# Why Jazz sounds borderline musical to me



## Allegro (Mar 15, 2015)

I do realize that the word *musical* is subjective.
Not trying to post negative things but trying to figure out why I can't understand it and why some people love it. The only two places where I find Jazz good:
- For in-depth music theory understanding
- Porn (because it is better than silence and stays in the background for you to focus :mrgreen: )

I feel bad for missing such a musical color from my life that others seem to enjoy. There are some old and childhood jazz songs that I am okay with. I am generalizing things a little but you get the idea.

To me personally, it sounds like this:
- Corny.
- Random, most of the time.
- Not too memorable
- A little too dissonant, 
- Doesn't grab much attention, other than the rhythm part maybe.
- Goes nowhere, just moves in circles. unresolved.
- Sometimes, it sounds as if someone is forcing a musician to improvise at gunpoint.
- A lot of popular jazz progressions build up tension and then just leave you there. Even a progression back to your root sounds like you're in the middle of nowhere, thanks to those 7ths.

So here is my question:
What do you like about jazz or your favorite jazz songs (other than the fact that they aren't the same pop progressions)? How would you describe the feeling that you get from classical as well as modern jazz?


----------



## Walid F. (Mar 15, 2015)

I think in similar lines. It's when you rely heavily on feeling and simpler structures, and accentuate motifs and specific rhythmic structures that jazz gets interesting to me - just like New Orleans Jazz! Or when it's great interplay between some instruments, like solo dueling and stuff. Love that as well. But overall, I kind of do agree and see where you're coming from with these arguments... Maybe we need to listen to more famous jazz? 

W.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 15, 2015)

Of course, there are many styles of jazz, from Dixieland, to big band, to be-bop, to Latin jazz, to fusion, to pop, to acid jazz and so on.

If it sounds corny, random, dissonant, not memorable and wandering, I'd guess that you're just hearing the surface and haven't immersed yourself enough to soak it into your subconscious. 

Not long ago, I heard some Chopin and found the piece to be so dainty to be almost comical. I then set up some Pandora channels for that style and listened to it for hours. After a while, I began to appreciate it more and more. That was a couple of years ago. Funny thing is that I heard some Chopin the other day and found it to be as out of place as ever. It's just not of our time. I'd guess that if I listened to an hour or so of it, I'd get back into the Chopin groove.

In my early 20s, I tried to get into jazz, and found there were lots of aspects that just didn't make sense to me. I was probably 40 before it all fell into place for me.

I took a class from Peter Alexander where we started by composing for solo orchestral instruments. It was illuminating to write with no rhythm or harmonic structure to hold the piece together. My main takeaway was that music is a tension between known patterns and randomness. Play it too safe and it's boring. Add too much complexity and it sounds random. Find the right balance and it's magic.

Jazz uses the rhythm as the glue. It's often (but not always) simple and generally repeats. That allows other aspects to add so much complexity that it can cross into randomness - if your ear doesn't have a feeling for what to expect or what pictures the dots and dabs are painting. 

Ken Burns did a documentary on Jazz that is excellent. It explores many styles and provides a context in which the music is anything but corny. You might find some artists that resonate with you (and surely others that don't.) In the meantime, you'll fall into the story and forget you're listening to the music so it can soak in.

Have you seen Whiplash? It's a great film and has some fantastic, powerful big band music that is beautifully recorded. I can't recommend it enough.

And then again, maybe jazz just isn't your thing.

For me, it's Sibelius. I find most of his pieces so dull and predictable that they hurt my head. Maybe I need to meditate and get into an open state before listening to him. Then again, I might just be wired so that his music hits me wrong.

And it could be that way with you and jazz. This isn't a case of "not being sophisticated enough" for jazz. Maybe you'd like some of it with more exposure. And maybe it's just not your cup of tea. No problem. There are so many great styles of music our there that there is something for everybody.


----------



## Saxer (Mar 16, 2015)

i love the harmonic structure of jazz. from my childhood on i were touched by songs from burt bacharach, henry mancini, jobim... long before i knew who they are or what they did there. i had the vinyl of djungle book with the beautiful film music and songs which i heared in heavy rotation. later i listened to sinatra, george benson and all that new stuff later diagnosted as 'fusion' and 'smooth jazz'. at that time it was new and tasteful!

i'm also not a big fan of this kind of 'sport'-jazz... faster, higher, 'hiii mom!' and those endless hours of real book jazz without fun in the eyes of the players and fossilized structure didn't help to keep jazz alive. music dies when people know 'how to do it'! that's why i always loved the sophistically arranged side of jazz. and that's the reason why i became a composer and arranger.

for me a lot of classic, pop and 'trailer'-film stuff is just too predictable, 'glassy' or 'block-like' (if that means something to somebody). that is no quality question. it's just that a maj7-chord touches me much more than a major chord. for me it's the difference between boiled white rice without salt - and paella!

and this is not corny and random, but it's jazz:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCnf46boC3I&list=PL_jrKrBTmTmCGTsebdJCxGgjt2gL3XAhA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCnf46b ... jt2gL3XAhA)


----------



## Walid F. (Mar 16, 2015)

JonFairhurst @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> A lot of words



I think the jazz he's talking about is the New York/Popular/core one. Fusion, Bebop and all of those are subgenres, or rather other forms of jazz (without actually calling them jazz, except for their influences and jazz approach).

Jazz is a weird word when you say it over and over again.

W.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 16, 2015)

I would tell you what I like about jazz, but I don't think it's worth it, based on your initial post. When you say something like, "I only like this music when it's used like wallpaper in a cheap movie", you're making a damn fool of yourself: get to jazz school and come back to us when you've gained a little class.


----------



## SillyMidOn (Mar 16, 2015)

Hi

As a jazz musician it's obviously upsetting to hear when people don't like or understand jazz, but I am always happy to convert people . The issue for you is that jazz is hitting you as one big lump of sound, and you cannot organise any of the sounds, structures, themes etc that are going on. Like listening to a foreign language. Reason for this is that jazz is extremely complex, so it can be hard to decipher what is happening. Anyway, I could harp on about this for ages, but don't have the time, so my recommendation would be to get this book:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Listen-Jazz-Barry-Kernfeld/dp/0300059027/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426504389&sr=8-1&keywords=what+to+listen+for+in+jazz (http://www.amazon.com/What-Listen-Jazz- ... or+in+jazz)

Hope that helps.

PS No jazz musician would describe the music in porn that you define as jazz, as jazz, by the way.


----------



## Sebastianmu (Mar 16, 2015)

I totally understand why people might not like jazz at all! Totally get it.

What I DO like about the jazzy thinks I listen to is usually a specific mood, that I just don't get from anything else. It's usually mildly sad to melancholic and somehow at the same time maintains a certain deep-rooted coolness. 

I guess the feeling I get is that: an older person, with a really rich life experience, who suffered a lot, is talking to you about life, and, you know, somehow still maintains a positive attitude in spite of all the f*cked up things that happened. 

As an odd example: I LOVE the music of the Charlie Brown Christmas Episode. It's soooo sad (which of course on the other hand makes it soooo funny). I also like a lot of Nina Simone's stuff. 

And there's a playlist on spotify called 'midnight jazz', I think, that has a couple of tracks that transport very well that feeling that I tried to describe.

But there's a lot of jazz that I can't stand, too!


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 16, 2015)

When I was a teenager I loved orchestral pieces with lots of action and "epicness" to them, like John Williams or Stravinsky. I found Bach and Mozart pretty boring ...
That completely changed, once I learned pieces by Bach. Today I am an admirer of both Bachs and Mozarts art.
What does that tell me? Be a little more modest, when you talk about what you like or dislike. After all, we are in the hipster age, where narcism based upon personal preference without any background rules! Earn your disapproval of a well established art form by studying it thoroughly. I bet, in the process of that, you will change you attitude towards liking and disliking in general.


----------



## Sebastianmu (Mar 16, 2015)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> get to jazz school and come back to us when you've gained a little class.



This is the kind of attitude that I find a lot among the typical jazz audience. I don't get this snobbiness, I think it's dispicable.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Mar 16, 2015)

I too have struggled with 'getting' jazz. But the guys around me who are into it are generally smarter than me... and better musicians.

My conclusion is that I am just not a good enough musician to really understand jazz. Although, I do appreciate and enjoy it.



SillyMidOn said:


> PS No jazz musician would describe the music in porn that you define as jazz, as jazz, by the way.


This ^ ^ ^


----------



## Sebastianmu (Mar 16, 2015)

FriFlo @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> What does that tell me? Be a little more modest, when you talk about what you like or dislike.



I firmly disagree. Everyone has the right to passionately dislike whatever he/she wants, even if there are millions who love it. There is no moral rule that says: You only have a right to dislike things if you studied them carefully.

I, for example, dislike every single song of Lady Gaga very much. Do I just have to take a deeper look at them? Will they reveal their deeper secrets if I spend more time listening to them? I don't care! I don't want to listen to them, I think they are trash. 

