Fighting for the Soul of Jazz

There’s a phrase that says that the poignancy of anything has more to do with what something does as opposed to what it is. Thus, when conversations about musical purity emerge, and what the mechanics are for fostering it, I’m always fascinated as to where people land on this seemingly broad spectrum of understanding.

I’m writing about this because I came across an interesting FB thread today that touches on this very idea. And it had to do with the usefulness of certain terms that we’ve been conditioned to use as musicians. But what became apparent to me was that the comments people were making had less to do with defending their use of these terms as much as they were about the defense of their idea of themselves. And even though words are technically an arbitrary collection of sounds, our defense of certain words has to do with our subconscious defense of those who gave us those words, as well as what it must say about us for having aligned ourselves with those people. After all, if someone you don’t like uses a certain word, chances are you might go out of your way to avoid using it just to further distance yourself from them, as I believe the most telling symbol of alignment that exists between humans is in fact the words we use. So to be specific, the thread had to do with the idea of what it means to have “soul,” as well as what it means to play “mechanical sounding.” Now I’m sure there are a few others that could get added to the list, but for the sake of brevity, we’ll just focus on these.

One of the points that the author of the post made was that these terms are lazy stand-in’s for more specific terms that could be used if people took the time to find them. And I say lazy because these words have been in the ether forever. After all, it’s not like people just got hip to these terms yesterday and haven’t had a chance to flush out any better alternatives. So the response I offered up on the thread was that these terms were actually tangential to a more important conversation that relates to what it means to create music that connects with people. And that conversation has to do with musical intent.

When people are assessing the amount of “soul” in a person’s performance, I believe that what’s really being communicated is the degree to which one believes that the artist believes in what they’re doing. Case in point, when you find yourself in a debate with someone, the x-factor that the other person has that convinces you of their argument has to do with the way you can tell that every fiber of their being stands behind their argument; that they’d defend their position in a court of law, or be willing to physically fight someone over it if need be (which of course would be aided by the intensity of their non-verbal cues as well). So again, when we talk about musical “soul,” I believe it’s reflective of the degree of congruency that exists between what someone is doing and what they believe to be true deep down in their actual soul. As for the phrase “mechanical sounding,” this is what we focus on when the musical intent is cloudy. When the intent is clear, and the technique used is in support of that intent, we don’t question the use of said technique. But when the intent isn’t clear, we have no context by which to understand the use of the technique; no different than someone watching tv while clutching a hammer.

So in closing, if you’re someone who has ever thought about how to reconcile terms like these before, and especially these two, then hopefully this blog was useful.