quote:
Originally posted by Buck "Sweetie" McGuck:
Since jazz is improvised music, I've always found the "jazz singer" to be an odd thing. Is it possible to improvise singing without resorting to scatting? If the singer and band are not improvising, is it still jazz?
Boy, that's a great question, Buck.
Improvisation is only one of the elements that defines jazz. I find it interesting that it is the element people think of most when thinking of the music (Homer Simpson: "Jazz?!! they make it up as they go along!"). Improvisation has been key to music for centuries. Bach was reknown for his skills as an improviser and the classical soloist who follows the score to the note is a relatively recent phenomenon.
The meter and rhythmic patterns and distinctive harmonic structure (especially "blue" notes) are at least, if not more, key to jazz as improvisation, which is where the role of the "jazz" singer comes in to play.
Personally, I'm inclined to agree with you that the absence of improvisation puts a lot of singers on shaky ground. I love Joe Williams and Jimmy Rushing, for example. Both recorded extensively with Count Basie, but honestly they feel more indebted to blues than to jazz, to me. Eddie Jefferson really didn't scat per se, but his vocalise, the practice of putting words to well known solos in jazz (i.e. Coleman Hawkins' "Body & Soul") plants him firmly in the jazz camp to my mind.
I, like all of us I expect, like all kinds of music, so at the end of the day, I'm more interested in the singer than the style. Not to the point, however, that I don't like kicking the question around.
Obviously.