And face it, guys: jazz or orchestral music are not any more 'noble' than lady gaga's stuff. All music is there in the world for the same purpose, and that's entertainment.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 16, 2015)

I am a snob, but at least I don't make fun of music I know nothing about. There's nothing wrong with broadening your understanding before writing such a provocative post, unless one is Republican. :wink:


----------



## Daryl (Mar 16, 2015)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> I am a snob, but at least I don't make fun of music I know nothing about. There's nothing wrong with broadening your understanding before writing such a provocative post, unless one is Republican. :wink:



But isn't that the elitist attitude that this forum gets so angy about? :wink: 

D


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 16, 2015)

When did learning/going to school before having a public opinion become elitist? And you don't have to go to any school really, maybe there are enough classic jazz videos online, articles, interviews, etc. A little humility, and respect for one of the great musical genres helps too. I have no problem with some people hating jazz, but in this context, it was the way that it was communicated that rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## cc64 (Mar 16, 2015)

Hi Allegro,

regarding the No 2 Place where you find Jazz good. This music is not Jazz. It's called Fuzak. A hybrid of Fusion and Muzak.

Disclaimer: I am nor a musicologist or xxxpert.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 16, 2015)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> When did learning/going to school before having a public opinion become elitist? And you don't have to go to any school really, maybe there are enough classic jazz videos online, articles, interviews, etc. A little humility, and respect for one of the great musical genres helps too. I have no problem with some people hating jazz, but in this context, it was the way that it was communicated that rubs me the wrong way.


It doesn't, but that's not people continually tell me on this forum. I have no problem with people needing to know something about a subject before having an opinion, or at least one that should be taken seriously, but that seems not to be the prevailing view here, so I'm glad to hear you say it, particularly as we come from very different areas of the musical spectrum.

D


----------



## The Darris (Mar 16, 2015)

Allegro,

Firstly, I would not categorize Porn music as Jazz. I would consider it Porn music. Secondly, Jazz is a loose term in how you are using it because there are quite a few different eras of Jazz. Like you said though, Music is subjective to the listener. I am an American and Jazz is very much an America musical genre. I grew up listening to it so in a way, I am accustomed to it, especially in In fact, it is one of the few things we can consider originally made in the America. It draws on influences from all over the world. If you are interested in wanting to open your mind and musical palette to Jazz, I would suggest you take a Jazz History course, especially if you live here in the U.S. 

I grew up listening to a lot of Rock and R&B which are descendants of Jazz. Pop and Rap descended from Jazz as well. If any of those genres excite you then you might want to do some more research into Jazz history because you honestly might be surprised in some of the music you find.

One of my personal favorite albums is Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue." This is one of the best selling jazz albums of all time. It is Modal Jazz which is pretty self explanatory. My grandfather loved this album which meant I had to listen to it a lot as a child so really this album holds a certain nostalgia for me since he has long left this Earth years ago.

I've been pretty closed minded towards a lot of genres in my day, especially towards 12-tone/atonal orchestral music. When I actually started studying it and reading/listening to what the composers were doing, I found an appreciation for it and it has also found a way to allow me to grow as a composer. If you are into the creative game of writing music, don't be too close minded as you might surprise yourself in where you find the biggest inspiration to write.

Best,

Chris


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 16, 2015)

Borderline musical, my ass! :


----------



## Saxer (Mar 16, 2015)

Sebastianmu @ 16.3.2015 said:


> Everyone has the right to passionately dislike whatever he/she wants, even if there are millions who love it. There is no moral rule that says: You only have a right to dislike things if you studied them carefully.


this is completely ok when you are a music consumer. it's absolutely open to you what you like and dislike. and just ignore what you dislike.

but i think if you are a musician you should see this different. you should be open in any direction. at least in an intellectual way. you will never be a good cook when you ignore vegetables. even if you hate them. you don't have to like everything but you should be open to look for the qualities in there. that concerns all kind of music (though i understand your reservations against the snob attitude often spread by 'educated' jazz and classical musicians). 
there's no music that has nothing to do with every other music.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 16, 2015)

I studied jazz theory and performance in university. I was a huge Pat Metheny fan when I entered the program in 1987 and found bebop to be confusing. Then I started listening to it more and more. I understand what Parker was doing. Now I still prefer the more modal jazz period of Coltrane but I appreciate a lot of jazz because it largely purports virtuosic performances. It's a lot ot do with how the musician improvises over chord progressions. 

I also really enjoy Lalo Schifrin's orchestral jazz arrangements. I love hearing great string charts backing up guys like Harry Connick Jr. 

I would ask the original poster what was the motivation behind this post. Are you asking others to help you understand this genre? Are you soliiciting suggestions for artists or music that might sway you? Or are you just articulating your disdain for this particular style of music? If it's just the latter, than I'm also perplexed by the original post. Was it merely provocative? 

I will add one final thing- I was born in the late '60s and raised on music of the '70s which had a lot of jazz harmony and instrumentation influence, even in mainstream music. to me, it's a sentimental sound. It's something I connect to. For those weened on '80s music, I'm sure jazz would seem alien especially in a decade where triadic diatonicism reigned supreme without a lot of harmonic extensions.

No value judgement- just an observation.


----------



## Vin (Mar 16, 2015)

I also didn't like jazz before, but enjoy it very much now.

This is perfection IMO: 



And something more modern (old standard, but modern and fantastic arrangement), quite my tempo :mrgreen: :


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 16, 2015)

Sebastianmu @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> FriFlo @ Mon Mar 16 said:
> 
> 
> > What does that tell me? Be a little more modest, when you talk about what you like or dislike.
> ...



Yes, everyone has a right to like or dislike anything! But there is a difference between disliking a single performer/composer and disliking a whole direction of music with hundreds of very individual directions and thousands of performers! It is the same, if a musician where to say, he dislikes classical music (in the broader sense of the word)! Also, it is meaningless what anyone likes or dislikes, as long, as he keeps it to himself. With a public defamatory post like this it becomes a statement! 
All that doesn't speak for any elaborate opinion of the criticizer. You may hate Lady Gaga, but as soon as you publicly criticize her, you better have good reasons to do so! IMO, working as a musician and composer should be a humbling experience, where you constantly find out, things are different than they appear to be from a superficial kind of view. If someone never had any ear-opening experience like this towards a style or a composer, he must be missing the point of music.


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 16, 2015)

Sad really!
Like a horse that only races wearing blinkers.


----------



## bbunker (Mar 16, 2015)

There's this idea that telling people they need to be educated is somehow 'elitist.' It's an idea that leads to all sorts of sins, where what people feel is given some kind of great nominative power. "I feel/believe/think this, so there's nothing you can say that's as important TO ME." Isn't this a dangerous way of thinking?

Not to get all 'Milton Babbitt' on you, but if a Physicist tells you that we need to modify the value from the seventh decimal place of Planck's Constant, does anyone feel entitled to say "No, it FEELS right to me the way it is?" No. If you swing a golf club a few times and it feels strange, no one changes the rules of the game. They tell you that it's a difficult game, but that the rewards for learning to cope with its challenges are worth the efforts. That's how I feel about most 'difficult' music.

So, OP, you are uneducated. You are ignorant. It isn't the end of the world, and it isn't meant to be a personal slur. You just can't possibly have listened to much jazz and hold the ideas that you do. It's easily corrected. Why not start with the obvious bridges? Listen to Dirty Loops, or Julian Lage, or Brad Mehldau. Or Gordon Goodwin, or Mahavishnu Orchestra, or the Bad Plus trio?

It's self-edification, yes. And it may have a positive impact on your whole life. Because art doesn't always WANT you to immediately like it. Because people shouldn't always want you to immediately like them either. And there are all too many songs in the world that run around, screaming "LOVE ME LOVE ME LOVE ME," eager to do whatever's needed to appeal to as many sensibilities as possible. But do you get more out of life by surrounding yourself with people that are interesting, or with people that just nod their heads and sycophantically agree with whatever you're saying so that you'll keep liking them?

And I don't think anyone REALLY buys the whole 'equalization of all values' argument. Lady Gaga and Beethoven Symphonies are both entertainment, yes. Sort of. A bottle of "Boone's Farm Strawberry Daiquiri" and a bottle of 20-year-old oak-aged single-malt are both technically alcohol. Being 'good' is overrated anyway; I don't have my hipster PBR because I think it's technically a superior item, and I don't listen to Van Halen because I want to make some claim to its significant musical value. It isn't that Jazz and Lady Gaga are just as 'good.' That's meaningless. They each occupy different places in the role of music as public utility. They engage those who are adept in their languages in different ways, and asking Jazz to sound like Lady Gaga is as naive as asking Lady Gaga to be Jazz. They aren't equally good. They aren't equally anything. The only equality that art will ever have is that eventually all of our human efforts will burn equally in the cataclysmic fires of some dying sun.

So, on that positive and uplifting note...you have some time to make hay while that sun is shining, right? Why not listen to some music you haven't heard before?


