What categories make sense when considering music from the Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking diaspora?

For the purposes of the JJA Awards, we've been using the categories "Afro-Caribbean" and "Brazilian". Fair? Unfair?

How do we avoid a Grammy "situation" ... explosion of categories with resultant erosion of exposure/importance?

I, as many other musicians, producers, educators, writers, and industry insiders, believe that Jazz is Jazz, and Latin/Brazilian music is Latin/Brazilian music. I believe that if one were to define Jazz, and break it down musically, then do the same with Latin/Brazilian music, what you’d have is either Jazz, or Latin/Brazilian music. I believe, as do many others involved in this art form, that such categorization has led to a discriminatory practice that in the long run has hurt many of those musicians that have dedicated their lives to this art form we call Jazz.

How so, you may ask? Well, one way in which the artist gets discriminated against would be through the booking process. Here in NYC for instance, a club like the Blue Note puts aside a couple of weeks of the year for “Latin Jazz”, while the rest of the year is reserved for “Jazz” artists. Radio programmers are also know to disregard those promotional packets that come labeled “Latin Jazz”. Very few radio programmers feature the artists, or their music. There are those that merit recognition such as Bob Parlocha and Awilda Rivera, but for the most part the music of those artists that are labeled as “Latin Jazz” artists goes unnoticed.

With that said, if there needs to be a category established so that the music does not go unrecognized then the category, “Afro-Caribbean”, should be changed to “Latin Jazz” since nowadays there are many different variants (Bomba, Flamenco, Tango, Joropo), some which have nothing to do with “Afro” or “Caribbean”. Brazilian music should also have a category of it's own due to the rich variety of rhythms that are distinctly Brazilian.

Like George, I want to say hello to everyone and express my appreciation to James for the opportunity to participate.

My main issue as a journalist -- and a musician as well -- in dealing with the "is Brazilian Latin" debate is to keep them separate. I think it's two distinctly different worlds, and within each of those large universes are many different styles.

I'm still fairly comfortable with the term "Latin Jazz" or, as Eddie Palmieri prefers it "Afro-Caribbean," but I understand George's comments regarding promotion (and, did anyone notice, Latin Jazz was the last category to be mentioned in wire accounts of the Grammy Awards). To me, the largest part of this movement is still rooted in Afro-Cuban and Afro-Rican forms. The Flamenco, tango and the rest of it is something else -- as the Grammy Awards do, these are apart (in my mind at least). I grew up listening to Tito and Mongo and Ray and Cal, so that has colored my perception of what "Latin jazz" is.

Brazilians do not want to be considered part of this category -- at least the ones I've interviewed over the years. I have many points I can make along this line, as I've been traveling in Brazil since 1970 and have been there four times in the last year. I probably have the world's largest collection of Brazilian recordings. From a musician's perspective, the the two "families" of music, Brazilian and Latin, are very different, from rhythms to instrumentation. And, Brazilians - most of them -- think it's crazy when journalists call them "Latin jazz" or "Latin" artists. From their perspective, it's not so.

As with the Brazilians, I've always looked at the relationship between Spanish and Portuguese people as like cousins, not brothers and sisters.

Well, that's a beginning. I look forward to this.

Dizzy Gillespie said " there is only good music and bad music." Charlie Parker "There is no boundary line to art." Ellington "Soon it will all just be music." Amen

That is what I, as a musician, say to categorization. It divides. It conquers. And it does not reflect what musicians do and how they think. Especially ones that play what is known as jazz or jazz - influenced music. Jazz is an open system that borrows from many different styles to make it what it is. Some of you have read my articles on the early influence of Caribbean styles on early jazz styles. If you accept my arguments, then by the definition posted on the home page of this site, all jazz is Latin jazz.

