Eth6. Must jazz remain responsible to past jazz traditions?
Contents
Discussion[edit]
What does remain responsible mean?[edit]
Responsibility is defined at Dictionary.com as:
“1. the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable for something within one's power, control, or management.
2. an instance of being responsible.
3. a particular burden of obligation upon one who is responsible.
4. a person or thing for which one is responsible.
5. reliability or dependability, especially in meeting debts or payments.” (bold not in original)
These do not all mean the exact same things so it is important to determine in what sense jazz or jazz musicians must be responsible.
It is possible to make a case for all five as to how jazz places responsibilities. Let's investigate these.
- 1. Jazz musicians satisfy the first definition in the sense of being “accountable for something within their power” in the sense of being accountable to playing good jazz. This is in their power and it is presumably a goal of all musicians to play good music.
- 2. If jazz musicians are “responsible to jazz” then there will be “instances” of it.
- 3. A “burden of obligation” is a possible meaning for what it means to achieve responsibility. The question then is what to say relative to any obligations that a jazz musician may have to jazz as a genre of music or to its past practitioners. Because the predominant original jazz musicians were other than white and a vast majority of the stars of jazz have been African-Americans it behooves future practitioners to recognize the struggle and difficulties that these pioneers in the genre of jazz had to suffer in support of their musicianship. Furthermore, these pioneers were responsible for so much of the creativity and techniques of jazz that these current and future jazz players are utilizing to play effective jazz and this debt is thought to need recognition and thanks/gratefulness.
- 4. Can jazz be a “thing for which one is responsible”? Certainly when performing jazz musicians are causally responsible for the quality of jazz bring performed.
- 5. Many jazz musicians think it appropriate to acknowledge the past musicianship and performing promoters of past jazz and to which they owe a “debt of gratitude and respect.”
- 1. Jazz musicians satisfy the first definition in the sense of being “accountable for something within their power” in the sense of being accountable to playing good jazz. This is in their power and it is presumably a goal of all musicians to play good music.
There are many responsibilities that a jazz musician has and not all of them are to jazz. Everyone has a responsibility as a rational autonomous agent to act morally and not immorally. This is not a responsibility one has to or towards jazz directly.
Interestingly, the most idiomatic definition at Dictionary.com might hold the key to answering the question of responsibility towards jazz. That idiomatic use is defined at dictionary.com as:
“Idioms: on one's own responsibility, on one's own initiative or authority, e.g. "He changed the order on his own responsibility." (bold not in original)
Many, if not most jazz musicians feel a responsibility towards the past history of jazz and especially wish to respect their elders and pioneers in the jazz world.
Rahsaan Roland Kirk, a master of most sub-genres of jazz, and someone who could play from Dixieland to free jazz, often chastised fellow musicians who were ignorant of the broad spectrum of sub-genres included under the jazz umbrella ☂ 🌂 ☔️. He believed jazz musicians needed to know about and be able to play all of jazz's musical past.
Can there be responsibilities to genres or styles of music?[edit]
One wonders if individual persons can have responsibilities towards traditions, or genres, or artistic institutions. Musicians are a rebellious lot and often play in multiple styles and genres, especially if they like it or it is financially rewarding, or other reward types. No musician has any responsibility such that they can only play in one style or genre because no such obligation exists under which a musician would have such a responsibility. The person denying this has the burden of proof establishing that there could be such a responsibility to a musical genre like jazz.
CONCLUSION: So, there is no responsibility such that for any one musician he or she needs to play only jazz.
➢ But what about a musician when she or he is actually playing jazz? What responsibilities to jazz might one possibly have then?
Reasons to think musicians DO NOT HAVE responsibilities to jazz when playing it[edit]
What responsibilities might there be such that were a jazz musician to violate that responsibility that then the musician would be rightfully subject to criticism? Can you think of any such circumstances? Probably there aren't any, but let's attempt to imagine some of them, then assess them for reasonableness of criticism.
Really, there are few besides philosophers who might actually care if there is or is not any definition for jazz that is acceptable philosophically. However, there are a few other people besides philosophers who would care if they were playing jazz, and thereby interested in its definition. These would be beginning music students who strive to learn how to play jazz and would relish being told, "Now, you are really playing jazz."
➢ Does there have to be anything that exists that remains stabely jazz for the sentence, "Now, you're really playing jazz" to be true?
We already know the answer to the question is "No" if Jonathan McKeon-Green were correct about what he believes the noun "jazz" stands for. He believes the term "jazz" covers a hodgepodge of disparate and more or less arbitrary groupings of musical styles/genres. See PoJ.fm's Ontmusic3. What is the definition of jazz?: Assessment of the views of Jonathan McKeown-Green and Justine Kingsbury on jazz for a fuller presentation and critique of positions on these topics.
“Nothing in the previous practice [of past jazz genres] signaled that certain styles, and not others, would count as jazz later. Nor is it likely that actual jazz history reflects a more principled, strategic, elegant, or otherwise defensible program than all counter-factual ones.”[1] (bold and bold italics not in original)
McKeon-Green holds these positions vociferously.
Reasons to think musicians HAVE responsibilities to jazz when playing it[edit]
Start here.
NOTES[edit]
- ↑ "What is Music? Is There A Definitive Answer?," Jonathan McKeown-Green, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 72, no. 4, September, 2014, 397.