----------



## Sebastianmu (Mar 16, 2015)

See - I don't think Lady Gaga or Beethoven are equally "good" in any regard, that was absolutely not the point. It was not a point of objective values (that might or might not exist in art). Point was: if you don't like jazz, you have absolutely no obligation of doing something about it. Also if you're a musician! I firmly believe, disliking something very strongly is just as important for shaping your own creative mind and personality, as loving certain things is.


----------



## KEnK (Mar 16, 2015)

Allegro-

If your preference is for "Classical Music"
listen to Ellington's "A Tone Parallel to Harlem (The Harlem Suite)"
or any of his suites- these are extended works
based equally on composition and improvisation 
This one is from the late 40's. 
It certainly "goes" to many places.
He wrote many of his greatest suites in the 60's
His long time friend and musical compatriot Billy Strayhorn
had much to do w/ this sound 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHJoS2gMx3Y

Sonny Rollins is considered by many to be one of the greatest improvisors of all time.
Listen to Blue 7- I think it's from '57 
The solo is a masterpiece of motivic development

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah-j6fALiGw

One of my facorite modern groups is the Miles Davis Quintet
from the 60's, 
this featured Herbie Hancock, Wayne Shorter, Tony Williams and Ron Carter.
This is "Footprints" also a blues but more abstract

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGFSD1Devzg


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 16, 2015)

Allegro @ Sun Mar 15 said:


> I do realize that the word *musical* is subjective.
> Not trying to post negative things but trying to figure out why I can't understand it and why some people love it. The only two places where I find Jazz good:
> - For in-depth music theory understanding
> - Porn (because it is better than silence and stays in the background for you to focus :mrgreen: )
> ...



I feel the same for most jazz. 

I don't like classical either but to describe it; the jazz you describe is like baroque music vs romantic. 
there is simple classical and then there dense wagner stuff. 


Dixieland and early jazz is cool and for the common folk. then it went into complex land and that's where most people are with jazz. 
early and simple bigband is cool as well. 
the jazz you would like is the early pop jazz, dixieland etc. 
for new "jazz" I like Parov Stelar, squirrel nut zippers.


----------



## reddognoyz (Mar 16, 2015)

yea Jazz....

I went to Berklee and at a certain point retreated to my room and refused to listen to anything but Jimmy Buffet "changes in lattitudes" I could not listen to one more be bop lick. There was a long recovery period.

Some of it I love, some Miles some Chet Baker, Nat Cole Trio, Bill Evans??!!, omg, I mean he was a stone junky and all, but if you could play like THAT! wouldn't you want to just get high and do that all day long??

I appreciate the complexity and virtuosity of hard blowin' bee bop, but it's players music, come along for the ride or not. 

there is such a range of things that fall under that umbrella I can't imagine that anyone wouldn't find something that spoke to them that they would call jazz? loui prima? Ella? That amazing early Armstrong? I mean come on!! : )


----------



## madbulk (Mar 16, 2015)

Someone asked what the purpose of the op was. The one that you put forth purposely or not was "Jazz is bad. Here's why. Now, who's with me?"

And while it's subjective, just as the road less traveled is often less traveled for a reason, acquired tastes are often worth acquiring.

Jazz is a superior form appreciated and practiced by the best musicians in the room. Think there's no good reason for that? I envy this lack of self awareness.

But I'm afraid everything in this world is NOT of equal value. The pizza I eat is better than the pizza you eat. It doesn't matter that you like yours as much as I do. There's a reason my guy paid 25k for that oven. You don't care? Your loss. But it's better pizza regardless of you.

Likewise, whoever your notion of a musician might be, Coltrane was better than he or she, by a lot.


----------



## Allegro (Mar 16, 2015)

Looks like we need a separate "General (with jokes)" and "(without jokes)" sub-forum? Please let me clear one thing. I DO NOT see anything negative about using jazz in Porn. If you do, then all I wanted to say is that Jazz is generally laid back to my ears. Feel free to insult me again and make comments about my ears since this is what some of you are doing. I am sure it made you feel great the first time. Now if you could actually help and answer my question in the original post?



Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> Get to jazz school and come back to us when you've gained a little class.


Now that you feel better after insulting me for not liking what YOU like, can you tell me whether a 4 year bachelors in jazz is enough for me to start enjoying this type of music?



bbunker @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> So, OP, you are uneducated. You are ignorant.


I carefully chose words like 'generalizing', 'subjective' and 'personally'. Clearly mentioned that I feel BAD for not liking Jazz. Took my time to make a thread about why I can't like it and others do so that I can educate myself. Now imagine asking a question from someone who knows more than you and getting this as a reply. :roll: . At the rest of your post: You've brought up some great points, so thank you for that.



dcoscina @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> .
> I would ask the original poster what was the motivation behind this post. Are you asking others to help you understand this genre? Are you soliiciting suggestions for artists or music that might sway you? Or are you just articulating your disdain for this particular style of music? If it's just the latter, than I'm also perplexed by the original post. Was it merely provocative?


I wanted to know why I cannot understand this genre, despite of actually taking my time to learn some of the theory behind it. I am open to pretty much all the genres and musical styles. Even microtuned instruments (non-western tuning etc) make perfect sense to me. Anything but Jazz. Why anything but jazz?

So according to the forum: Anything but jazz because I am uneducated, ignorant, never went to jazz school and asking such a question makes me a fool. Good to know. I read your full post though, so thanks for the insight 

- To everyone posting jazz examples and describing what they feel:
Thanks a lot! really helped. Listening to all of them one by one.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Mar 16, 2015)

Allegro @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> I DO NOT see anything negative about using jazz in Porn.



Jazz isn't used in porn. If you think that's jazz, it seems like a big part of the issue is that you don't really even understand what jazz is.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 16, 2015)

A lot of Jazz is intellectually challenging music and the sad fact is that these days, more people than not don't want to put the time in to getting comfortable with the melodic, rhythmic and harmonic language.

Not saying that it is necessarily true of the OP but also based on his post am not saying it is not.


----------



## madbulk (Mar 16, 2015)

To the OP... I personally conflated yours and a few others posts and arrived at a condescending posture, tired of equivocating lack of understanding with taste.

But in earnest, you're not going to ramp up with a couple of videos and replies here. Jazz evolved over a century, and your own appreciation of it could evolve over the same time frame. The topic is vast.

I can show Kind of Blue to anyone and they'll come back the next day loving it or hating it. But the ones who loved it didn't get it any more than the ones who hated it. They'd love it differently a year later. The guys on the record are masters.

All of this takes time.

As to why anything but jazz? I'm sorry, but my best guess is that bad jazz is bad and you may dislike it for good reason, and good jazz is good, but way over your head for the time being. You may or may not care to remedy this.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 16, 2015)

Sebastianmu @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> FriFlo @ Mon Mar 16 said:
> 
> 
> > What does that tell me? Be a little more modest, when you talk about what you like or dislike.
> ...



True but it is intellectually lame to dismiss that which you simply do not understand.


----------



## EthanStoller (Mar 16, 2015)

My favorite jazz tends to be the more tightly arranged/composed ensemble pieces - bands like John Kirby's sextet from the '30s and '40s. Many jazz critics, most famously Gunther Schuller, have insisted that this genre should not even be called "jazz." I love the harmonies of these arrangements (of course, Ellington was masterful when it came to harmonies). I've used my love of this type of jazz a bridge to trying to understand/appreciate more improvisatory examples. Here's an early Mingus composition from 1947, played by the Lionel Hampton orchestra. I think it's a great example of carefully crafted arrangement colliding with inventive improvisation. Have a listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR42PSAIuNg


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 16, 2015)

I was hoping this thread would get no views or responses, but alack.

So let me ask Allegro a question:

What is jazz?


----------



## madbulk (Mar 16, 2015)

I was hoping nobody would ask, "what is jazz?"


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 16, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ 16/3/2015 said:


> So let me ask Allegro a question:
> 
> What is jazz?



He's already told us: it's porn soundtracks.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 16, 2015)

madbulk @ 16/3/2015 said:


> I was hoping nobody would ask, "what is jazz?"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 16, 2015)

sorry, deleted my post! Not worth it!


----------



## madbulk (Mar 16, 2015)

Waywyn @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> sorry, deleted my post! Not worth it!


Looks and brains! Don't see that every day folks!


----------



## TheUnfinished (Mar 16, 2015)

I must admit that a lot of jazz doesn't appeal to me as a listening experience either.

I have some fondness for Herbie Hancock's score to Blow Up and also some of the 'easy listening' style jazz of the likes of Jobim. However, part of that is the reminiscence for specific periods in my life that they evoke. The technical, improvisational stuff, the jazz that is regularly considered the highest level of the genre leaves me cold.

Not that I can't appreciate the skill, intricacy and technique of it. It just doesn't resonate with me as a musical genre or give me any listening pleasure. 

My best mate is a huge heavy metal fan and has spent much time trying to get me interested in the art of the heavy metal guitar solo. And, again, whilst the technical intricacies of it are impressive, there isn't anything that grabs at me emotionally.

And yet, I know that some of the various world music I can happily absorb with its occasionally almost atonal scales (to westernised ears at least) would bore a lot of people to tears and seem an unlistenable experience.

