on jazz. While Armstrong liked to showoff to crowds by pushing into the upper register (high notes), Bix found a way to be interesting by exploring new harmonies and rhythms. According to jazz critic Terry Teachout, Bix and Armstrong were "the two most influential figures in the early history of jazz." A pretty bold statement for someone you've probably never heard of. So why haven't you heard of him? Well, unfortunately, Bix died in 1931 of pneumonia at the age of 28 (he was also known to be a hard alcoholic, which may have contributed to his death). Interestingly, he was one of the first in the trend of American music stars with an incredibly short and successful career that ends in a tragic death (Charlie Parker, Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain, etc.). He also falls victim to the fact that most people have never heard of the most famous 20s jazz musicians. Ever heard of Sidney Bechet, King Oliver, or Fletcher Henderson? Didn't think so?

So why did I pick him as the namesake of this blog? Well, to be honest, it was just because it sounded clever....but, there are some legitimate reasons. First, like internet innovator Justin Hall, Beiderbecke was an innovator to jazz that most people have never heard of. He played a big role, and it is really too bad that he died so young. Who knows how much more he would have done for jazz. Oh, and by the way, Bix was a better musician that Justin Bieber will ever hope to be.

Jazzing it up

So okay, maybe you can tell by now, I'm not the biggest fan of modern music. I mean, sure, there is some pop music I do like, but not much. But what if there were jazz musicians who made jazz versions of popular modern songs? Well, as it turns out, there are! And I like them! Jazz musicians have been covering pop songs and converting them to jazz standards for a long time. Take for example Art Tatum's "Over the Rainbow" or John Coltrane's "My Favorite Things". Both of these songs started as pop songs before they were redone as jazz songs (and some of the most famous jazz standards at that).



So here's a song you may know; the popular "Don't Stop the Music" by Rhianna. This cover, at least in my opinion is far more entertaining than the original. Jamie Cullum is singing and playing every note with passion and care. Compare that to the original in which Rhianna is casually singing out the notes behind a thumping bass with very little distinguishable key. Now I know that this may be more appealing to dance to in today's modern dance style than Cullum's version, but for pure musicianship, Cullum has Rhianna beat by a mile. And Jamie Cullum is by far not the only jazz musician who takes pop songs and jazzifies them. If you have the time, check out Brad Mehldau or The Bad Plus. Even if these may not become your favorite songs ever, they are certainly interesting twists to songs you know.

In a way, I'm somewhat curious to know what motivates these jazz musicians to cover these pop songs. In all likelihood, it is just these musicians branching out to create new forms of interesting music, but on the other hand, there may be a different reason. Check out Jamie Cullum's video again. If you look closely, you will notice that this video has over six million views, which is far more than any of his other songs. Maybe Cullum is just covering a pop song so that he is noticed by the larger pop communities that don't normally listen to jazz. It's almost like he is exercising his social capital in that he is using other people's awareness of pop music to get them to vault him higher in popularity. This is just a theory, but it would be interesting to examine closer. But for now, I'm happy as long as these incredible musicians keep making great music.

Live

There is no better way to experience than hearing it live. The experience of enjoying the professionals themselves play the music right in front of you is an unmatched experience. No matter what genre or style of music, this holds true. But that's not to say that concerts are all the same. You would be hard pressed to find a philharmonic orchestra that performs the same way as a rapper.

Last spring, I attended a jazz festival close to where I live. While there, I saw several different types of groups, from large ensembles to small combos. (One group that was particularly impressive was the Winard Harper Sextet, seen in this video filmed two months ago). Despite the differences in the style of jazz and the size of the groups, there were overarching similarities in the "concert etiquette." First of all, my friends and I were pretty much the only attendees of the festival who were over the age of ten and under the age of forty. We even had several older women tell us how nice it was to see young people come and watch jazz. During the performances, the audience was always seated and quiet, other than the short periods following the end of the song and the end of an individual's solo, when the audience would politely clap to acknowledge the soloist. Furthermore, the music was loud, but soft enough that everything could be heard with clarity.