That said, as an academic I acknowledge that marketing strategies, economic pressures etc, must be seriously considered when discussing the music, and this is where the truisms stated above fail to address those complexities. Because Dizzy also, aware of marketing strategies, coined the term Cubop which greatly assisted the business of Latin jazz. There was then a term that could be exploited and used for expressly economic purposes. What we must do as researchers/musicians/ producers is grapple with a balance between what the music is and what can bring the most benefit. There is not an easy solution. 

A lot of people through the years have disliked the term Latin Jazz, including Mario Bauza and Ray Barretto. I think Latin Jazz is fine as a general term but Afro-Cuban Jazz works best when one is describing the mixture of jazz improvisation with Cuban and African rhythms. I think this term can also be used for jazz from Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic in general because of the similarities even though there are differences. If it's from Brazil and uses Brazilian rhythms, the term Brazilian Jazz seems to fit best. Of course it gets confusing when different styles overlap, but that's a difficulty that exists in all styles of jazz. What if it is 30% this and 70% that?

On the other hand, I don't know what Afro-Caribbean jazz is unless that's just another way of saying Afro-Cuban. And Salsa to me is the pop equivalent of Afro-Cuban jazz. But naturally all of this can get rather confusing!

But who decides what's good and what's bad? And, with the bewildering amount of recorded music, the consumer needs some road signs to work their way through the maze. I think out work as journalists needs to go far beyond just slapping a label on something -- we need to give the consumer cultural context (presuming they haven't heard what we're writing about). And, there's nothing wrong with educating people a bit. Why shouldn't they know that an Afr-Cuban rhythm section usually has timbales, bongos, congas, guiro, claves and maracas? Or, in Brazilian music, what role a tamborim plays? Or a cuica, or a-go-go bells.

I do clinics for school kids and lay out on the floor the "families" of traditional Afro-Cuban and Afro-Brazilian percussion instruments. They are different and represent different African cultures. It's deep. Compare an a-go-go to a cow bell (cencero). Their may be similar functions, but the instruments are different. That tells us something about the music and how it has evolved.

The issue here today as I see it - subcatagorization of the term latin-jazz for the purposes of JJA's award presentation and a discussion about diaspora and how it pertains to the musical and particularly the latin community. Having read the posts so far, I have to say my feelings are echoed strongly by Bobby Ramirez. I too share the belief that a further subcategorization of the existing categories would "tend to promote confusion rather than being an integral part of this Jazz fusion" as aptly put by Bobby. However the other side of this coin is what has happened in the Jazz world - the influences of other musical forms, as they seep into the form we've known as "jazz" starts to redefine it and reshape it, seeming to require additional categorization - such as "smooth jazz", "jazz-rock-fusion", "latin-jazz", "acid-jazz", "jazz-funk"... I feel these categorizations are only useful when speaking of MARKETING a project. ie - trying to explain a musical stance as an artist to a festival... or a journalist... but to begin to use these terms as heading for recognition of a broader scope I think is a mistake. An infinite amount of sub-catagorization could result until you're giving out awards for "best pseudo latin funk influenced Atlantic Coast Colombian rhythm driven harmonically advanced group of the year"... not to be confused with "best pseudo latin HIP-HOP Atlantic Coast Colombian rhythm driven harmonically advanced group of the year". You dig? I, like George, feel that the umbrella of Latin-Jazz is fine. At least in TODAY's current state of latin-jazz. I want to take a minute to acknowledge the temporal nature of these terms also - ie - that as time passes and a category "grows" into it's own entity (the way latin-jazz has grown beyond the contrants of merely being able to call it "jazz"), sub-categories will naturally form. It is the very temporal nature that we forget. We don't need to FORCE the categories on the music... the music will, through time, grow and demand it's own. If we sub-categorization occurs too soon, it can lead to my above silly example (which - given enough TIME - might be a completely legitimate sub-cateogory of some future's modern musical art).

In conclusion, for now - for TODAY - I, like George feel that the heading Latin-Jazz will suffice and as soon as you start subcategorizing into Afro-Cuban and Brazilian, you open the door for other subcategorizations that I feel are needless at this stage of the art's development.

