WahKeen Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Badness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman5293 Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Badness? Still not sure I completely understand what your referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyK Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 ...and how about a Sears Twin-12 amp? Sears owned Harmony for a time, so it counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versatile Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Some of the past masters advocate singin' whether it's jazz or blues...if yer caint sing it yer caint play it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golem Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Know the lineage of musical genres: Classical - Jazz - Blues - Rock N' Roll/Funk - Hard Rock - All Genres of Metal Nope. Jazz does not come before blues, and jazz does not come after classical. Jazz comes after "blues meets classical". Blues and classical do not need to contest with each other for chronological position. The two came from different continents and different old world civilizations so one neither is the ancestor of the other. They both existed ... and then they met in the new world ... then your lineage thing traces forward from there. Of course, blues in its original form and place was not considered "blues" ... but it "got the blues" when it traveled with its peoples and encountered a hostile world across the Atlantic from its home. Meantime, the hostile world awaiting those peoples was already ruled by those who brought "classical" music with them. Just as the blues was not "blues" in its home, likewise classical was not "classical" until it was time to look backwards at it. Natcherlee, "blues" and "classical" both have their antecedents, but within the scope of your 'lineage timeline', it's sufficient to see the encounter of African music and European music as the "Big Bang" which makes it the beginning of time. So I would rewrite your the front of your timeline without the words "classical" and "blues" because the rest of your events derive from a simultenaity of blues and classical ... they occupy one spot on the line together ... not one spot after another: Big Bang - Jazz - Rock N' Roll/Funk - Hard Rock - All Genres of Metal instead of: Classical - Jazz - Blues - Rock N' Roll/Funk - Hard Rock - All Genres of Metal Also, I do not comment on the rest of your timeline as I am not qualified ... it's essentially none of my bidnez. But the front end can only be accurate if it acknowledges the simultaneousness of the Afro and Euro musics, and that jazz was the result of the forcible co-location of these musics. ` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shnate McDuanus Posted September 9, 2010 Author Share Posted September 9, 2010 Very well-put, Golem. You were exactly the type of individual I was hoping would check out this thread, since it essentially became largely a discussion on music history. Thank you for the insight, brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman5293 Posted September 9, 2010 Share Posted September 9, 2010 Nope. Jazz does not come before blues, and jazz does not come after classical. Jazz comes after "blues meets classical". Blues and classical do not need to contest with each other for chronological position. The two came from different continents and different old world civilizations so one neither is the ancestor of the other. They both existed ... and then they met in the new world ... then your lineage thing traces forward from there. Of course, blues in its original form and place was not considered "blues" ... but it "got the blues" when it traveled with its peoples and encountered a hostile world across the Atlantic from its home. Meantime, the hostile world awaiting those peoples was already ruled by those who brought "classical" music with them. Just as the blues was not "blues" in its home, likewise classical was not "classical" until it was time to look backwards at it. Natcherlee, "blues" and "classical" both have their antecedents, but within the scope of your 'lineage timeline', it's sufficient to see the encounter of African music and European music as the "Big Bang" which makes it the beginning of time. So I would rewrite your the front of your timeline without the words "classical" and "blues" because the rest of your events derive from a simultenaity of blues and classical ... they occupy one spot on the line together ... not one spot after another: Big Bang - Jazz - Rock N' Roll/Funk - Hard Rock - All Genres of Metal instead of: Classical - Jazz - Blues - Rock N' Roll/Funk - Hard Rock - All Genres of Metal Also, I do not comment on the rest of your timeline as I am not qualified ... it's essentially none of my bidnez. But the front end can only be accurate if it acknowledges the simultaneousness of the Afro and Euro musics, and that jazz was the result of the forcible co-location of these musics. ` I actually wasn't referring to the order in which they were invented. I know blues and classical have been around for forever. I was actually talking about the order in which they gained popularity in the U.S. And in that sense I am sure that my list was accurate. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us though! It is very much appreciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigzag Posted September 10, 2010 Share Posted September 10, 2010 Nope... Jazz comes after "blues meets classical". Great post and most informed on this thread. I would have to comment on that one concept. I would have to say that Jazz and Blues developed separately but are intertwined. It is difficult to distinguish the delineation between the two. Some authorities on the subject will tell you that Blues roots in the US started to become apparent in African-American religious music of the late 1700s to field music of slaves in the very early 1800s evolving from peoples of the West Indies and Western Africa. Those roots can be traced in the south from Louisiana to the SC/Georgia coast. One of the things that distinguishes Jazz from Blues is rhythm, and while Blues can have more sophisticated rhythms than Western Classical music, those rhythms don't tend to be as complex as Jazz rhythms. The complexity of rhythms is African. From what I've read and heard, Jazz can be traced directly to Storyville in New Orleans around the turn of the 20th century, and comes from the melding of European music and the roots music in the US from Africa and the West Indies. The "Classical" music that has been referenced was primarily music of the French and Spanish in the 19th century using instrumentation from marching bands, whose main influence was, of course, European "Classical." "Jazz" and "Blues" (proper) as the recognized genres of today developed about the same time at the turn of the century. milod made an interesting comment when he implied that early Jazz was more instrumental and Blues was sung. Edit: Looking back on the previous posts, seems my post echoes dem00n's pretty closely. Scary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.