The jazz festival was much different than the TV on the Radio concert I attended a week and a half ago. First of all, the concert was held in our college gymnasium, which may be acoustically the worst location for any musical performance. Being in the gym also meant that the majority of the people would be standing the entire time (which was about two and a half hours if you were there for the opener). Of course, this was intentional, as it allows the audience to dance and interact more than if the audience was seated. The audience was comprised of almost entirely college students (it was held on a college campus) with some locals scattered in the mix. The most noticeable difference, though, was the volume. The amps of the band were turned up so loud that it was difficult to pick out any of the individual parts other than the drums and vocals. Now I don't want to sound like an old grouch, but I would have much preferred if the band had played softer so I could actually hear the individual instruments and how they blend together. It has been shown that loud music can induce a sort of euphoria, which makes sense, but should it be at the expense of actually hearing the music?

Concerts today are treated very similarly to how social networks are treated. Previously, social networks were used as a method of "social currency," but now, social networks have become more of a form of quick entertainment. Live jazz is much more focused on the quality of the music while live modern music is focused on the entertainment and enjoyment that the music creates. It's impossible to say that one type of concert is better than the other, but the differences between the two definitely reflect the evolution of music. Who knows where live music will go next?

(Bonus clip; Herbie Hancock live with Pat Metheney playing Cantaloupe Island)

It's all about the technicalities

Now, I don't mean to be a musical snob, but in my opinion, modern music is boring. Compared to jazz, with its complex harmonies and intricate rhythms, pop music is very simple. For example, contrast John Coltrane's Giant Steps with Australian comedy group Axis of Awesome's Four Chord Song. Giant Steps is incredibly complex; it changes key ten times in the first thirteen seconds. On the other hand, the Axis of Awesome present the startling reality of the simplicity in chord structure of many pop songs. While it isn't entirely true that all of those songs played in the video were composed with the same four chords, they are far simpler. I'm not trying to say that the only good music is complex music; that is far from the truth. But something must be said for the talent required to improvise flawlessly over the chord changes in a song like Giant Steps like Coltrane did. That talent is simply not seen in today's music.



Let's take a closer look at the song above. This is a recording of Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers playing "Mosaic" recorded in 1961. The horns (Freddie Hubbard on trumpet, Wayne Shorter on tenor saxophone, and Curtis Fuller on trombone) come in accompanied by the rhythms section (Ceder Walton on piano, Jymie Merrit on bass, and Art Blakey on drums). The rhythm section quickly takes over at 0:08 and sets the tempo and energy. Freddie Hubbard enters at 0:18 with a fortepiano note (a note hit loudly and then dropped to a quieter volume) and plays with the dynamics. Shorter and Fuller join Hubbard at 0:24 to play accented chords with somewhat dissonant harmonies. Hubbard once again plays with a long sustained note at 0:29, this time using vibrato. The horns play the accented chords once again at 0:36 before entering a new section in which they play longer sustained harmonies while the rhythm section changes to an irregular triplet feel. The band repeats the first section again before entering into solos at 1:05.

Improvisation is the defining aspect of jazz, and excellent examples can be seen right here. Wayne Shorter takes the first solo, flying into passionate runs that perfectly follow the chord and rhythmic structure. Shorter's solo ends and Hubbard enters seamlessly at 1:52 with an equally impressive solo. Curtis Fuller solos at 2:37 followed by Ceder Walton at 3:22. Finally, Art Blakey begins his nearly three minute long solo at 4:10. The rhythm section reenters at 7:00 before the horns restate the original theme and end the song.

What makes this song so good (or at least in my opinion) is how technically good it is. There is a high level of energy that permeates during the entire eight minutes. The harmonies used during the head (the beginning section before the solos that is repeated at the end) are dissonant and interesting. The solos are a testament to the sheer talent of the musicians. These fundamentals make the song what it is. Similarly, effective writing also contains these fundamentals. Elements of writing like punctuation are extremely important to writing, but they are often overlooked by students today. In my opinion, modern music will never surpass jazz until musicians begin to innovate with more complexity in their music. I want to hear a pop song that uses more than four chords and has intricate rhythms. Maybe then I would be able to appreciate it a little more.

