Most great jazz musicians require the listener to think and be engaged in the compositions in which they’re producing. What separates artists like Miles Davis and John Coltrane from Kenny G and The Rippingtons is that greats such as the former chose style over substance, rather than providing simple background music like the latter two produced in their careers. Kamasi Washington unfortunately falls into the latter category. His debut full-length, The Epic, features some of the most lifeless saxophone playing and mundane compositions I’ve ever heard in contemporary jazz music. The former Young Jazz Giants member fails to keep the listener even remotely interested throughout the LP’s excruciating runtime of 173 minutes, which feels more like a try-hard showcase of one’s musical abilities rather than a so-called “epic” which the album’s title promises toward.
I think puberty is a prerequisite to actually enjoying Jazz. I don't even think Marcel knows what he's truly talking about. I thought The Epic sucked but his descriptions of certain musical genres (particularly Jazz) sound like the kind of analytical textbook-agreed-upon drivelshit your local community college musicologist would regurgitate.
>>55663473
Okay, so what is the "good" version of that album?
>>55663473
Even though I agree with parts of this review it's almost as bad as Fantano's in that neither review really says anything illuminating or profound about the music itself. Instead they resort to talking about how the album makes them feel.
This is why they will always be amateur level reviewers. Of course, how the music makes the listener feel is always the most important aspect of music, but that's not what music criticism is about. Every listener should decide for themselves how the music makes them feel. Why would anybody care how these two know-nothing's feel about this music?
Real music criticism is about uncovering the objective qualities of the music that cause your feelings toward it. Therein lies real appreciation, discussion, and understanding of music.
These two reviewers merely re-enact a shallow imitation of that, which many of the equally shallow music listeners of this board mistake for the real thing.
-anon
>>55663473
You get the feeling he didn't even listen to the album but just decided not to like it in opposition to Fantano, who basically did the exact opposite.
FYI I thought the album was mediocre, forgettable pop jazz.
>>55663473
I bet whoever reviewed this only listens to standards and 80's post-bop, while they're sucking Wynton's dick. We need more hip shit like this, Jazz isn't dinosaur music...
>>55663813
>pop jazz
The things people say on this board...
What's your favorite jazz album post-2010?
>>55663943
David Virelles- Mboko
>>55663719
>as Fantano's in that neither review really says anything illuminating or profound about the music itself. Instead they resort to talking about how the album makes them feel.
this.
>>55663943
You retards can't accept that's exactly what this album is. I hope for your sake you're just a Brainfeeder viral marketer,.
>>55663970
David Virelles is super straight ahead though. Don't get me wrong, I like him but I get tired of hearing just straight ahead. Do you consider Snarky Puppy to be pop jazz?
>>55663473
dudebro music reviews are useless. many music reviews are paid for and as a result are basically advertisements instead of anything worthwhile.
i dont care about fandango and i like to pretend he doesnt exist. i say good for him being able to do his thing but who cares.
>>55664090
What's wrong with pop jazz though?
>>55664090
Ok, go listen to more conservatory recital jazz albums then, fucking cuck.
>>55664090
Just because it's accesible it doesn't mean it's pop jazz. Is fucking Blue Train pop jazz too?
>>55663473
>Marcel in charge of knowing shit all about music let alone jazz...
>>55664154
accessibility has nothing to do with it my friend
>>55664123
Nothing as long as you realize it's intended to be listened differently from other jazz. It's just a new style of Smooth Jazz, barely canon.
It's like "Hey I heard you like Flying Lotus, so here's an album made just so you can say you have a favorite jazz album of the year!"
>>55664102
Not the guy you're responsing too, but Snarky Puppy is absolutely Pop Jazz and just as bad as Kamasi Washington.
>>55664203
>>55663813
>>55664226
This is what jazz purists actually believe. kek. Off to the Lincoln Center with you.
>>55663473
Whoever wrote this doesn't know what they're talking about. I haven't even heard of Kamasi.
>>55663906
I bet whoever reviewed this only listens to standards and 80's post-bop
Or you know, just Miles Davis and John Coltrane like every jazz expert.
Anyways are these reviewers from /mu/ or something? What's the point of following them and referencing them by name? Every board is the fucking same.
>>55664203
The Epic is really good. It's not the most inventive piece of Jazz music, but it's very well contructed and the musicianship is top notch.
While it is in no way my favorite jazz album, it deserves recognition.
>>55664102
>David Virelles is super straight ahead though
What David Virelles albums have you heard? What have you heard him play on as a sideman? Anyway- Listen to Continuum because it's obvious you haven't.
Lol "pop jazz". This shit sounds 30 years old. Pop jazz isn't instrumental
>>55664331
I've heard Motion and Idk which albums he was a sideman on at the moment, but I haven't heard Continuum.
>>55663719
Best post in the thread
still haven't seen anything close to a decent review of this album
>>55664421
no kidding maybe listen to more than one or two albums from an artist before you presume to know what they "mostly" are
>>55664463
Ok I admit my fuckup, but that doesn't change my original point about how retarded the "pop jazz" meme is.
>>55664560
It's debatable I suppose but my point is that this album seems to be created for, and marketed specifically to non-jazz fans.
That doesn't mean it's bad, it doesn't mean you're a non-jazz fan or poser or whatever if you like it. It doesn't even mean it's a bad thing to the jazz industry. It just means I think it was conceived, created, packaged, and marketed to cater to more mainstream listeners and it's succeeding marvelously.
>>55664268
You brainfeeder jazz casual trolls are pathetic. Do you really think anyone who doesn't like this smooth jazz garbage is some Wynton Marsalis purist.
If anything one criticism against this album is that it's not daring enough. It takes shallow pastiches of different styles of jazz and waters them down for ease of consumption of people that don't really listen to jazz.
>>55664427
jtg wrote a good one and posted it in a previous thread here actually
>Snarky Puppy
This band is awful.
>>55664933
is that jazzthreadguy? does he still post here?
got a link to that review?
>>55664896
You make no fucking sense whatsoever.
>Do you really think anyone who doesn't like this smooth jazz garbage is some Wynton Marsalis purist.
Nothing about this is smooth jazz, this was a heavy album imo. The next thing you'll be saying is Austin Peralta is adult contemporary.
> It takes shallow pastiches of different styles of jazz and waters them down for ease of consumption of people that don't really listen to jazz.
gr8 b8 m8. Did you actually listen to most of the album?
>>55665047
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/mu/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=washington&search_subject=&search_username=jtg&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_media_hash=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_res=post
Use the archive. It's your friend.
Is there any genre with more obnoxious/elitist fans than Jazz? This is EDM levels of elitism in this thread.
>>55665192
If you spend long enough on /mu/ legitimate criticism starts looking like elitism/autism.
my advice is to start browsing /mu/ less
>>55665263
This isn't just /mu/, Jazz fans has always had a reputation for being elitist assholes for decades; no matter where you go.
>>55665291
>This isn't just /mu/, Jazz fans has always had a reputation for being elitist assholes for decades; no matter where you go
This isn't just jazz, music critics have always had a reputation for being elitist assholes for decades; no matter where you go
>>55663719
>Real music criticism is about uncovering the objective qualities of the music that cause your feelings toward it.
>cause your feelings
Therein lies the issue. if it affects your feelings differently to others, often to the point where people simply cannot agree on the quality of an album, who's to say there is anything 'objective' outside of the western tradition of harmony, tonality, timbre and rhythm? even then said 'objectivity' is reliant on a system which is inherently unobjective in its exclusion of non-western conventions. There is nothing outside of how music makes you 'feel', and any other assertion is simply baseless.
>>55665885
Wrong. Music is sound. Molecules vibrating in waves that can be controlled, measured, identified, analyzed, and catalogued. These are the objective qualities of music that lead to interesting discussion and help us get to the bottom of these vibrating patterns that stir emotion within us.
We can argue all day about what we like or don't like, but where does that get us? We should like and dislike different things, that's the nature of art. What's the point in discussing it at all. You know how music makes you feel- why would you care how it makes me feel, or Fantano, or any other anonymous "music critic"? Analyzing the objective qualities of music is the only real discussion that exists. The reason this board is so pointless is that the vast majority of the board tries to present it's feelings toward music as though it's important to anyone else. Then the majority of the board gets offended when other people don't have the same emotional reaction to music that they do. This is why the majority of posts on this board simply revolve around "it's great" or "it's shit."
Of course we're going to disagree about how music makes us feel. What's the point in even discussing it if were not going to dig any deeper into the objective measurable qualities of the music that cause our emotional response?
Is there any point in a board dedicated to an art form where people just respond to works of art with either "I like it" or "I don't like it"?
>>55666152
He isn't saying that music doesn't have objective qualities; he's saying that those qualities don't necessarily determine whether a piece of music is good or bad. Art is about our response to it and understanding our response to it and how we think it elicits that response
>>55665055
>this was a heavy album imo
well you are fucking wrong and uneducated what the fuck.
Have you listened to like 5 total jazz albums in your life?
>>55666312
It sounds to me like he's saying those objective qualities aren't worth discussing, which is the part I disagree with. Through investigating these objective qualities we can discover patterns about what invokes emotion in us and find new music that further invokes those emotions we crave. Through analysis of these objective qualities in the music we can discover subtleties of the music we may have missed with our limited ears and attention spans. We can get better at listening to music and recognizing elements of these objective qualities. Sometimes it can even change your emotional response to the music.
Aren't these all good things?
>>55666406
What would you consider some heavy jazz albums?
>>55666491
Oh, of course. But it's ultimately correlation rather than causation when it comes to that kind of analysis. And with that kind of analysis, you're still, in the grand scheme of things, saying "I do/don't like this because of [objective musical qualities]."
>>55666716
>But it's ultimately correlation rather than causation when it comes to that kind of analysis.
Is it though? How do we really know? Doesn't that really bring us down to the mystery of emotion, consciousness, and self? After all, elements of our emotional responses to stimuli are objective, measurable, and manipulatable to a degree as well. Every emotion you've ever felt can be measured and described by the chemical release in your brain and your body's physical response to it. But is that really all our emotions consist of? That's the mystery I guess.
>And with that kind of analysis, you're still, in the grand scheme of things, saying "I do/don't like this because of [objective musical qualities]."
My only real point is that this is still far better than just "I do/don't like this." And leaving it at that. One can possibly lead to a much more interesting and extended discussion of the music in which both parties can learn new things. The other is almost always an intellectual dead end.
>>55666406
Your opinion is completely irrelevant now, you're a closed minded elitist douche. How can you claim to be a fan of jazz if you're that closed minded? Get the fuck off my /mu/ now!
bumping a somewhat decent thread
>>55667085
he's not close minded for calling out another anon makes incorrect and brashly worded statements that clearly come from a basis of someone not knowing what theyre talking about. It's not elitist to find people who don't have much connection with a scene make wild and stupid claims about it to be ridiculous.
>>55663473
>greats such as the former chose style over substance
what the hell does he mean by that
>>55668979
he doesn't even know because hes a teenager who doesn't have any background in jazz enough to make grand and ignorant comments about it
