Jazz Accessibility Scale

[Dave James]

In the context of the thread Dan started about late period Coltrane, I came across an interesting blog called SDP Jazz authored by Ken Blanchard. In this entry, Mr. Blanchard attempts to create an accessibility scale that assigns a value to different kinds of jazz music. I not sure to what extent I agree with what he has to say, but it's interesting nonetheless and the first time I can recall seeing any thing quite like it. Here's the text of his blog:

Jazz & Accessibility

The kind of music celebrated here has never had mainstream appeal, and it never will. It may have a great influence on mainstream music, but most folks just aren't going to be turned on to Miles Davis's ESP or John Coltrane' Live at the Village Vanguard. The simple reason is that the music makes considerable demands on the listener. You have to be able to hear a lot that isn't explicitly stated, and recognize the heart of the melody even when the band is playing all around the periphery. I am not saying that jazz fans are smarter people, just that they have a taste that is unlikely to be shared by most listeners. The same is true of a lot of other musical genres, like Indie Rock. You don't hear that on the radio in South Dakota.

I have written about this in an earlier post on Lee Konitz, where I compared bop to poetry, another art form that always has a small audience. But some jazz is a lot more accessible than other jazz, and the listener may well want to know the difference in order to tell whether a recording will fit within his or her own comfort zone. Otherwise valuable resources, like the Penguin Guide to Jazz Recordings, aren't much help on this. It is as though the most dedicated Jazz listeners don't seem to be aware of the difference.

I have long toyed with the idea of creating an accessibility scale, and here is my first attempt. It may be useful especially for the fan just getting into jazz. The scale is from A1 to A5, with A1 being as accessible as any popular song, and A5 being all but unintelligible to some members of the band.

A1 jazz might not be recognized as jazz by some fans, but it is at least a useful boundary. Put a lot of Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett here. A1 jazz will include jazz standards, but will stick closely to a melody that will be instantly recognizable to anyone who doesn't have a tin ear.

A2 jazz is A1 jazz with at least some improvisation and jazz exploration thrown in. Most of Dianna Krall falls into this category. Straightforward melody is most of what she sings, while the band is allowed to get in some genuine bop in between verses. Or the singer may remain pretty close to the melody, while swinging wide now and then. Cassandra Wilson and Joni Mitchell have recorded a lot of A2 jazz. This can be very beautiful stuff, but it is not what any jazz lover would call adventurous.

A3 jazz is the level of straightforward bop. The classic form begins with a melody clearly stated, and follows with a series of solos that improvise on that melody. Most of the core library of bop falls around the A3 mark, as I think it should. Miles Davis first quintet, Cookin', is a fine example, as is Cannonball Adderley's Somethin' Else, or almost anything by Bill Evans. Despite his well-deserved reputation for weirdness, most of Thelonious Monk's recordings are easily pegged as A3 jazz.

A4 jazz is where a lot of listeners lose the drift. Here the recognizable foundations of most music, melody, chord changes, harmony, and often pretty sounds get left behind for the exploration of pure musical ideas. No figure of modern jazz is more firmly associated with this kind of music than Eric Dolphy. For example, a fine piece of A4 jazz is Andrew Hill's Point of Departure, and sure enough, there is Dolphy playing his alto. But a good way to test the distance between A3 and A4 is to listen to one of the Miles Davis Live at the Blackhawk discs, and then chase it with one of the Live at the Plugged Nickel sides. With the former, one of my favorite live collections, you can always tell that you are listening to Oleo or No Blues. At the Plugged Nickel, it often doesn't matter what the name of the song is, and you would be hard pressed to name it from anything that is going on during the number. Don't get me wrong, a lot of A4 jazz is pure genius, and I listen to the Plugged Nickel on a regular basis.

A5? Well, there is Ornette Coleman, or Albert Ayler. But it is best to consider this as a boundary rather than a genre all its own. This is sometimes called "free jazz," but it often seems to free itself from music entirely. In a pure A5 document, very few listeners could tell the difference between a right note or a note rightly played, and one that is neither. I think that A5 is probably the point at which the music is disintegrating, but may only mean that the demands it makes on me are not demands that I can meet.