Is jazz something of a Marmite (I don't know if that'll translate outside the UK) music? You either really really like it or you really really don't?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 16, 2015)

Ned, I wasn't asking what the actual definition is, I was asking what Allegro's definition is. 

Where I was going is that it's usually just an attitude more than anything else - which is why the whole premise of this thread is so crazy!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 16, 2015)




----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 16, 2015)




----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 16, 2015)

My wife is a former professional jazz singer, so I had a passing interest in reading this thread.

I come away from it wanting pizza for some reason.


----------



## shapeshifter00 (Mar 16, 2015)

I wish I would love jazz, cause I feel it is very good music, but I just can't get excited about it and I don't like that there is some music I don't enjoy. As a composer I feel jazz can be something that can be used for musical inspiration but I fail to grasp it.. I want to like jazz, but I just can't do it... Shame on me.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 16, 2015)

Jazz is a century old, there are many, many different versions. I believe that if you listened to the good stuff from each decade, you'd find something to like, something to open the door for you.


----------



## madbulk (Mar 16, 2015)

Stephen Rees @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> My wife is a former professional jazz singer, so I had a passing interest in reading this thread.
> 
> I come away from it wanting pizza for some reason.



If you play this thread backward there are a couple of subliminal pizza references, yeah..


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 16, 2015)

Jazz is this version of DONNA LEE!!!


----------



## MA-Simon (Mar 16, 2015)

Jazz is nice. My parents made me go visit small bands and events whenever there was something happening in our small city. Mostly small bands with a singer. Since my dad wrote for the local newspaper and had to take pictures we got a table at the front every time. (Which I felt slightly uncomfortable about. Because I always felt like the musicians were carefully examining their audience. Though my parents are totally oblivious to that.) So I got the full load of their energy most of the time. Which feels amazing.

I wish I had had the opportunity to join a band ore a practise group. But it just never happened. Now I live in Berlin. But am missing the time. Its sad.


----------



## ryans (Mar 16, 2015)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> Jazz is this version of DONNA LEE!!!




NHOP... what a player.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 16, 2015)

For Pete's sake even though I am glad to see YouTube with so many Jazz recordings, please give the brotha' some credit.

It's CLARK TERRY, out of St.Louis....

I am so glad my parents took me everywhere when we were kids.
Saw so many famous performers.

Now days mommy don't know daddy, but she drops them off at a concert that was pre recorded, and the stage is full of freaks doing sexual mating dances.

And we wonder why everything is so upside down...?

I have a great life thanks to the thousands of killer jazz musicians that made me woodshed as a kid.... _-)


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 16, 2015)

Allegro-what kind of music moves you? Why do you think it does so?

Also, if I might ask, how old are you?


----------



## The Darris (Mar 16, 2015)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> Jazz is this version of DONNA LEE!!!



Haha, nice. I just recently worked with a little jazz combo and we did some conducted improvisations. One of the signals cued this piece. It was pretty awesome.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 16, 2015)

chimuelo @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> For Pete's sake even though I am glad to see YouTube with so many Jazz recordings, please give the brotha' some credit.
> 
> It's CLARK TERRY, out of St.Louis....
> 
> ...



The problem with that guy is that he always mumbled.


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 17, 2015)

'seems this discussion has gone completely the other way as far as elitism is concerned.

Who here can enjoy a piece of music from any era or genre just "because"?
No dissection, no virtuoso solo, no particular big idea, Just "I listen I enjoy"?

Yes! you're probably right. I'm not really a musician man and boy. I'm just a mere music lover.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 17, 2015)

Listening to the birds is all we might need.


----------



## John Walker (Mar 17, 2015)

Jazz musicians always intimidate me.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 17, 2015)

Once again I find myself siding with the Liberals on this topic.
If you don't like Jazz, you're probably a racist.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 17, 2015)

Ok, tried to hold back but really can't, so let me add this tiny little thing here:

Leaving taste aside etc. ... short and radical, if you do not understand Jazz, meaning Jazz in the traditional sense of three or four guys meeting up, playing a standard and everyone getthing his/her rounds of solos, you probably don't understand music!

Yes, that radical! Because Jazz is one of the few music styles of which lets the player express what is going on in his heart and mind right in THIS moment. It is kind of undressing oneself and pouring out your most inner feelings on a crowded market square! It is unique and individual and you will NEVER hear the same performance again!

I mean (just in the radical sense as you were coming along with expressions like Borderline and porn), let's face it! Classical music, what is this? It is just a bunch of robot zombie musicians computing a piece of sheet placed in front of them. Yes yes, there is feeling, yes there is individuality in every piece, it depends who conducts and who plays ... but seriously, the "apple pie" which is baked here is always the same. sometimes more apples, sometimes more pie, but it is the same. fuckin. pie! Got it?

If you hear well played live performance of a Jazz track, this pie can turn into almost everything! ... and if you don't understand what I am talking about I can say what I tried to avoid in the first place - you probably don't understand music!


----------



## Sebastianmu (Mar 17, 2015)

Waywyn @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Ok, tried to hold back but really can't, so let me add this tiny little thing here:
> 
> Leaving taste aside etc. ... short and radical, if you do not understand Jazz, meaning Jazz in the traditional sense of three or four guys meeting up, playing a standard and everyone getthing his/her rounds of solos, you probably don't understand music!
> 
> ...



With tiny variations, all of this is also true for things like.. let's say classical indian Raga-based music. Would you say "if you don't understand indian raga, you probably don't understand music!"? Because I'm pretty sure some people in India might actually think that is true. 

It's the same thing: you like jazz for some personal reasons, and now you tell people who have no appreciation for it, that that means they must be illiterates. I don't think, that's fair. Jazz is not allegro's cup of tea - he wanted to know what other people love about it, so that he might find a way of appreciating it too, maybe. And clearly the way he put it in the OP was meant humorous, no need to get all worked up about the "porn music" thing.


----------



## bbunker (Mar 17, 2015)

Sebastian, I think the connection between the two is tenuous at best. These 'tiny variations' are actually significant in core aesthetic and artistic intent. It seems to be an argument along the lines of "you're saying improvisation is important, and improvisation is important here, so the same argument must apply." But I think there are key differences to the nature of the two styles that make that comparison incompatible.

In jazz, I think most listeners' idea of what has the most value rests in the discovery, the unplanned coming together of ideas that happen on that night, in that solo. There is a connection to the 'head,' but that seems to be a lesser goal than realization of this improvised aesthetic. If the soloist plays a solo with no connection to the song whatsoever, but it is a brilliant solo, then jazz fans will immediately forgive that artist any transgressions since the content of that discovery in the solo is paramount.

South Indian Classical music features improvisation, but in the same way that the indeterminate works of the post-Darmstadt era in New York did, or that heavily ornamented works in the Baroque period did. Namely, they elaborate through heavy doses of performer 'initiative' a frame-work at hand. The performer engages in a process of interpretation and re-composition that is meant to bring out qualities of the piece, but the aesthetic is not based on the creation of a new work.

I think Alex's post suggests that this process of composition which puts the value in the new work created from improvisation is important, and not the sheer fact that improvisation occurs.

I am assuming for most of this that you're talking about the south Indian Classical tradition, since that's where there's the greatest emphasis on the unfolding of a raga and tala. If you were talking about Hindustani or Carnatic music, you'll have to educate me, since those aren't really areas I know much about!

I still think that there's too much leeway given to personal taste that isn't actually taste; making a decision on hearing a few pieces in the background of television commercials, or in elevators, or on the Lido deck of a cruise ship doesn't make sense, and it's hard to take seriously aesthetic complaints that don't take seriously, and involve significant research of, the music being spoken of.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 17, 2015)

I guess Project SAM's newest Jazz Film Score library coming out will find a select group of buyers. 

One of my all time favorite pieces is Coltrane's version of My Favorite Things. 

As others have said, jazz is about the expression of the musician at that moment. It captures the NOW. It demonstrates how the musician can interpret the head and employ variations, or how they can go off into their own realm. And I personally love the vertical architecture of the form. In fact, I always start with harmonies first when composing and work from there (despite what my composition prof's said in university).


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 17, 2015)

A love supreme... A love supreme... A love supreme...


----------



## Allegro (Mar 17, 2015)

Waywyn @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> ... short and radical, if you do not understand Jazz, meaning Jazz in the traditional sense of three or four guys meeting up, playing a standard and everyone getthing his/her rounds of solos, you probably don't understand music!


No, I appreciate the musician aspect of things (jazzing it up) and actually think its great. I was strictly referring to the composition / melodic / harmonic part and the thought of writing something that sounds so improvised and different everytime someone plays it. There is so much of a randomness and skill factor involved in it that you, (I mean I) can't place that music in your (my) head. And even if I somehow manage to, it is different every time.
Now even If I didn't understand jazz in the very basic traditional sense, are you basically saying that people before the 18th century never understood music? Not sure how much of it is true. According to this logic, do you mean to say that if someone doesn't like music / harmonic and rhythmic choices from one part of the world, they don't understand music in general?



chimuelo @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Once again I find myself siding with the Liberals on this topic.
> If you don't like Jazz, you're probably a racist.