- Brownman (Latinos all call me "Marróncito", so please feel free).

Sorry to keep quoting, but these masters just say it better than I can. Mark you raise an important point. That of education. As Bechet says, we need to tell the whole story, or at least as much as possible. I wish there were more writers like you who feel that one of their roles is to educate. In this venture, labels can be helpful if they are presented in a nuanced way that exposes their inherent reductive stances. I believe that musicians also have an obligation to educate and get the music especially to the younger generations. With a more informed audience, the whole notion of having to label something to sell it becomes inconsequential.

I agree with the points about the confusion caused from too many catagories. However, to include Brazilian music, unless they are playing an Afro-Cuban groove, "Latin jazz" artists is just way too broad, and the Brazilians themselves reject it.

When DownBeat did the cover piece on Claudia Acuna (Chilean) and Luciana Souza (Brazilian), it called them "Latin jazz" singers. The joke is, both want to distance themselves from their culture a bit and be taken seriously just as "jazz singers." But when I asked Luciana about how she felt being called "Latin," she said something like, "No, of course I'm not, I'm Brazilian, and I know what I am (but it was generally good publicity, so live with it)."

When Jobim was given the first Latin Jazz Grammy, people in Brazil thought it was a joke, but were happy he received the recognition. Even on my last trip, when I bought a shirt in a Rio store, the clerk commented that, "Oh, that color and style has become popular here since the Latino thing (read Ricky Martin and Jennifer Lopez) started happening and came down here."

The point is: Brazilians do not see themselves as "Latin" artists, so as a journalist, I don't want to put them in that box. Poncho Sanchez, sure. Eddie, naturally. Lots of people. But not Eliane Elias, Luciana Souza and Ivan Lins (and all the others). So, I beg for a Brazilian -- as large as that is -- catagory.

Sure, I think most of us realize that traditional, folkloric style Cuban music isn't jazz, and therefore shouldn't be called what it isn't. I'm often surprised that the jazz magazines cover so many recordings that have only a tangental connection with improvised music. In the case of great, traditional Cuban music, it's important for people to hear it because it shows where the more "progressive," modern, "jazz" version of the music came from -- the roots. I think the Grammy people -- and I'm a big critic although I'm a voting member of LARAS -- have it close to correct when they created the -- I believe -- "Traditional" Tropical (meaning mostly Cuban, but not necessarily) music, in addition to salsa, merengue, and Latin jazz. So, I don't see a problem here. Hilton Ruiz playing CuBop type arrangements is "Latin jazz" to me; son recordings from Santiago de Cuba are not part of that tradition.

My point is based on the many profound differences between the cultures of Brazil and the Spanish speaking countries (which have many differences as well). The simple point is that while someone in Chile or Argentina or Ecuador has some association with the concept of being a "Latino" or "Hispanic," Brazilians do not. It's something else -- their own thing. We here in the North sometimes fail to understand the great differences. They are significant. I'll go along with Chris and many others and agree that fragmentation -- labeling, putting people and music in boxes -- it's good, but we can't change basic facts: Brazilians are Brazilians, not Cubans. Their music does not, with only a few minor exceptions, have any rhythmic relationship to what comes out of the Spanish speaking Caribbean. There are links between the styles and instrumentation among Cuba, Puerto Rico, Colombia and the rest, but those links are not there to the Brazilian culture. It's the history of slavery -- the Portuguese brought their slaves from Portuguese holdings in Africa, the Spanish from their holdings to their New World colonies. Those poor people had different traditions, different instruments, different music. The physical isolation, until the advent of better transportation and communicaiton not that many years ago, allowed these traditions to evolve each in their own way in regions of Cuba, Brazil and elsewhere. That's why these styles are so distinct from one another.

So, in the same way we wouldn't want to arbitrarily walk up to someone on the street and say, "Hey, I don't care, but today I'm making you an Ethiopian," I don't believe we can lay the term "Latin" on the Brazilian culture.