Now, having laid this out, I am not at all sure I can maintain it. Most jazz will fall between the clear points. If Cookin' or Relaxin' are right on A3, the Blackhawk is moving in the direction of A4. But maybe this will be of more help than the traditional categories like hard bop, free jazz, or avant garde. If not, well I wasted a good hour's thought. But we'll see.

Up over and out.

[Rooster_Ties]

Put me down for more A4 and some of the front-half of A5. But mostly A4.

Edit: A3 is OK, but before A3 largely bores me to tears. And the back-half of A5 is sometimes interesting, but more 'out' than I can listen to with much frequency.

Interesting scale. Could have maybe done with a couple more gradations (maybe 7). I think there’s a lot of borderline A3/A4 material, and also stuff in between A4/A5 -- that doesn’t quite fit into each of the 5 grouping levels very neatly. But I think its heart is in the right place.

Edited August 2, 2008 by Rooster_Ties

[Chuck Nessa]

Geez!

[Dan Gould]

Its a somewhat interesting attempt at what he's trying to codify. I think its sort of interesting that his A1 category doesn't include anything that is associated with contemporary/smooth/quiet storm type music. I think it lands in the same category of accessibility, and by his own definition, he acknowledges that some won't identify it as "jazz".

Beyond that, its seems like a set of categories that "work" but aren't really that informative. For that matter, swing doesn't get an explicit place though he says that bop is squarely in category 3. And where does hard bop fit in, particularly if hard bop was an attempt to make bop more earthy, which implies more accessibility?

[RDK]

Geez!

I'm with Chuck on this one.

[Swinging Swede]

Yes, where does pre-bop jazz fit into this?

Where would you put ODJB for example?

[Spontooneous]

I'm only interested in A2.7 through A3.2, and the rest of it can go to hell.

[Chuck Nessa]

[Chalupa]

I like A1 on my steaks.

[7/4]

Beefy!

[JSngry]

[John L]

Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett are the most accessible jazz??? Well, maybe for the white Americans of their generation.

[Spontooneous]

And what do we gain by codifying any of this? Other than a system that's good for scaring people away?

[BillF]

The writer talks of accessibility, but accessible by whom? Age is an important factor: for example, how naturally Charlie Parker comes to you can depend on how many decades ago you started listening. The same could be said about the acceptability of big band jazz to a listener. This week I went to a performance by Indian actors and musicians and sat there thinking that Coltrane of a certain period would fit right in with them. The so-called "more accessible" jazz would be more alien to them. I think the article is undermined by the assumption that all potential jazz listeners come with the same musical baggage.

[Dan Gould]

Age is an important factor: for example, how naturally Charlie Parker comes to you can depend on how many decades ago you started listening. The same could be said about the acceptability of big band jazz to a listener.

After 22 years of listening to rock/pop, I heard and grasped Charlie Parker and big band (Ellington) immediately as music that I liked and wanted to hear more of.

[Teasing the Korean]

Funny the writer chose Ornette and Albert Ayler for A5. Both of them can be pretty straightforward and outright tuneful compared to many other players of so-called "free jazz."

BTW, my range of listening extends to A0 and A6 jazz.

[robviti]

as far as this kind of categorizing goes, i say "close your eyes, open your ears, and your mind will certainly follow."

damn, i'm good after a nap, although i'm sure somebody already said it before me.

[JSngry]

[BeBop]

Yesterday, I described my jazz tastes (half-jokingly) as reaching the uptown border of downtown...say, around Chambers Street.

[BeBop]

It seems to me that Mr. Blanchard is taking something complex, simplifying it and, in the process making it complex again, though in a different way.

[papsrus]

I'm concentrating on freeing my mind.

[Chuck Nessa]

I'm concentrating on freeing my mind.

If you are concentrating, it ain't gonna happen.

[Neal Pomea]

"The kind of music celebrated here has never had mainstream appeal, and it never will."

If he means "jazz," then the very first sentence is EPIC FAILURE and so so false. Unbelievable! Let's just rewrite history.

[papsrus]

I'm concentrating on freeing my mind.

If you are concentrating, it ain't gonna happen.

Damn! ... ok, ok ... gimme a sec. :eye:

[Spontooneous]

And aren't these attempts to classify usually driven by an urge to exclude something or someone?