I think I now know why some people here are behaving so strangely. Based on where I am from, it never even occurred to me that someone would think like that. I thought music was the only place where someone could completely escape the thoughts of races and just have fun. But thanks for proving me wrong.



shapeshifter00 @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> .. I want to like jazz, but I just can't do it... Shame on me.


Basically wanted to say the same thing while trying to figure out why. Wanted to figure out whether the tendency to like or dislike a certain musical style is based on where you grew up listening to music.



madbulk @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> ...good jazz is good, but way over your head for the time being. You may or may not care to remedy this.


This is my point. I am imagining myself as a music consumer right now. Ok, so there is a musical genre that requires you to decipher it before you can enjoy it? Math teachers say the same about maths. Correct me if I am wrong but you and probably everyone who loves this type of music never sat down to consciously understand it so that they could like it. You just liked it right?

- Question: Did it just resonate with you the very first time you heard it or did you actually give it a try again and again until you realized how beautiful it is?



dcoscina @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> I guess Project SAM's newest Jazz Film Score library coming out will find a select group of buyers.


Yes, a popular company in their competition paid me well for this job. :D . Jokes aside, I'll feel bad if it will affect their sales in any way. And for someone who will base his/her buying decision on one person's opinion.

*Me:* I like almost every other color but blue, I do find blue useful for denoting and expressing depth. But I don't like most shades of blue. When I look at it, I find it bad. It doesn't get my attention but still gets in my way. What could be the reason? Everyone seems to love blue but I can't. As a painter I want to like and understand blue because I feel that I am missing a certain palette. Why do YOU like blue? Please explain.

*Forum: *
: I would tell you why I like blue but go learn some basics about color frequencies, then comeback you fool.
: Uneducated! You're ignorant.
: If you don't like blue, you probably don't understand any color.
: "I don't like blue my ass" (*Pastes a shade of blue color as an example*)
: Be modest about what you say and what you think you like (This was a nice one though)
: Somalian flag is all blue with only a small star in center you Racist!
: Haha, how old are you?
: Hah! Yeah right! grey color is all we might need.
: Dulux released their new blue shade paint. Only a select group of people will buy it now I guess.
: Here what about this shade? My fav shade of blue, have a look!
:lol: 
You guys are extremely helpful and unforgiving at the same time. There is no other place like Vi-control.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 17, 2015)

Your age could be a relevant factor, and I didn't ask the question disrespectfully though you seem to have taken it that way. I notice you never answered.


----------



## Allegro (Mar 17, 2015)

Yes, I do think that age could be a factor. I did not take it as anything disrespectful. This thread went pretty serious for a while. I am 24, so you automatically win


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 17, 2015)

The randomness you speak of is in your mind, not in the music. You might be confusing jazz with chance music (using dice, for eg).


----------



## Allegro (Mar 17, 2015)

^ I didn't mean total randomness. jazz is like systematic randomness to me. But you could very well be right.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 17, 2015)

What instrument do you play?


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 17, 2015)

Allegro @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> No, I appreciate the musician aspect of things (jazzing it up) and actually think its great. I was strictly referring to the composition / melodic / harmonic part and the thought of writing something that sounds so improvised and different everytime someone plays it. There is so much of a randomness and skill factor involved in it that you, (I mean I) can't place that music in your (my) head. And even if I somehow manage to, it is different every time.
> Now even If I didn't understand jazz in the very basic traditional sense, are you basically saying that people before the 18th century never understood music? Not sure how much of it is true. According to this logic, do you mean to say that if someone doesn't like music / harmonic and rhythmic choices from one part of the world, they don't understand music in general?



As for the first part and being different all the time:
Why is your "goal" to remember exact phrasings or melodies? Isn't there any beauty in just embracing the moment? Are you able to go to the beach or some other beautiful place and simply embrace the moment? That's why I said you don't understand music. It is not about remembering it 100%, it is not about exact phrasings and the security to recall it exactly as the last time, it is not about computing information. THIS music is about playing what you feel right in THIS moment and the story which is happening right now! ... and every story is different. Why does this make you uncomfortable? It sounds as if you lose some kind of control about the music because it may suprise you!

You could say that Jazz or all improvised music is actually the acoustic version of what point we all try to reach: mindfulness! Living the moment!

The problem you have (at least of my perspective and this is how I feel about your arguments etc.) is that studying, harmony & theory kind of put a little barrier into your brain in the sense of not being able to simply enjoy the unexpected. This may be a prejudgment but I feel lots of classical trained people have this. Another thing is, how many absolutely brilliant classical musicians are out there who play the shit out of every sheet, but if you ask them: "Can you improvise something", they look at you as if you just told them you burned down their house! Ask again, is it really 100% music if someone processes information written on paper via an instrument?

Please get my right again, this is NOT about taste. If you do NOT like Jazz, of course this is totally cool, but you totally seem uncomfortable by understanding that there is music which can be awesome because of improvisation! Feel more than try to compute it!

Regarding your 18th century argument: So you really think there was just classical music out there because we have sheet music from back then?


----------



## madbulk (Mar 17, 2015)

This has become colossally stupid. 
I think I'll drive over to the nearby university, walk into the science department and say, "Physics is all around me and I want to appreciate it, but I just can't. Why is that? I'm not stupid. I just don't get it."
And they will say, if in their minds, "you may not be stupid, but THIS is stupid." 
"And if we indulge you beyond a point, we're not so bright either."


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 17, 2015)

I've played lots of jazz violin, very little jazz bass too. That being said I have always embraced crossover styles more than 'pure' jazz:

Jazz Rock (Wheather Report's birdland as an example):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz7nMBLUnDc

Gipsy Swing (Django Rheinhardt & Stephane Grappelli's Minor swing as an example):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CDoJFmdFgA

Latin Jazz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6ZrgVG9qRw

Latin Jazz ChaCha (Tito Puente as an example)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2vBGZlF-yc&index=2&list=PL3065EFCE3F991360 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2vBGZl ... CE3F991360)

I guess I like all the musical contributions that jazz brought to 'organized' music plus the occasional freedom of solos ... but just not too many of them


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 17, 2015)

And just to mess with you all, a Bird mashup!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 17, 2015)

And it just keeps getting better!


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 17, 2015)

Allegro @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Yes, I do think that age could be a factor. I did not take it as anything disrespectful. This thread went pretty serious for a while. I am 24, so you automatically win



I was introduced to jazz by my high school conductor, who had once been an arranger for the NBC Orchestra. His enthusiasm for jazz, and big band jazz in particular, swept me away. 

He played us dozens of records while writing brilliant charts for the high school big band.
He got friends of his, serious jazz musicians and arrangers, to come sit in with us. I didn't know who most of them were at the time, but in later years all their names showed up in the annals of jazz greats. 

You might say that Jack never really gave us a choice whether to love jazz or not- he just kept playing those Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Stan Kenton, Maynard Ferguson, Woody Herman records at us until we were in awe. He played individuals for us too- the amazing Canadian pianist Oscar Peterson, Miles Davis of course, Joe Pass, Louis Armstrong, Charlie "Bird" Parker, Buddy Rich, Gene Krupa, etc etc etc.

I did not end up as a jazz musician because I was interested in too many other forms of music as well, and to be truly good at jazz, most musicians are pretty single minded about it. That said, I write "jazz-ish" music to an extent.

I had the great good fortune to have a very talented mentor to educate me. I don't know if there is as much jazz education as there once was. People come to knowledge and enjoyment of things in different ways. Maybe this thread is your introduction to a new appreciation? Ned posted some great examples. I'd be happy to post more.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 17, 2015)

Waywyn @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> The problem you have (at least of my perspective and this is how I feel about your arguments etc.) is that studying, harmony & theory kind of put a little barrier into your brain in the sense of not being able to simply enjoy the unexpected. This may be a prejudgment but I feel lots of classical trained people have this.


Yes, that's a prejudgment, usually made by people who don't have any classical training (whatever that is) and have a kind of inbuilt insecurity about it. Your argument could equally well be used to suggest that people without this training are too ignorant to know when something is bad. Neither case is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.



Waywyn @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Another thing is, how many absolutely brilliant classical musicians are out there who play the [email protected]#t out of every sheet, but if you ask them: "Can you improvise something", they look at you as if you just told them you burned down their house! Ask again, is it really 100% music if someone processes information written on paper via an instrument?


Of course it is. 



Waywyn @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Please get my right again, this is NOT about taste. If you do NOT like Jazz, of course this is totally cool, but you totally seem uncomfortable by understanding that there is music which can be awesome because of improvisation! Feel more than try to compute it!


What I think that you fail to understand is that historically the great composers were often great improvisors as well. Beethoven was famed for his improvising abilities. However, that doesn't mean that his improvisation was any more musical than his compositions that he spent hours hammering into shape. I would imagine he would laugh if you tried to put the same value on them. Or fly into a rage. :wink: 

The thing is that some people don't like the improvisatory element of jazz, and would probably not like the improvisatory element of any music. It doesn't make them any less of a musician. However, it might mean that for them music has a different purpose than others.

D


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 17, 2015)

Goosebumps are almost assured:


----------



## madbulk (Mar 17, 2015)

Daryl @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> The thing is that some people don't like the improvisatory element of jazz, and would probably not like the improvisatory element of any music. It doesn't make them any less of a musician.
> D


The hell it doesn't.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 17, 2015)

Daryl @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Waywyn @ Tue Mar 17 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem you have (at least of my perspective and this is how I feel about your arguments etc.) is that studying, harmony & theory kind of put a little barrier into your brain in the sense of not being able to simply enjoy the unexpected. This may be a prejudgment but I feel lots of classical trained people have this.
> ...



Daryl, I try to explain again!

regarding harmony & studying and the barrier thing. I experienced this myself and on others. The more I was studying, the more it felt my heart was blocked from letting out what was inside me ... there is a point when your brain takes over and it doesn't work out because you think so much about what you do. At a specific point this gets easier and at a later point you absolutely do not think about it and just let it out. Of course I do not generalize this but there are many who study sight reading and just play sheet music. They are absolutely awesome, but if you ask them about some little melody, they start thinking because they never or rarely did it! Of course it is prejudging because I am not sure if Allegro ever cared to learn this and then maybe has difficulties in understanding this type of improvised music. As said, taste aside, but when someone starts calling music borderline or porn, this sounds a bit weird to someone who studied both - sightreading and improv!


regarding if 100%. Yes, of course it is, but jut ask yourself from a technical point of you. Someone reads from a sheet and simply processes the written information on his instrument. Of course the outcome is music, but you just play whats written there, no matter how emotional or expressive. If you simply improvise and I mean not just noodling around, at least to me it is way more in the sense of creating music. It is not just composing but speaking through your instrument .. and with speaking through your music, I mean not expression or emotion during a piece of Bach. I mean musically letting out your emotions by creating the lines and melodies you just feel about!!


I never said that it makes someone less of a musician if he doesn't like the element of improvisation! All I can say is that someone who doesn't get into improvisation misses at least 50% of what music can be!


----------



## Sebastianmu (Mar 17, 2015)

Alex, I also think it's misleading to focus too much on the improvisational aspect of jazz. Because: that is NOT essential to jazz! You can write down a jazz piece and it would still be a jazz piece. The defining aspect of jazz music lies in the chords, progressions and scales. 

I could improvise a thing right now on the piano that would not be jazz but sound like something Mozart would have written while sitting on the loo. 

Or I could improvise something that WOULD be jazz - and how would I do that? By using chords with 7 9 11 and 13 extensions and fitting scales. 

And some people just don't like these kind of sounds! They have some weird sweet-and-sour-like quality to them that is just not everybody's thing. That doesn't mean they are bad musicians.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 17, 2015)

Ned, why is there only one bass player in that video (Donna Lee), instead of Niels Henning Orsted Pederson?

By the way, since Clark Terry died last month, none of those guys is still around. :(


----------



## bbunker (Mar 17, 2015)

I see what the problem is, Sebastian. You're getting Jazz mixed up with Ravel, with his 7ths, and 9ths, and 11ths. Easily done.

Oz Noy is Jazz. Oz Noy hardly uses anything but triads. And I'm not even pulling the 'triads as extensions' switch-a-roo. Nope, he's all about triadic material.

Or Dave Douglas, Chris Potter, Kurt Rosenwinkel? The sound is more triad over bass note than extended tertian sonorities.

And I think you miss the point when you say that you can 'write down jazz' and have it still be jazz. Sure. You can record an improvisation on your newfangled CD's too, but that doesn't mean that it isn't improvised line. You can write down an improvised line and throw 5 saxes on it, and that doesn't take out the improvisation. This isn't a new idea by any means...what do you think that those Toccatas are meant to be, anyway? Do you think that they're meant to be the worked out ruminations of a master, or a captured moment of improvised bliss?

I wonder, too...when you improvise in a Mozart style, you're probably trying to improvise as if it were composed. You're probably going to imply sonata-allegro form, and you're probably going to engage with the primary and secondary themes in a way that would be done in a pre-composed setting. Otherwise it probably wouldn't sound like Mozart. 

So, wouldn't you agree that you can improvise something without it having the 'spirit' of improvisation, and compose something in advance that does? So, all these pre-composed big band parts...which spirit do you think they have? And what does that say about the ideals, and the values, that jazz represents?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 17, 2015)

To quote my favorite Nick Batzdorf wannabee:

"Jazz is usually more of an attitude than anything else."

...because any definition you come up with will be full of "but xxx does that and it is/isn't jazz!"


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 17, 2015)

Waywyn @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> It is not just composing but speaking through your instrument .. and with speaking through your music, I mean not expression or emotion during a piece of Bach. I mean musically letting out your emotions by creating the lines and melodies you just feel about!!



You mean ... putting your soul into it?

Sorry, couldn't resist :-P


----------



## JFB (Mar 17, 2015)

If I controlled The Dictionary, I would make the following change:

listen

verb [no obj.]

definition: see _Jazz_

I think more than a musical art form, Jazz is the Art of Listening. The listener listening to musicians listening to each other. Self-organizing, recursive and emergent. Allegro - this could be why it doesn't sound like it's going anywhere to you. But then Jazz is not really about going somewhere as much as _being_ somewhere. Jazz players become self-indulgent if they don't listen and revert to a display of that big corpus of scales and chords acquired and stored in their head. _Not-listening_ is when a player is thinking about what he's going to play _next_ and his solo becomes an appearance instead of an emergence. 

Let me suggest an exercise for you to try (you wouldn't have started this thread if you weren't at least curious). Get the cut "Blue and Green" from the Miles Davis album "Kind of Blue". It's simple and spacious and a great piece to connect to Jazz on a pure meaning level. Totally unplug from all-things internet; don't let anyone distract you for a few minutes - and just _listen_ - without having an opinion about it one way or another. Listen to the musicians listening to each other. 

If you can hear the listening, you're on your way to understanding Jazz. If it doesn't resonate with you in any way, no big deal. It's not for everyone.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 17, 2015)

madbulk @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Mar 17 said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is that some people don't like the improvisatory element of jazz, and would probably not like the improvisatory element of any music. It doesn't make them any less of a musician.
> ...



Exactly true. Bach improvised. Mozart improvised. Clapton improvises. Hell, a Klezmer clarinetist improvises.

If you cannot appreciate _some_ improvisation, you are indeed "less of a musician."


----------



## Daryl (Mar 18, 2015)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> madbulk @ Tue Mar 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Tue Mar 17 said:
> ...


Appreciation of skill and taste are two different things.

D


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 18, 2015)

It is true, that Jazz is kind of a loose term. But limiting Jazz to some kind of attitude of the player is wrong. There clearly is a Jazz idiom. Just listen to the catch me, if you can soundtrack by JW. Some of those tracks clearly mix the Jazz idiom with JWs personal style. Of course there are many different periods and styles of Jazz with different preferences of chords and playing styles. 
Of course Stravinsky was very wrong by stating, the Jazz musicians copied his inventions into their style! You can not limit Jazz to the use of 7th 9th etc chord extensions and call the music Jazz. But on the other hand, there are - as in any music style - some conventions, more complex blocks of musical grammar, that make Jazz sound like Jazz.
When you look at Jazzers not using those inventions, they are just the ones breaking out of those conventions, just as Beethoven broke out of the classical conventions, by still maintaining them somehow.


----------



## Sebastianmu (Mar 18, 2015)

bbunker @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> It's an idea that leads to all sorts of sins, where what people feel is given some kind of great nominative power.





Waywyn @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> I mean musically letting out your emotions by creating the lines and melodies you just feel about!!



... you could look at the whole improvisational aspect of jazz _also _in a very different way: Bragging with technical abilities, w*nking together in front of an audience. 

While someone who plays in an orchestra is surrendering his technical abilities to something that he knows is greater then himself, the jazz-guy is just so fond of his "feelings" and his virtuosity, that he comes to believe this is what music _really _is about. But - maybe it's not?


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 18, 2015)

Sebastianmu @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> bbunker @ Mon Mar 16 said:
> 
> 
> > It's an idea that leads to all sorts of sins, where what people feel is given some kind of great nominative power.
> ...



Watch an enthusiastic jazz audience after a burning solo, then draw your own conclusions.


----------



## impressions (Mar 18, 2015)

so this is borderline musical to everyone who don't get jazz here?



and the soloists doesn't go anywhere?
hmm

and this guy doesn't have any emotion at all, right?


also, the more you play jazz the more you appreciate the genius of the masters.
before I knew jazz i had no idea what i was listening too. and it didn't provoke any emotion to me. so i can understand that, but if it really interest you, you should research it.


----------



## bbunker (Mar 18, 2015)

Strange that this has turned into a "jazz artists are self-obsessed, virtuosi engaging in musical masturbatory practices" vs "classical artists as committed to the music, giving their own personalities to the greater good."

I call BS on this whole idea.