We are talking about musics that have some connection to jazz -- it's, to me, the issue of whether or not to lump the vastly different Brazilian styles under the "Latin jazz" umbrella that's the question. I had planned to write a paper on this for IAJE this year, but missed the deadline. I'll do it again next year. There are many cultural, historic and linguistic reasons why Brazilians are not, and do not consider themselves, Latinos. Hence, their music is not "Latin" music unless they are playing a "Latin" style. Basically, Afro-Cuban music is in four, and Brazilian is in two. Was anyone at IAJE in Long Beach a year ago for the Latin jazz jam? The Brazilians came, and stood on the sidelines moving oddly when the Latinos were playing a charanga. Their bodies don't even know how to move to that kind of clave! Think of a samba -- it's as different as night and day. Again, we are trying -- or some people are -- to put the Brazilians and their music in a box where thjey really do not belong.

The language of American Jazz is as much a part of the Brazilian side of Jazz. It is find that Brazilian folks don't associate with the term "Latin." I don't think that that should have anything to do with "Brazilian rhythms" as a part of the "Latin Jazz" experience in the United States.

More power to Brazilian people that want to forge a unique cultural identity in America. But, in the end, I think that American Jazz musicians should have equal bragging rights on what to call this music. Thank goodness for countless American Jazz musician recording Brazilian music. If it was not for them, Brazilian rhythms and music would be nowhere in America. Jazz should not be used to move forward any one culture awareness through category. Jazz is equality. Jazz is inclussive.

Having said that, I'm all for education of the music of Brazil in the schools, as well as other cultures. I would like to see many more Brazilian musicians recording American Jazz swing. br

I'm Bobby Ramirez, musician and publisher of LatinJazzClub Magazine.

I begin by saying thank you for allowing me to participate in this discussion. My primary reason for participating is not so much as to be able to present my opinion, but to learn from you and expand my knowledge in discussing this issue today.

First, I would be remiss if I didn't mention and acknowledge the recent passing of conguero Mongo Santamaria. In the same breath I'll also mention, most notably Tito Puente, Chico O'Farrill, Dizzy Gillespie, Stan Kenton, Mario Bauza, Chano Pozo, Machito, Antonio Carlos Jobim, Charlie Byrd, Stan Getz, and many other master musicians too long of a list to mention that have left us with a legacy, vision and pursue of this American artform known as Latin Jazz. We would not be here today without their contributions.

It is also very important to note that this discussion is taking place during Black History Month. Latin Jazz is a contemporary "umbrella" term stemming from "Afro-Cuban Jazz" and Cubop" with diverse roots in New Orleans and created in New York City: a fusion of music and rhythm that emerged as part of a massive socio-cultural revolution in the 1930's & 40's transcending racial lines between black, white and Latino musicians.

FORWARD:

What's in a name? From my viewpoint as a musician, I think that to label a musician or styles of music is like discrimination. Labels always create negative repercussions and take away from the true natural artistry of a musician. However, this statement is a utopia.

Having said that, concerning this discussion, I feel that the current categories that address the Latin side of Jazz--"Afro-Caribbean Jazz" and "Brazilian Jazz" that are part of the Jazz Journalist Association's annual award ceremony are not correct. My opinion is that the JJA awards should have only one category: Latin Jazz. The core of my opinion is two-fold: INCLUSIVENESS and DEMOGRAPHIC.

DEMOGRAPHICS:

Ask yourself the following question: Do the current categories (listed above) truly represent the full demographics of the "Latin" side of Jazz in America today? The answer, no. First, I feel that a category representing the Latin side of Jazz must reflect the demographics of the entire Latin America Diaspora. Latinos are now the biggest minority group in the United States. That means that this group consist of many people from "every" part of Latin America. Brazil is a part of Latin America. The category of "Latin Jazz" truly reflects the diversity and growing demographics of "Latin rhythms" in the United States.

INCLUSIVENESS:

Up until know, Brazilian and Cuban rhythms have had the most significant impact on Jazz. However, many other rhythms from other Latin American countries like Peru, Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Uruguay, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Panama, Mexico, and others are beginning to slowly surface within the rhythmic context of Jazz. As these category currently stand, they are not inclusive of other rhythms from the Latin American Diaspora as represented in today's American cultural demographics as a whole--thereby excluding other less popular rhythms from Latin America that can potentially influence Jazz.

A NOTE OF DISTINCTION:

I would like to make a distinction about the music of Brazil. In my opinion, there is a distinct difference when speaking about "Brazilian music" as oppose to speaking about "Brazilian Jazz." Brazilian music represents all music and rhythms of Brazil in its purest form without any outside influences. However, when speaking of Brazilian Jazz--which is what we're discussing today--equal weight must be given to the influence of American Jazz that include rhythmic aspects of Brazilian music.

Having said this, there are those that would argue that Brazilian Jazz as is underserved in America therefor it deserves its own category. This statement is totally misrepresented. There are many musicians today that include bossa nova and/or samba rhythms in their recordings. Examples are Grammy winner Pat Matheny, Paquito D'Rivera and many others. A more accurate statement would be that not many "Brazilian" musicians are recording and promoting "Brazilian Jazz" in the United States and not many media outlets are taking notice. Dispite this apparent lack of attention for "Brazilian Jazz", I would agree that "Brazilian music" is still widespread in the United States (please read previous paragraph noting the distinction between "Brazilian music" and "Brazilian Jazz").

Some would also argue that lots of Brazilian Jazz is being erroneously mistaken and/or "labeled" as "Smooth Jazz" in the United States. Therefor, Brazilian music/Jazz has lost its identity within the mainstream music scene in the United States. This is not a good thing. It's like when some argue that "salsa" has nothing to do with "Cuban" music. Obviously, the question of identity is important especially to a culture that has contributed to the fusion of Jazz music. However, while I think this situation merits attention, it is not enough to warrant adding a separate category for Brazilian Jazz--a music that has equal influences of American Jazz. Today and in the future, as America becomes more culturally diverse, it is not fair that Jazz be used as a tool to help reaffirm the identity of any one culture in America--in this case, by establishing its own separate category as part of the JJA awards. Brazilian Jazz is part of the Latin Jazz experience in the United States of America. As American musicians have been received with open arms in virtually every country and continent in the world, Jazz has always been equally open to the influence of any and all cultures.

continues next post......(IN CONCLUSION)

IN CONCLUSION:

Latin Jazz is the best contemporary term to describe the Latin side of Jazz. The word "Latin" already represents all Latin American countries including Brazil as well as the Caribbean basin--an entire region of the world that was mostly influenced by African rhythms and ancestral Spanish settlers. I would also say that some interesting flamenco rhythms from Spain are being fused with Jazz and recorded by musicians like Jerry Gonzalez and others--yet another example of widespread "demographics" and the ability of Jazz to be "inclusive" and open to new rhythmic possibilities.

Thus, the Latin tinge in Jazz can include other countries like Argentina, Uruguay, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, etc. By singling out Brazil and/or regionalizing the categories, you're in effect discriminating against other countries (mentioned above). As writers and journalists of Jazz, it is important not to discount the importance of other perhaps less influential yet equally valid rhythms from the entire Latin American Diaspora. Lets be fair in bringing attention to the whole as oppose to one particular part of "Latin" America. By presenting the category as "Latin Jazz", you don't "exclude" anyone from participating in this category, including anglo musicians like Charlie Haden who put out a great "Latin Jazz" record and win a Grammy, or John Doe band from Holland who record a great "Latin Jazz" CD that includes Afro-Cuban and bossa nova rhythms, or musicians like Alex Acuna who are responsible for fusing Jazz with Peruvian rhythms.

