Does improvisation make jazz what jazz is?

[Krabsworth]

So I was practicing guitar with my teacher and somehow it got to him saying how he didn't like improvising and he couldn't care less if he never did. He is perfectly content with playing chord melodies etc. So it made me think,"is jazz jazz without improvisation?" I know in my jazz band we didn't improvise at all, the sax players and trumpet players would just get a 4 bar passage to play for a,"solo." I have listened to Duke Ellington songs that are just 3 minutes long and aren't 90 percent improvisation. So is improvisation the essence of jazz?

[AmericanWeiner]

So I was practicing guitar with my teacher and somehow it got to him saying how he didn't like improvising and he couldn't care less if he never did. He is perfectly content with playing chord melodies etc. So it made me think,"is jazz jazz without improvisation?" I know in my jazz band we didn't improvise at all, the sax players and trumpet players would just get a 4 bar passage to play for a,"solo." I have listened to Duke Ellington songs that are just 3 minutes long and aren't 90 percent improvisation. So is improvisation the essence of jazz?

Nah, the groove, harmonies, and the interesting melodies are.

Improvisation is really what makes it fun for the player, though.

[Krabsworth]

Well I have seen people on here say how they think improvisation is what jazz is about.

[AmericanWeiner]

Well I have seen people on here say how they think improvisation is what jazz is about.

Well you hear people talking about reinterpreting old songs all the time in jazz, but there's no reason you can't do that without improv

I mean hell what about all the recorded music..while it may technically be improv, it's definitely not different everytime I listen.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

I would say that improv is Jazz's special feature and I would refuse to believe that Jazz would be Jazz even without improvisation after reading the book On The Road.

[Krabsworth]

I would say that improv is Jazz's special feature and I would refuse to believe that Jazz would be Jazz even without improvisation after reading the book On The Road.

But jazz has it's own sound, how is 6 minutes of unplanned soloing defining a genre? As I said, my teacher is a huge jazz player, listens to jazz all the time and he never does loads of improvising.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

If Jazz won't serve as the flagship of musical improvisation then what will? I have a romantic perception of Jazz so I like my improv.

[Krabsworth]

If Jazz won't serve as the flagship of musical improvisation then what will? I have a romantic perception of Jazz so I like my improv.

Does something have to be the flagship of musical improvisation?

[Joseph India]

If we define jazz loosely as a combination of elements that the majority of (people who call themselves) jazz musicians agree make something jazz, improvisation must certainly be one of those elements.
But this is only one way to define jazz. Whether jazz can be defined is not certain.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Improvisation is huge in Jazz, period. Don't like it? Strum chords then.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

Well people have different views on jazz.
I like to see the word jazz inferring heavily improvised aspects of the music and mainly that. It's related to the Mahavishnu orchestra type fusion and like free music that's improvised along with bebop and the like, I guess somewhat what people call the "jazz" attitude or whatever, the "swing".
If yuor teacher thinks something else that's fine.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

I like the romantic perception of Jazz, you know, sweat and grit, smoke... improv.

1,oooth post.

[Samuel]

I've always felt that the improvisational component is a very big part of small group Jazz. It's not just about improv for improv's sake, but more about the interaction among the players. That is a defining factor for me, and one which factors heavily into how I would rate a group. If a group is showing a lot of interaction, then they're going up in my books pretty quickly.

Improvisation is also a big part of the attitude of Jazz, in the same way that swing is. We may say a certain recording or group is Jazz if they don't, but there's something fundamental about the two sounds that just scream "Jazz".

But, of course, ask ten different players to define Jazz, and you'll get ten different definitions. That's just how I view things. No one is really right, and no one is really wrong either. Just play it.

[Zappa]

I have trouble considering anything "jazz" that doesn't contain improvisation. It's what keeps the works of Gershwin from being jazz in my eyes, for example.

[some jive turkey]

^Good comparison.

Yeah, I think imrpov is crucial to jazz, yet not exclusive to jazz.

The threadstarter's teacher is probably not a big jazz player

I also think Jazz is too big to define. it's just too vast, too many kinds of jazz to think of jazz as a genre. I'm always saying it's just a way of making music.

