Riffs  

Yesterday Amardeep Singh had made the provocative claim that hip hop is a more determinative musical form than jazz. The context was a discussion of jazz pianist Vijay Iyer's fusion, and the idea that fusion in jazz happens at a different level than fusion in hip hop -- possibly because the latter incorporates alien elements through sampling, rather than more organically. I'm kind of naturally inclined against this idea, and I get the sense that Deep is too, so instead of making an argument I'll just offer a couple observations.

If it is true that jazz is a less determinative art form, shouldn't this be the result of jazz's relative age? Otherwise the two forms are remarkably similar (both are about appropriation and improvisation, both worked early on to subvert dominant forms, both struggled to gain wide acceptance and were derided early on as non-music), but jazz has had the opportunity to pass through stale periods, metamorphosis, and concert hall glorification. Would it have been possible to profoundly incorporate Indian elements into 40s jazz? Surely we could imagine hip hop experiencing the same institutionalization as jazz, and the same concurrent formal expansion -- although I doubt today's artists would welcome that, just as Bird would probably be seriously disturbed by today's jazz-as-museum-piece.

There's this huge irony here too, that we're talking about fusion with two musical forms that are so centrally about appropriation. Is jazz's ability to fuse so comfortably really an indication of its vitality? I can't bring myself to answer no, but I also think jazz has entered a completely new phase of development today -- one that has more in common with classical than with early 20th century jazz.