Unless you can provide very specific criteria and descriptions of "Brazilian Jazz" and Afro-Caribbean Jazz" for writers to follow, these categories tend to promote confusion rather than being an integral part of this Jazz fusion.

Mind you, the term "Latin Jazz" has a negative side in that it sounds too broad and has been erroneously used to describe bands/artists that are more into the dance side of Latin music. But, in today's musical spectrum, broad (Latin) diversity is widespread. Therefor, let's take a moment and present some parameters for Latin Jazz.

Jazz in its classic form is indicative of ragtime, Dixieland, classic straight ahead swing, bobop, etc. However, what happens when "Jazz" is influenced with the Latin tinge? The music is transformed with different harmonic and rhythmic patterns still retaining the Jazz vocabulary. These different harmonic and rhythmic patterns can include the bossa nova, samba, partido alto, Afro-Cuban, Afro_Peruvian, merengue, bomba, plena, tango, candombe and many other indigenous Afro-polyrhythms from the entire Latin American spectrum. This music also contains much Jazz improvisation and harmonic variation.

Granted, Brazilian and Cuban rhythms have accounted for most of the influence in Jazz. But, that does not mean that we should start singling out a specific country and forgetting about the rest of the Latin American Diaspora. Now that you have a Brazilian Jazz category, should we also consider having a tango Jazz category, or as pianist Danilo Perez performs his native Panamanian Jazz, or as saxman David Sanchez performs bomba and plena Jazz from his native Puerto Rico, or described as Afrorican Jazz by William Cepeda, respectively?

In what category do you put Danilo Perez, Afro-Caribbean or Brazilian Jazz? The answer is, none. He and everyone else recording Jazz with tinges of Latin rhythms would fit best in the category of "Latin Jazz." In what category do you put musicians that records bossa novas as well as Afro-Cuban Jazz? Again, he or she would fit best in the category of Latin Jazz. Is the category for Brazilian Jazz only for musicians of that country? What are the specific criteria? When you say Afro-Caribbean Jazz, do you include Haiti, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Barbados, or do you mean just Cuba and Puerto Rico? How about other countries like Mexico?

In what category do you put someone like Hermeto Pascoal? If you put him in the Brazilian Jazz category his music would set a precedent; thus, isolating everyone else that does not sound like him (no one sounds like him). Technically, he's one of those musicians that defy any category (period). However, if you had to pick one category for him, being that his music is so broad, he would probably fit best under "Latin Jazz" or "world music." Meaning, even going to an extreme by using Hermeto as an example, the "Latin Jazz" category holds its own without discriminating or leaving out other related rhythms.

In what category do you put pianist Omar Sosa? Certainly not "Afro-Caribbean" or "Brazilian Jazz." His music is best described as "Latin Jazz" which includes rhythms from Cuba, Brazil, Morocco, Venezuela, Ecuador and the United States.

If tomorrow pianist Keith Jarrett plays a concert in Uruguay and is so consumed by the indigenous rhythms of that country that he decides to record Jazz standards using candombe rhythms fuse with Jazz melodies, what category would you put him in? (1) Would you be scrambling to create yet another sub-category? (2) Even though the music sounds compelling, lets just skip nominating him because there's no category applicable to this new sound, or (3), this music fits perfectly under the umbrella of "Latin Jazz."

You're a great musician native of Colombia or Argentina and you want to mix a tinge of tango or cumbia rhythm with the Jazz vocabulary. Suddenly, you realize that there's no opportunity to experiment with these rhythms because Jazz Journalists are more keen to music of Afro-Caribbean and Brazilian Jazz origin as determined by the current categories. Thus, Jazz music loses out on the possibility of perhaps creating a new fusion variation of Jazz that subsequently may prove to be pivotal--as Afro-Cuban and Brazilian rhythms influenced Jazz--to further expand its evolution.

Lastly, the Grammy awards are a great model that recognize and celebrate the different styles of Brazilian popular music as well as many forms of Caribbean music. At the same time, the Grammy awards also wisely recognize the relationship of Brazilian and Caribbean rhythms with American Jazz as part of the overall "Latin Jazz" experience.

As a musician, I see Jazz as a doorway that is open to endless possibilities and enables me to explore new territories and attempt to expand its boundaries--fertile ground for creativity. And within the Latin side of Jazz, it is important that it remain inclusive and not exclusive or divided. As we examine the current demographics of the Latin side of Jazz, it is also important that this category embrace a future vision and direction of where this music will be 20-40 years from now. Giving its history and how it has evolved, plus its current demographics, the wise choice as a category is "Latin Jazz."

Percussionist John Santos says, "Latin Jazz is a classic American artform." And within the context of this artform lay rhythms like the Brazilian bossa nova, samba and Afro-Cuban that continue to thrive, as well as many other rhythms yet to be discovered from Latin America that will no doubt empower Jazz and help it to evolve in years to come.

As a musician, I can only speak for myself as to the great benefits of being a part of a multicultural society.

Categories should only be considered a guide to listeners, realizing that artists do not have to stay in a specific box throughout their career. If anything, we need more names of styles when it comes to Latin Jazz, not less.

I think it's really a joke when DownBeat (sorry to pick on another magazine) runs a "Latin" column and then writes in it about Brazilian musicians (as they did exclusively in a recent one). In JAZZIZ, I've fought to maintain a separation between "Brazilian" and "Latin" and try to sort out the various sub-catagories in each when they come up. And yes, I've been very interested in and have written a lot about Venezuelan, Peruvian, Panamanian and other "Latin" music styles that are distinctly outside the Cuban "Latin jazz" box.

I personally am unaware that Argentinian, Peruvian, or Chilean music is predominantly influenced by the same Yoruba rhythms that affect dance forms from the Hispanic peninsula. And I find the term "Latin" truly confusing -- does it refer to Romance languages? I'm quite willing to be educated on this -- by Mark, Chris, BobbyR or any of the panelists -- but I certainly understand, too, that the Brazilian musicians (Flora and Airto, Hermeto, Duduka DeFonseca, etc.) don't id themselves as "Latin."

I'm against category inflation in the JJA Awards. I don't want to see a separate award for Best Radical Jewish Jazz album of the year, or Eastern European rhythm review, etc. I trust the JJA members, and pretty much the DB critics, to distinguish how they want to vote for Perez or Sanchez or Sosa or Chango Domingues or Michel Camilo or Gonzalo Rubalcaba. Giving up another category is, as others have rightly posted, a two-edged sword, giving visibility and threatening ghettoization. I'm not aware of it often fulfilling the threat, though someone above mentioned the Blue Note and radio stations downplaying their interest in Latin jazz.

Ok, I haven't answered anything. Mosaic or melting pot (more like a stew pot, where the ingredients don't dissolve, but take on each others' flavors). Ribot's take on Arsenio Rodriguez or Shorter with Nascimento. Gonzalo and Lovano, David Murray's Latin Jazz Band and Jane Bunnett. Hilton Ruiz and Ronnie Cuber. (Mixed metaphosr ahead) Yummy listening! Go, marketers and encyclopedists, figure out what pigeon holes to build and stuff.

A question with regards to Bobby Ramirez's commentary. While the term "Latin Jazz" may be beneficial for an artist such as Bobby and others, what say with regards to an artist such as David Sanchez or Danilo Perez who do NOT exclusively always add rhythms or elements of their homeland, but play straight ahead JAZZ with the best of them? Are we going to stigmatize them as being just LATIN JAZZ musicians or simply avant-garde JAZZ musicians? The term LATIN JAZZ is only limiting its exponents from benefitting equally from the forces who control the festival and jazz venue bookings because the perception will be that those who interpret a "Latin" Jazz, can and are only capable of interpreting a specific musical form.