[moogoogaipan]

I'll reiterate with everyone else.
Improvisation is the soul of jazz...
also,...communication with fellow bandmates

[jazzfromhell]

I believe that without improvisation, it isn't jazz. Improvisation is what made jazz different from ragtime when it first appeared, so I think it basically defines the genre.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

I agree that it's not jazz without improvisation except there is a different concept of jazz that exists of it being horns and brushes on the drum and that stuff solely. Or maybe some teachers just dont give a band improv parts.

[Knifeboy]

So let me get this straight, according to you guys, if I play an improvised jazz sounding solo, then it's jazz... . But if I play it again, exactly as before, it stops being jazz?

:p

[masada]

that's so not a jazz question

[doofusinternational]

improvisation is only a part of jazz, like the concept of "swing" latin music dosn't swing yet most ppl call it jazz. lots of mingus's stuff is written out aragements and we call that jazz so really jazz can mean almost what ever you want it to mean.
true inprov is just playing practiced patterens over a preconcived harmony so it isn't really "improving" unless you are just wanking which says you have chops but no clue as to what you'er doing musically.

[masada]

that didn't make any sense

[moogoogaipan]

improvisation is only a part of jazz, like the concept of "swing" latin music dosn't swing yet most ppl call it jazz. lots of mingus's stuff is written out aragements and we call that jazz so really jazz can mean almost what ever you want it to mean.
true inprov is just playing practiced patterens over a preconcived harmony so it isn't really "improving" unless you are just wanking which says you have chops but no clue as to what you'er doing musically.

that's not true at all. Improv isn't playing practiced patterns. Sure, there are idiomatic licks that people play to take up space, but it should be made up on the spot.

Swing is swing... it can be jazz, but a lot of times it isn't.

Latin can be jazz. Bossa Nova and Afro-cuban... there's tons of that kind of jazz.

[jazzfromhell]

improvisation is only a part of jazz, like the concept of "swing" latin music dosn't swing yet most ppl call it jazz. lots of mingus's stuff is written out aragements and we call that jazz so really jazz can mean almost what ever you want it to mean.
true inprov is just playing practiced patterens over a preconcived harmony so it isn't really "improving" unless you are just wanking which says you have chops but no clue as to what you'er doing musically.


Mingus's songs all featured solos. Solos which were improvised. Therefore, Mingus's music was jazz.

[jazzfunkboy]

So let me get this straight, according to you guys, if I play an improvised jazz sounding solo, then it's jazz... . But if I play it again, exactly as before, it stops being jazz?

:p

yes. :cool:

jazz is all about the moment. jazz isnt jazz without improvisation because thats how you capture the moment.

if there wasnt improv in jazz i wouldnt like it.

[masada]

how would you know that you wouldn't like it? it's not like you could say "oh i don't like this because their isn't improv", because there wouldn't be improv to compare it to

and i just realized that this made no sense

[jazzfunkboy]

improvisation is only a part of jazz, like the concept of "swing" latin music dosn't swing yet most ppl call it jazz. lots of mingus's stuff is written out aragements and we call that jazz so really jazz can mean almost what ever you want it to mean.
true inprov is just playing practiced patterens over a preconcived harmony so it isn't really "improving" unless you are just wanking which says you have chops but no clue as to what you'er doing musically.

mingus may have charted alot of his stuff out but there is always a strong sense of improvisation present, ie a soloist improvising over written melodies and stuff like that.


your definition of improv is depressing.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

"Whee. Sal, we gotta go and never stop going till we get there." "Where we going, man?" "I don't know but we gotta go."

"What is the feeling when you're driving away from people, and they recede on the plain till you see their specks dispersing? —it's the too huge world vaulting us, and it's good-bye. But we lean forward to the next crazy venture beneath the skies."

Jazz!

[Nissos]

For me, the most appealing part of jazz is improvisation -- I wouldn't play jazz personally if it wasn't improvised. But making it part of definitions and generalizations -- I'm not so sure. I'm against strictly defined forms and genres.

As a general rule, I would say jazz consists of improvisation, but it is not absolutely gun-to-the-head necessary.

[moogoogaipan]

As a general rule, I would say jazz consists of improvisation, but it is not absolutely gun-to-the-head necessary.
if it's not improvised, it's not jazz.
If the improv goes away, it suddenly becomes a different genre.

The instrumentation doesn't matter, nor does the style... it's all about improv.