Because...every concerto ever written. Because Liszt, Chopin, Rachmaninov, Debussy etudes, Prokofiev Sonatas. Because the Hammerklavier. That violinist gets up and saws away for half an hour at the Tchaikovsky concerto because he or she wants you to think that his or her chops are impressive. Otherwise they wouldn't bother. They'd play a Sinding student concerto or something like that. But they don't, do they?

Because guitar solos. Because Irish fiddling. The Chieftains could surely play everything slower, and you'd hear and understand everything better. But they don't. They speed those reels up.

Blaming jazz artists for doing what every other virtuoso in the world does can't be right. Using the composer's intention is a very strange way of getting around this, because when Bartok writes a very difficult 'concerto for orchestra', isn't his demanding for 70 people to 'musically wank' 70 times STRANGER than some sax player running changes by himself? The piece demands that it be played fast for effect? What, so the composer-performer-improviser's piece can't make the same demands?

If this is an argument against virtuosity, then call it what it is, and that discussion can be had. But classical listeners complaining about jazz artists being self-obsessed, and not caring what the audience thinks? Pot - meet kettle.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> I would tell you what I like about jazz, but I don't think it's worth it, based on your initial post. When you say something like, "I only like this music when it's used like wallpaper in a cheap movie", you're making a damn fool of yourself: get to jazz school and come back to us when you've gained a little class.



+1


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Goosebumps are almost assured:







Ned....I like the way you think.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

Deleted.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

madbulk @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Mar 17 said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is that some people don't like the improvisatory element of jazz, and would probably not like the improvisatory element of any music. It doesn't make them any less of a musician.
> ...




To quote the late, great, Jaco Pastorius regarding improvisation:

"If you gotta think, you stink."

And....let us not forget how many of Bach's fugues were improvised.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 18, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Your age could be a relevant factor, and I didn't ask the question disrespectfully though you seem to have taken it that way. I notice you never answered.



I do not agree with the age thing. Again, leaving out the matter of taste it is simply a matter of interest. I was 23 when I was studying with guys like Frank Gambale, Jeff Richman, Bill Fowler etc., when I snuck into Joe Porcaro's drum classes, when I was just sitting 2m away from Allan Holdsworth playing at the Baked Potatoe! It is simply a matter of interest and being open minded!


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

Waywyn @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> NYC Composer @ Tue Mar 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Your age could be a relevant factor, and I didn't ask the question disrespectfully though you seem to have taken it that way. I notice you never answered.
> ...



+1 I fell in love with the harmonic structure of jazz when I was 10 or 12. I started studying jazz piano at 18 or 19. 

@NYC OP's info says that he's 24.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

Sebastianmu @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Alex, I also think it's misleading to focus too much on the improvisational aspect of jazz. Because: that is NOT essential to jazz! You can write down a jazz piece and it would still be a jazz piece. The defining aspect of jazz music lies in the chords, progressions and scales.
> 
> I could improvise a thing right now on the piano that would not be jazz but sound like something Mozart would have written while sitting on the loo.
> 
> ...





And....you will find chords with the 7, 9, 11 and 13 certainly in 19th and 20th century "classical" music, as well as 99% of all film scores.

After you finish studying jazz, read a few John Williams scores, some Wagner, Debussy.........

I don't think you answered NYC's question. Because there isn't much that does not contain 7,9,11,13 harmonies here and there, I am curious. What kind of music do you like?


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 18, 2015)

Sebastianmu @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> ... you could look at the whole improvisational aspect of jazz _also _in a very different way: Bragging with technical abilities, w*nking together in front of an audience.
> 
> While someone who plays in an orchestra is surrendering his technical abilities to something that he knows is greater then himself, the jazz-guy is just so fond of his "feelings" and his virtuosity, that he comes to believe this is what music _really _is about. But - maybe it's not?



Sorry, but what is this argument? The soloist in front would be nothing without his band in the back? Besides that on a decent jazz sessions it is everyone who is about to play his contributional solo part! Did you ever pay attention that good musicians suddenly jump in to your mofis? When drummers suddenly grab your motifs and extend them .. best feeling evey! NOTHING bragging-ish about it!

If you use the bragging argument then about every painter or visual artist is one, ... what about solo parts in an orchestra? Oh yes, the orchestra is still playing in the back supporting that specific soloist, right? So does the band in the back of a solo improv on a Jazz piece!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 18, 2015)

OK, sorry but I gotta say it )

If you listen to Bill Evans playing "My Romance" and are not at least _somewhat_ moved, there is a hole in your musical soul.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

Sebastianmu @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> FriFlo @ Mon Mar 16 said:
> 
> 
> > What does that tell me? Be a little more modest, when you talk about what you like or dislike.
> ...




Perhaps you need to expand your horizons, regarding both Lady Gaga and Jazz... 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg1meK-IgOM


----------



## Daryl (Mar 18, 2015)

MichaelL @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> And....let us not forget how many of Bach's fugues were improvised.


But we have no idea how good they were, because he didn't write those ones down. :wink: 

D


----------



## Daryl (Mar 18, 2015)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> OK, sorry but I gotta say it )
> 
> If you listen to Bill Evans playing "My Romance" and are not at least _somewhat_ moved, there is a hole in your musical soul.


You may believe that, but fortunately even if there was such a thing as a soul, your taste is not a universal arbiter. 

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 18, 2015)

Daryl @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Mar 18 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, sorry but I gotta say it )
> ...



Yes and no. I don't like Country music. When I hear a twang I want to smack something. But I am moved when listening to George Jones sing "She Thinks I Still Care."


----------



## Daryl (Mar 18, 2015)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Mar 18 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Wed Mar 18 said:
> ...


Hmm. I think your first instinct was correct. :lol: 

D


----------



## madbulk (Mar 18, 2015)

Just as in the long since stupid Astrology thread, at some point the trod upon start to fight for a tiny fragment of inarguable logic, and they whittle at it until it takes a truly unreasonable zealot to not concede it. And then they circle back to their original less tenable argument and they say, "Now you see what I was trying to say all along?"


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

MichaelL @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> @NYC OP's info says that he's 24.




Guess I was wrong on that, looked at somebody else, or it changed.


I don't know why the OP is singling out jazz, other than his own dislike for the form. 

I find some classical music to be pretentious and dull, some EDM to be repetitive and trivial, some indie pop to be self-absorbed and whiney. "Epic" is almost a parody of itself. And...let's not talk about opera! What of it? (Have I offended enough people? I think that about covers everyone,)

To each his, or her, own.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 18, 2015)

The most telling part of the thread is that jazz has passionate defenders, which is as it should be. It's sublime.


----------



## reddognoyz (Mar 18, 2015)

Loves me some George Jones!!! Hell loves a little of everything. 
When I hear broad statements like:

"I don't (categorically) like xxx genre of music, and Taylor Swift sucks!" I try to be sympathetic for their loss. It's hard.. but I try.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

reddognoyz @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> Loves me some George Jones!!! Hell loves a little of everything.
> When I hear broad statements like:
> 
> "I don't (categorically) like xxx genre of music, and Taylor Swift sucks!" I try to be sympathetic for their loss. It's hard.. but I try.




Well put Stuart.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 18, 2015)

Did someone (Alex) mention Holdsworth? Oh me, oh my, what a tone, what a personal style! Yep, this is jazz, and a fine progressive/fusion version at that. Another super-band!


----------



## Sebastianmu (Mar 18, 2015)

MichaelL @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> Sebastianmu @ Tue Mar 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Alex, I also think it's misleading to focus too much on the improvisational aspect of jazz. Because: that is NOT essential to jazz! You can write down a jazz piece and it would still be a jazz piece. The defining aspect of jazz music lies in the chords, progressions and scales.
> ...



Michael, I think you mistake me for the person who started this thread, which I'm not. I love jazz!

I just find it rather obnoxious that some of the other people here who love jazz tell the ones that don't share their appreciation, that they are - basically - musical illiterates.

The points I was trying to make were directed against holding that opinion, they were not about jazz itself.


----------



## JT (Mar 18, 2015)

Semi-related to the topic, this is my favorite piece of music, Symbiosis by Bill Evans. A perfect marriage of jazz in an orchestral setting, exquisitely scored by Claus Ogerman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uISdbsRTO3U

(sorry I don't know how to embed the video)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 18, 2015)

Beautiful piece you linked, JT.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

Sebastianmu @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> Michael, I think you mistake me for the person who started this thread, which I'm not. I love jazz!
> 
> I just find it rather obnoxious that some of the other people here who love jazz tell the ones that don't share their appreciation, that they are - basically - musical illiterates.
> 
> The points I was trying to make were directed against holding that opinion, they were not about jazz itself.



Yes, you're right Sebastian. The thread got long. It was hard to follow for a bit. 

And you're quite correct, some people have trouble with jazz harmonies. I agree. It does not make them musically illiterate.

It may be be more than simply a matter of musical taste. Perhaps like seeing different colors, or tasting the complexities of different foods and beverages, liking jazz may be something to which one is predisposed.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 18, 2015)

I love that the thread is titled, "Why Jazz sounds borderline musical to me"

Clearly, Jazz is not "borderline". It thrived. It survived. It has passionate musicians and listeners. The music isn't the problem.

The remaining variable is the OP. Maybe he hasn't had deep exposure. Maybe he hasn't had enough study. Or maybe the key aspects of jazz, just don't tickle his synapses. There is tone, chords, rhythm, improv and attitude. If the sound of a sax, extended chords, swing tempos, and solos taste like old brussels sprouts, well, there it is.

The bottom line is that nobody needs to defend jazz. This is a matter of self-introspection for the OP. First, why doesn't he like it? Second, does he want to change it? Third, if so, how?

But don't blame the music. Jazz is here to stay.


----------



## jsaras (Mar 18, 2015)

Brad Mehldau is considered to be my many as the Miles Davis of our time. His phrasing at the piano is exceptional; every classical pianist wishes they could play as beautifully as he does. His mastery of harmony is complete and it can't be easily pigeonholed. His improvisations, as far out as they get at times, are always related to the original melody in some way. If Brahms and McCoy Tyner had a baby it might sound something like this: http://youtu.be/nrh61KDoKBI


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

Perhaps a good analogy for the OP might to imagine listening to a foreign language. Pick something as distant from your own language as you can. It would probably sound like nonsense to you, when in fact it is a sophisticated fully-developed language, with grammar, syntax, etc. I do not know Chinese, but that doesn't make a "borderline" language.


----------



## jsaras (Mar 18, 2015)

If porn music grooved half as hard as this, the sex would be so much better ;D http://youtu.be/4glbXbKi8O8


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

jsaras @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> If porn music grooved half as hard as this, the sex would be so much better ;D http://youtu.be/4glbXbKi8O8




:lol: 

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## impressions (Mar 19, 2015)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> OK, sorry but I gotta say it )
> 
> If you listen to Bill Evans playing "My Romance" and are not at least _somewhat_ moved, there is a hole in your musical soul.



exactly what i'm saying. 

the topic name is a bit condescending, it should be more like " i can't get jazz, give me something that evokes emotion on every listener".


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 19, 2015)

Allegro @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> *Me:* I like almost every other color but blue, I do find blue useful for denoting and expressing depth. But I don't like most shades of blue. When I look at it, I find it bad. It doesn't get my attention but still gets in my way. What could be the reason? Everyone seems to love blue but I can't. As a painter I want to like and understand blue because I feel that I am missing a certain palette. Why do YOU like blue? Please explain.
> 
> *Forum: *
> : I would tell you why I like blue but go learn some basics about color frequencies, then comeback you fool.
> ...



Yeah, that sums up my thoughts on the thread too. LOL. Except for the title. 
Allegro, you know you just kicked a fuckin hornet's nest right? Or rather, lit it on fire with some gasoline. Fun to do sometimes. :wink: 

Whatever,....Even if blue isn't your favorite color, its really useful for mixing with other colors. And the same goes for jazz. There's a lot of great harmonic and scale material you can take from jazz and mix with other styles for colorful results. John Williams is full of jazz harmonic structures, yet you don't hear it as that. But try analyzing one of his pieces and you'll be in for quite a surprise. Take something as gentle as Anakin's Theme and look at the harmonic structure and you'll see its rooted deeply in jazz harmonic substitutes.

You can also use elements of jazz such as modes and altered scales and re-purpose them which is lots of fun (and doesn't have to sound anything like jazz).

For a nice example of jazz integration with classical try this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxUHcXUJZgY&t=1m02s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxUHcXUJZgY&amp;t=1m02s)

And enjoy the orange sunset. And remember a lot of those orange colors wouldn't exist without some blue!
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange

@jsaras - thanks for those tasty links! Let's keep this bad boy thread alive with more such treats!


----------



## Goran (Mar 19, 2015)

Daryl @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Beethoven was famed for his improvising abilities. However, that doesn't mean that his improvisation was any more musical than his compositions that he spent hours hammering into shape. I would imagine he would laugh if you tried to put the same value on them. Or fly into a rage. :wink:



I think I would put my money on "fly into a rage".


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 19, 2015)

Regarding improv, it's a fundamental skill. Let's face it, you can't compose music without improvisation. You might be improvising in your head rather than on an instrument, but a composer still creates music that isn't written down. The main difference is that the composer can work and rework their licks, rather than performing them figuratively naked on stage.

I wonder, are there any master composers who can't/couldn't improvise? Sure, one could compose "mathematically" on the page, but would they be masters?

A complete musician can
* Sight read,
* Improvise,
* Perform with high competency,
* Play with feeling,
* Understand theory, and
* Compose.

I have to admit that I have less respect for people who can sight read and can't improvise at all. I also have less respect for those who can improvise, but they doodle around searching for anchor notes without hitting them and not really knowing how to fix it. Musicians who have never composed anything aren't really pushing themselves.

That's not to say that I do *any* item on the above list as well as I'd like to. But I don't see how anybody with zero skills in any of those categories could be called "complete." And that's regardless of their core or preferred style.


----------



## woodsdenis (Mar 19, 2015)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Mar 19 said:


> Regarding improv, it's a fundamental skill. Let's face it, you can't compose music without improvisation. You might be improvising in your head rather than on an instrument, but a composer still creates music that isn't written down. The main difference is that the composer can work and rework their licks, rather than performing them figuratively naked on stage.
> 
> I wonder, are there any master composers who can't/couldn't improvise? Sure, one could compose "mathematically" on the page, but would they be masters?
> 
> ...




Erm.....

Ronnie Milsap

Nobuyuk Tsujii

George Shearing

Jose Feliciano

Art Tatum

Stevie Wonder

Ray Charles

All couldn't/can't sight read for fairly obvious reasons. So they are not complete musicians then ?


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 19, 2015)

woodsdenis @ Thu Mar 19 said:


> ...All couldn't/can't sight read for fairly obvious reasons. So they are not complete musicians then ?



Brilliant response!

One could make the purely logical case that they aren't "complete" musicians, but one can't possibly justify holding it against them. 

Maybe I should have included "playing by ear", possibly as an alternative to sight reading. This brings up the subtle distinction that playing by ear is not the same as improvisation.

A non-sight-reading musician could learn a piece by ear, memorize it, and play proficiently with an orchestra or other large group. If one can't sight read and can't compensate with playing-by-ear and memorization, then they probably aren't "complete".

But being "complete" isn't everything. Nobody hesitates before buying a Katy Perry song, wondering if she can sight read. And there are fantastically skilled musicians out there who bake pizzas for a living. There are no medals for completeness.

Then again, I would personally love to be more proficient in each and every area.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 22, 2015)

On a positive note, all this talk about jazz has made me excited about it again! Listening to Monk and reading what looks to be a great read/life story:


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 22, 2015)

Thelonious Monkis one of my favorites. Who else plays so many "wrong" notes that are so perfectly right?


----------



## KEnK (Mar 22, 2015)

JonFairhurst @ Sun Mar 22 said:


> Thelonious Monkis one of my favorites. Who else plays so many "wrong" notes that are so perfectly right?


Maybe Ornette, or Sun Ra?
:mrgreen:


----------



## impressions (Mar 25, 2015)

KEnK @ Sun Mar 22 said:


> JonFairhurst @ Sun Mar 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Thelonious Monkis one of my favorites. Who else plays so many "wrong" notes that are so perfectly right?
> ...



eric dolphy is the king in that field, to my taste ~o)


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 26, 2015)

Just wow:


----------



## wesbender (Mar 26, 2015)

Man, some great videos in here. 

I noticed someone mentioning The Bad Plus and I got a little giddy.


----------



## Diffusor (Mar 28, 2015)

Jazz is one of the few genres that I never took to as well and I understand what the OP was meaning. I do like some of it but a lot of it is a little too emotionally absent for me and more about technical prowess and theory, and somewhat "masterbatory". . I feel the same way about a lot of progrock and math rock etc. And a lot of classical music for that matter.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 28, 2015)

Good point, Diffusor.

There's no doubt that some music is more emotionally driven and some more intellectual. Depending on what we seek, some genres resonate and others don't. For instance, I really like Muse as they have enough complexity to make it interesting and the music is also emotional. Then again, when I don't want so much emotion, it can be overly melodramatic. Switched on Bach is fun, but when you want emotion, it has about as much heart as a sewing machine.

Still, one shouldn't paint genres or musicians too broadly. Bach has some beautifully emotional music and there are jazz pieces that can reach down into your soul.


----------



## Diffusor (Mar 28, 2015)

JonFairhurst @ Sat Mar 28 said:


> Good point, Diffusor.
> 
> There's no doubt that some music is more emotionally driven and some more intellectual. Depending on what we seek, some genres resonate and others don't. For instance, I really like Muse as they have enough complexity to make it interesting and the music is also emotional. Then again, when I don't want so much emotion, it can be overly melodramatic. Switched on Bach is fun, but when you want emotion, it has about as much heart as a sewing machine.
> 
> Still, one shouldn't paint genres or musicians too broadly. Bach has some beautifully emotional music and there are jazz pieces that can reach down into your soul.




Certainly, I love Billie Holiday and older stuff like that.


----------