I think that if a musicians does not want to get stuck in a category, one has to move on from Latin Jazz to other Jazz styles. However, this is easy for me to say being an independent musician and not subjected to the pressures from being signed to a record label. br

Good music should be good music, period.

Again, to me it depends on what rhythmic tradition the musician is drawing from, regardless of their national origin. There are salsa bands in Rio and samba bands in Seattle. If someone is giving a samba, choro or forro twist to Monk, then it would be up to the astute journalist to mention it, if only to educate the reader (and, of course, show how much they know about obscure styles!)

This is exactly why I am all for inclusiveness rather than a completely separate award. The suggestion that Sub-categorizing and making Latin/Brazilian visibly and promotionally distinct from straight Jazz is going to help more than hinder is a unicorn. It's ALREADY separated and promoted as being something other than "Traditional" Jazz, when it should be presented as an evolution OF Jazz. A branch on the same tree. It should stand arm in arm WITH Jazz and not on a separate platform. I ask how can Latin/Brazilian ever be held in the same respect as Jazz by these same members who have prejudiced it for so long lest we implement them all on a same equal level. This is probably never going to happen due to those same folks. But separate awards for Latin Jazz and Brazilian Jazz, outside & away from the straight Jazz categories, will only be furthering the pigeon-holing prejudices you mentioned. Someone asked how do we determine the good music from the bad music? I say by lumping them all together on an equal footing is how.

There have been very good points -- thanks Bobby for many, and I love your site -- about who fits and who doesn't. In the case of people like Danilo Perez, he's a Latino (from Panama, where I lived for two years, have visited many times and love dearly) but he's first and foremost a improvisation-based "jazz" musician who uses selectively "Latin," "Brazilian" and other rhythmic styles ("Mejorana" from Panama, for one). I think it's important to distinguish between Latinos (or Brazilians) who primarily play jazz and Latinos (and Brazilians and others) who play their national forms.

And, sure, a great album, like Duduka da Fonseca's album on Malandro, should be taken seriously as a jazz album (it's one of the year's best). I think the labels only serve to point the consumer who hasn't heard the work in the right, if somewhat broad, direction.

I think we can all see that the term "Afro-Cuban Jazz" limits it to just music based on Cuban rhythmic styles, excluding some important and complementary Puerto Rican forms. But most of us know this term and "Latin Jazz" are fairly close and somewhat interchangeable.

I'd go, if pressed, with "Latin Jazz," the most generic, and have "Brazilian Jazz" as well. That draws a clear distinction between the styles of such artists as Poncho Sanchez on one hand and Trio Da Paz on the other.

Yet on another message you also point out Fort Apache's RUMBA PA' MONK as being "Latin Jazz." In my mind, Jerry & Andy Gonzalez, Steve Berrios, Larry Willis, et al. are all to be described the same as you described Danilo Perez. Improvisation-based jazz musicians.

In my opinion, RUMBA PA' MONK is a JAZZ album. That it draws from other elements in its approach is only incidental. Remove those elements and it would be perceived as a Jazz recording by the critics.

Do you think that perhaps this music in question is being perceived with the wrong set of eyes? (Or in this case ears.) In other words, should we or shouldn't we look at an album such as RUMBA PA' MONK from a Jazz on the progressive side rather than a Jazz a lo Afro-Cubano?

I don't believe that a "Latin jazz" artist exists. He or She is a Jazz musician that just so happens to be Latino. We don't refer to Coltrane or Miles music as African-American Jazz. It's Music. The term JAZZ itself is an umbrella term and has sub-styles (Swing, Free-Jazz, Hard Bop, Smooth, etc.) My contention is that Afro-Cuban Jazz, Brazilian Jazz & all of the styles that fall under the term Latin Jazz (Puertorican, Dominican, Venezuelan, Costa Rican, Colombian, etc.) should all fall under JAZZ as well. They are Styles of Jazz and not radically distinct genres on their own.