Many people associate jazz with swing... but some swing wasn't jazz and a lot of jazz isn't swing... what remains true is that all jazz must contain improv or it becomes a composed piece of music which isn't what jazz is.

[Krabsworth]

I am glad this thread got some good discussion going in this dead forum :) / :(

[Joseph India]

I think I agree with Moogoo... especially the last part.
I think the style sometimes does matter though. There are certain styles that use improvisation that shouldn't be considered jazz, such as Indian classical music and Flamenco. And then there is a lot of grey area when it comes to style for example funk, blues, and rock.

[Haruspex]

while improvisation is certainly a key element to the jazz vibe, i dont think that they are vicarious to each other.

for an example, look at the elaborite composition of Mile's Davis' Bitches Brew.

[jazzfromhell]

You're under the impression that Bitches Brew does not feature improvisation?

[moogoogaipan]

I just downloaded Bitches Brew... and to be honest, some of that stuff is incredibly hard to listen to. I'm listening to it regardless, but some of those sounds just rub me the wrong way.

keeping on topic... Bitches Brew is full of improvisation. It almost feels like the entirety of the compositions are improvised.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Everyone says Bitches Brew is hard to stomach, I loved it and consumed it with ease.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I found this quote somewhere and it puts things into perspective:

"If pop music is daytime, a nine to five soundtrack regulating work and consumption, then noise is its night…. In contrast to music manufactured under the surveillance glare of pop, noise provides a cover of dark that encourages both experimentation and criminal acts. Noise generates the perfect conditions for interrogating control and jamming its channels. Noise is the meltdown of logic. And it refuses the notion that everything is consensual, that communication is paramount, that music must be about pleasure."

I think jazz explores the boundries of noise, verges on it, improvises with it.

[Zappa]

I don't think Bitches Brew is jazz.

I love that album passionately.

[jazzfromhell]

The focus is on improvisation, I'd say it's jazz. It's my favorite album.

[Rams]

What improvising does Ella Fitzgerald do? Or is she suddenly exodused from jazz?

[AmericanWeiner]

What improvising does Ella Fitzgerald do? Or is she suddenly exodused from jazz?

scat?

[Zappa]

You guys are taking improvisation's importance too far now. Acting like it's the only defining feature of jazz music...

If improv is all that makes jazz what it is, Bach is the greatest jazz musician who ever lived.

This is a hard question. I don't know how I feel about it anymore.

[masada]

That post wasn't improvised.

You're so not jazz anymore, Zap.

[Zappa]

Hah, did you catch the quick edit?

[masada]

Sho did.

[Rams]

scat?

Lil' Jon is more jazz than her then.

[Joseph India]

You obviously don't understand jazz singing at all. Do you even listen to Ella?
Can't you tell that she is not just singing the melody as it was written? Scat isnt necessary for improvising in singing.
For example listen to her version of Lullaby of Birdland from her live record with Duke. If you can't tell that there is a lot improvising on the melody you are completely insane.

[masada]

Someone isn't a Lil' Jon fan.

:(

[Joseph India]

what

[gaslight]

Improvisation is one of the things that makes jazz what it is.

You can't say improvisation has absolutely no importance to jazz, but you can't say it is the only thing to it either.

No biggie.

[Lupus]

"Whee. Sal, we gotta go and never stop going till we get there." "Where we going, man?" "I don't know but we gotta go."

"What is the feeling when you're driving away from people, and they recede on the plain till you see their specks dispersing? —it's the too huge world vaulting us, and it's good-bye. But we lean forward to the next crazy venture beneath the skies."

Jazz!
Goddamn you I'm reading that book and haven't gotten up to that part yet!

[Tarquin1986]

I reckon what makes jazz jazz is that you are part of the tradition. Parker took jazz as Benny Goodman understood it to new places. Coltrane built on that. Ornette built on Trane. Ornette sounds nothing like Benny Goodman but they are connected by the tradition. No doubt this is overly simplistic but you get the gist yeah?

[Rams]

Ornette built on Trane by coming out with revolutionary work before Coltrane launched his solo career? Interesting theory.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Goddamn you I'm reading that book and haven't gotten up to that part yet!
Haha sorry, after you're finished come back in here and tell them how Kerouac knows what jazz is more than most anyone.

[Tarquin1986]

Ornette built on Trane by coming out with revolutionary work before Coltrane launched his solo career? Interesting theory.


:lol: Okay, my details are sketchy/inaccurate at best, but there is a point in there, seriously.

[Jazz Pirate]

Improvisation allows the player to express the truth of who they are. IMO, as a musician, you're not expressing yourself fully unless you can improvise.

[moogoogaipan]

exactly... improvisation is a completely right-brained activity.

You have to learn a lot of the stuff needed (left-brained), but you only learn that stuff so that you can use it subconsciously.

A good story I heard went like this.

"When a famous marimbist names Robert Van Sice was just beginning his career, he went to Keiko Abe (the worlds most famous marimbist) to learn more about his art. When he got to her, her first question was "Do you consider yourself a musician". He said "yes" because he had already one many competitions.

She was quick to shoot him down when he replied no to her next question which was "Can you improvise"

She said that Improvisation is what makes you a musician. Knowing a repetoire of many pieces is like knowing how to say certain words in a foreign language, but not knowing anything about what they mean.

This isn't really a jazz argument, but it's something interesting nonetheless.

[masada]

So you're all saying that you aren't expressing yourself fully by writing a piece instead of improvising?

[moogoogaipan]

not at all.

Being able to improvise is the pinnacle of musicianship, though.

[PDWAB]

Course that's easy for Keiko Abe to say because she's an amazing improviser. She basically just jams at the marimba, writes it down, and BAM! you have another great marimba tune. I know a lot of great writers aren't so great improvisors, and I know a lot of great improvisors that don't write very well. If you write a symphony but can't solo too well does that mean you're not as much of a musician as some jazz guy who solos great but can't write a 12 bar blues? Of course not. I don't think there is such a thing as "pinnacle of musicianship", everyone has different strengths.

To me jazz has always been a mix of harmonic sophistication and improvisation, even though I've heard things that I think of as jazz that don't have either. I would have to say though that if you were trying to find work as a jazz player and you couldn't improvise you probably wouldn't get hired very often.

[masada]

You said what I was thinking.

[Zappa]

But apparently you all agree that playing written compositions doesn't even rate on the musicianship scale?

[jazzfromhell]

Um, I don't know if you're referring to me at all, because I haven't really been participating in the conversation, but I don't agree with that.

[gaslight]

I don't know if anyone was saying that. Sight reading is way up on the musicianship scale.

[moogoogaipan]

But apparently you all agree that playing written compositions doesn't even rate on the musicianship scale?
you drew that conclusion yourself. No one said that.

I don't know any great musician who can't improvise. Bach or Mozart were probably some of the best improvisors in history, as far as the history books tell us.
And composers are "improvising"... the music they hear in their head isn't something that someone else created. So they are essentially improvising, but at a slower speed.

Let me put it in better terms.
The pinnacle of musicianship is being able to express what you hear. Be in through composing or improvising in a jam.

[Rams]

You are butchering the meaning of improvise.

[Zappa]

Rams got an avatar. And it's Scratch!

[PDWAB]

you drew that conclusion yourself. No one said that.

I don't know any great musician who can't improvise. Bach or Mozart were probably some of the best improvisors in history, as far as the history books tell us.
And composers are "improvising"... the music they hear in their head isn't something that someone else created. So they are essentially improvising, but at a slower speed.

Let me put it in better terms.
The pinnacle of musicianship is being able to express what you hear. Be in through composing or improvising in a jam.

I wouldn't call spending 6 months writing a symphony improvisation. The best definition I've heard for improv is "spontaneous composition", which composing, for the most part, is not.

I don't think musicality is that simple. I saw the Seattle Symphony play Tchaik 5 once, and it was one of the most amazing readings I've seen. I talked to the timpanist later on and it turns out that they hadn't even rehearsed it, they all just knew it so well they could play it that good at the drop of a hat. There is way too many forms of great musicianship to summarize in one sentance.

[Joseph India]

Some people have made this so complicated. I think this is a great answer to the question. How can you disagree with this?

Improvisation is one of the things that makes jazz what it is.

You can't say improvisation has absolutely no importance to jazz, but you can't say it is the only thing to it either.

No biggie.

PS
Zappa I dig the new avatar, mine is Stavinsky too. :cool:

[moogoogaipan]

I wouldn't call spending 6 months writing a symphony improvisation. The best definition I've heard for improv is "spontaneous composition", which composing, for the most part, is not.