The performer, past and present

Louis Armstrong. Perhaps the most well-known and influential jazz musician of all time. He had the whole package: he was both an incredible trumpet player who basically taught jazz how to swing, and he invented scat singing with his noticeably unique raspy voice. In addition, he performed with antics that make it hard not to smile while you watch. And maybe that is what sealed the deal for Louis Armstrong. He was the first iconic American performer. It may seem that Satchmo is just expressing his enthusiastic personality, but really, Armstrong knew exactly what he was doing. Every time he stepped on a stage, Armstrong presented that caricatured version of himself that audiences loved so much. Just look at the first video. Clearly the man playing the saxophone is the bandleader and Armstrong is just a guest, but Louis literally "steals the stage," allowing the bandleader only a short opportunity to be heard. Below is another example of classic Louis, this time in a rare video with future jazz legend Dizzy Gillespie:



Not only is the music enjoyable, but it is just fun to watch. Everyone on stage looks like they are having a great time, and they really project that to the audience.


Okay, so it's not hard to enjoy Louis Armstrong acting silly onstage, but how does that relate to today? That is not very difficult. Look not further than your very own modern "make a fool of yourself just to get attention" performer: Lady Gaga. I mean, people don't just wear things like this just because they feel like it:



Just like Louis, everything Lady Gaga does is a calculated effort to attract attention. And boy, has it worked.

Clearly the way the musician performs has evolved tremendously over time. Louis Armstrong's performance style would not work today just as much as Lady Gaga will not be relevant in fifty years. People will wonder why there was some woman rolling around a stage wearing Saran wrap. All forms of media have undergone this evolution over the past century. We began with silent films and are now watching ultra-high definition 3D movies on IMAX screens. Additionally, the way information is communicated has evolved a tremendous amount. The only way to receive news from beyond a small distance was by newspapers. Now, we have television, radio, and the internet. The internet is an especially interesting new form of media because it allows individuals to have a large influence on many people through the use of Twitter and blogs. And just as the performer has evolved, we can only expect media to improve and innovate.

Does it mean a thing if it does have that swing?

Where is jazz today? Sure it's there, but it exists in the public view only in the form of high school jazz bands and "Jazz at Lincoln Center" specials on PBS. Jazz only accounts for three percent of all music sales today. What's wrong with that? Jazz has just fallen into the same category as classical music: just another genre that old people hang on to to avoid listening to today's music. So what's the big deal? Well, really, it comes down to the fact that jazz is really the only true "American" music. Just like many Americans, its roots originate from many different places; from Southern folk music to African tribal music. And it was almost definitively invented in the heart of New Orleans. (And if you don't believe that argument, you can just ask Congress, who, in 1987, wasted their time just to declare that jazz is American) Shouldn't it be important that we preserve the only music we have to ourselves?

Well, you may be thinking, jazz is not the only form of American music. Rock is certainly considered American, but it really has its origins in the UK. Rap and hip hop can be traced directly to West African music, so technically it didn't originate in the US like jazz did. How about that crazy new genre, dubstep? Nope. Dubstep and most other forms of electronic music are European. How about modern pop music? Well...come to think of it, the music that is so perennially the most bought music on iTunes and in record stores also is a uniquely American thing. So much so that many consider the export of our modern music to the rest of the world as just another example of the Americanization of the world.

So we can talk about jazz and we can talk about pop. There was a time though when jazz was pop: the Swing Era of the 1930s and 40s. Bandleaders like Duke Ellington (seen below), Count Basie, and Benny Goodman ruled the scene just like Lady Gaga, Rihanna, and Justin Bieber do today:



Why was jazz so popular then? Actually, for the same reason music is popular today: people liked to dance to it. Just listening to Ellington's big band makes you want to get up and dance, right? Well, maybe not, but for people in the 1930s and 40s, it was the best dance material around. And people needed the pep in jazz for the same reason the entertainment business is flourishing so much today. We are in a recession, and they were in a depression (quite a large one, too). When people are down on their luck financially, they turn to forms of entertainment.

So really, if you think about it, jazz music of the twentieth century, and pop music of the twenty-first century have a lot more in common than you might notice at first glance. The mission of this blog is to explore these similarities, and what we can learn about our modern music by looking to the past. And hopefully, we can also learn to appreciate our American musical roots. I mean, seriously, how can you not enjoy this even a little?: