Roundball Semiotics: Basketball qua Jazz

What Fats is saying of course, and this ought to be sufficiently demonstrated by the sax solo at least, is the nearly axiomatic and essential truth: Jazz = Basketball, Basketball = Jazz.

The analogy has reached the cultural saturation point that even though I can't recall who first suggested it to me, or even if any one person in particular suggested it to me, I still associate on a guttural and more or less involuntary level (read: thoughtlessly) the game of basketball with the musical form Jazz. Certainly someone thought of the analogy first, but he's long faded into the background and morphed into an assumption. I've seen it sometimes criticized, because really, what else do bloggers have to do all day? But much more commonly it rests serenely in the background as an unconscious archetype by which we understand the game.

If you think about it too hard though, there are likely a host of racial subtexts and attitudes, possibly ugly ones, which contribute to the idea. Most of which I don't have the heart to explore except to comment on how telling it is that we're still surprised when white people engage in either activity. Sometimes with reason.

But then sometimes not; we all know Django had style, and Larry Bird is Larry Bird. Nonetheless, I think we find it much easier to accept the association of basketball with a stereotypically "black" art form like jazz or (increasingly) hip-hop than we do with an oppositely characterized "white" art form such as, say, baroque chamber music. But that's beside the point. The question is, does the analogy shed any kind of light on the nature of basketball in its own right? Would the analogy still work without all the race-issue boogeymen mucking up the picture?

First the argument. I think it is commonly stated that Basketball = Jazz for the following reasons.

1. Basketball and Jazz are both, at least in theory, a series of improvisations set within an ideal structure. In this sense, an A#7 to Fm7 chord progression is something like the high screen and roll, although possibly less emphatic.

>

2. Said improvisation is at its best when cooperative. There are solo jazz performances of course, just like there are isolation plays in basketball, but both Jazz and Basketball are, I believe, at their most fascinating and most fully realized when the individual talents of the players merge in a skillful synergy, a sort of hive-mind gestalt.

3. Although this may apply more appropriately to Football (Soccer), there is also the continuity and flow of the game. In theory, if the refs aren't a little too chippy with the whistles, or if one of the teams isn't coached by Jeff van Gundy, Basketball is a game where the back-and-forth, give-and-take pace can take on the liquid contours of some of the more lengthy Jazz odysseys.

So far so good. The previous three points are the three I see made most commonly, and certainly, they all have their salient merits. What I don't ever really see, but which I submit for your consideration as point number 4, is something I hope will strengthen the analogy beyond the merely coincidental.

4. At least since the early eighties, upon the dawn of the Larry Bird v. Magic Johnson rivalry, and culminating finally in the Michael Jordan Era (MJE, a dating system based upon the ascension of Jordan into the league. We are, for example, in year 25 MJE) the game of basketball has always been extremely character driven in a way I think is highly reminiscent of Jazz.

Defense: More than most musical forms before it, I suggest Jazz was a star-driven art form. I don't simply mean in how it grew commercially, I mean in how it developed stylistically from catalytic influences of highly talented individual musicians like ole' Fats or Dizzie Gilespie. In many ways, Jazz artists failures can be attributed as much to their inability to cultivate interesting public personae as much as any lack of skill. Kenny G, remember, can circular breath ad infinitum, which truly is impressive... But does it matter?


I suggest basketball is similar. It's development has always been driven by individual talents more than basketball theorists like the coaches or owners. I hold this to be true of more than just the NBA by the way. Any pick up game you go to will always feature at least one very talented player trying to leave his own stamp on the game in his own way.

Basketball and Jazz are both extremely individualistic, even during moments of cooperation. The assist is as much of an opportunity to impress yourself upon the game as any other, and under this light, we could think of Basketball as an unexpectedly apt expression of Schopenhauer. Of course Jazz isn't competitive, so it's right about here that the analogy breaks down (as all analogies must), but Jazz remains extremely character-driven, and if we had to stretch things way too far, we could suggest that the performance is a kind of Schopenhauerian attempt to impress one's personality upon the song. But that would be ridiculous.

All right then kiddos! There's the first of my ramblings about basketball. Up next? Basketball teams as wine. But whatever else happens, remember: Basketball = Jazz, Jazz = Basketball.