I didn't say that writing a symphony is improvisation.

^^that's what I meant

[Rams]

I didn't say that writing a symphony isn't improvisation.
Please don't assume that.

There's your problem. Writting a symphony can take years to do and lots of revisions. It is certainly possible to improvise a symphony, but it is rather improbable. I doubt you don't know what improvisation is, but you are expanding it to include things that are clearly not improvised. In doing so, you are over stating how important improvisation is and understating the other aspects musicians are involved in.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Pardon me for taking it upon myself to bring this discussion elsewhere, but if you guys are interested here is a link to some things people brought up: http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?t=15974

[PDWAB]

I didn't say that writing a symphony is improvisation.

^^that's what I meant

And composers are "improvising"... the music they hear in their head isn't something that someone else created. So they are essentially improvising, but at a slower speed.


Then what ARE you saying? I have a feeling that we're basically saying the same thing with just a little variance on the particulars.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

I kind of see what he is saying.

[Zappa]

The pursuit of absolutes is what is making this thread so difficult.

[what]

Some people have made this so complicated. I think this is a great answer to the question. How can you disagree with this?



PS
Zappa I dig the new avatar, mine is Stavinsky too. :cool:

uh oh i have stravinsky too

[Lady Lex]

Improvisation is a part of music. You can find it in the Cadenza of a Concerto, the figured bass of a Bach invention, an indian raga-based tune or
the warmup before a recital ;) Improvisation is merely a tool in jazz - a large one, but merely an application all the same.

To me, music is all about sub-divided rhythms. The integral difference between genres comes down to where the accent placements fall and where climaxes are expected to culminate. I also think that Music is a reflection of that subculture - and in particular, the language. For example: Indian rhythms made no sense to me: 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 seemed quite alien. Until I heard the opening vocalised line that is recited before each raga is established. When I heard those words.. I realised how our language and where the accents fall determines the rhythm and meter of music in general.

So in jazz: what makes jazz especially distinctive is its sub-divided rhythms. The swung 16ths, the off beat, The One.. it is why you can mix jazz with any form and come up trumps. It offers every kind of sub-divided rhythm and thus melds wonderfully with the different genres existing in this world.

Another interesting point: I have a very old recording of an african warhorn calling tribes to battle. It was recorded during the 1930s by ethnomusicoogists studying the culture and music of african tribes. While the texture and sound of the instrument is extremely different - I could have sworn I was listening to a horn line from a jazz tune. And as it is in the black man's blood, so it has carried thru Jazz and now, to us.

Just some random thoughts :)

[PaUsE36]

Wow Stravinsky looked like Iggy Pop.
Lady Lex, you are right, Jazz and Blues is in a Black Man's blood. There's been many a time I've jammed with my step dad and jazz/blues flow out.

I think improv is essential to Jazz, to a point. I was recently blessed with BETJ (BET Jazz), and I cannot stop watching it. The duo's, trio's, and bands that improv on predetermined scales, come up with some astonishing jazz.

Jazz to me is all about vibe. I went to band practice tonight and we just reworked a jazz interlude in one of our songs. At the time, I was depressed and sad when I wrote the previous Jazz interlude, and it turned out slow and mournfull. We redid the bass line, sped up the drums, and I worked on my attack. Now it's just bursting at the seems, fits the direction of the song more. The key...it's an improv on all our parts. We stuck with a wierd progression and went from there. Granted 80% of it is written, the other 20% will be improv.

Another song has no improv (except drums, he always does rolls and accents different everytime), but the bass and guitar is the same.

So like I said, it's essential, but not written in stone. Make sure you have a vibe going on, go with the rhythm, and most of all have fun and get lost in it.

[HaVIC5]

jazz is all about the moment. jazz isnt jazz without improvisation because thats how you capture the moment.

Improvisation is definitely not the only way to play music in the moment. If you ever watch a skilled orchestral musician, they are living in the moment as much as a person can be when they play symphonic music. They aren't simply reciting. They are taking the notes that are already there and making them their own, and everybody elses within the ensemble. While not as personal, per se, as an improvised solo, playing in a symphonic orchestra is far more communally elating - meaning, the great sense of musical community and oneness one feels while collectively interpreting and performing music. .

This said, I think jazz can be very orchestrated and still be jazz. It's more in the spirit that goes into the music than the form.

[Rubes9492]

attitude and feeling makes jazz what it is

[LTJ386]

I think the chord progressions, and the chords in those progressions, make jazz. I mean, after all, without chord progressions there would be nothing to improvise over, unless of course you're talking about free jazz.

[LTJ386]

It is the chord progressions, and the chords in those progressions, that bring out the improve in jazz musicians. Those progression caused them to hear those melodies over the chords, and without them, it would be very different.

[Joseph India]

I disagree with the idea that chord progressions are the only thing to improvise over. There is a lot of good jazz that uses ostinatos instead of chord progressions. And there is what some people call "pedal point" which is just playing to a root note. And there is improvising in a scale or mode with out any change or progression.
Chord progressions are not nearly as significant as syncopation for example.

[LTJ386]

I disagree with the idea that chord progressions are the only thing to improvise over. There is a lot of good jazz that uses ostinatos instead of chord progressions. And there is what some people call "pedal point" which is just playing to a root note. And there is improvising in a scale or mode with out any change or progression.
Chord progressions are not nearly as significant as syncopation for example.

I didn't mean just chord progressions, but any backing rhythm in general really.

[Joseph India]

I don't understand you.

[jake plays guitar]

if you have to ask if its jazz it probally is. and in my opinion jazz is a mindset anyways. i live jazz and i love jazz. therefore i am jazz haaha.

[DavidB92]

Jazz is about more then music.

[pipe]

its just about taking music to new places, to change it always, even if its the same song you're playing. jazz is a playground, where your creative ideas are free to be explored, you just have to have fun and the courage to play with whatever comes throught your head and heart.

[Substitute]

scoobeedopalopbop
wopadoopdoobaba
doobie bapadoop
ascooscoobopadopdop

[Rams]

This thread is one hyperbolic metaphor after another.

[bigbadsnowman]

I agree.

3 in a row

[Jody LeCompte]

I've always thought what defined jazz was musicians that could straddle the line between feeling and technical ability and use huge deals of both without neglecting one or the other.

[pipe]

This thread is one hyperbolic metaphor after another.

yeah, that playground metaphor i posted before is a bit stupid, but then again, i wrote it at about 3 in the morning with half a bottle of chivas regal in my stomach. after all, it aint too bad!

[Lady Lex]

Improvisation is a part of music. You can find it in the Cadenza of a Concerto, the figured bass of a Bach invention, an indian raga-based tune or
the warmup before a recital ;) Improvisation is merely a tool in jazz - a large one, but merely an application all the same.

To me, music is all about sub-divided rhythms. The integral difference between genres comes down to where the accent placements fall and where climaxes are expected to culminate. I also think that Music is a reflection of that subculture - and in particular, the language. For example: Indian rhythms made no sense to me: 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 seemed quite alien. Until I heard the opening vocalised line that is recited before each raga is established. When I heard those words.. I realised how our language and where the accents fall determines the rhythm and meter of music in general.

So in jazz: what makes jazz especially distinctive is its sub-divided rhythms. The swung 16ths, the off beat, The One.. it is why you can mix jazz with any form and come up trumps. It offers every kind of sub-divided rhythm and thus melds wonderfully with the different genres existing in this world.

Another interesting point: I have a very old recording of an african warhorn calling tribes to battle. It was recorded during the 1930s by ethnomusicoogists studying the culture and music of african tribes. While the texture and sound of the instrument is extremely different - I could have sworn I was listening to a horn line from a jazz tune. And as it is in the black man's blood, so it has carried thru Jazz and now, to us.

Just some random thoughts :)

Im quoting this again. So many of you seem stuck on chordal and harmonic structure when really, its about the rhythms and accent placements. The same chords in a jazz tune can also be found in a baroque tune. But how they both differ, comes down to accent placements and rhythmic applications.

[Joseph India]

yes
syncopation is essential in my view of jazz.

[AmericanWeiner]

scoobeedopalopbop
wopadoopdoobaba
doobie bapadoop
ascooscoobopadopdop

^^ This is the best definition I've seen yet.

I'm serious too.

[Eliminator]

So people are still arguing about this?

scoobeedopalopbop that!