/ Jazz /
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
What are some new discoveries that you've liked lately jazzfam?
Been digging this a lot
Not necessarily a new discover but I really love
Found this recently, diggin it very much:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGtFazSzIPM
>>64191294
Solid. Did you know he did the Space Ghost: Coast to Coast theme song?
>>64191669
No I had no idea, thats pretty cool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swHY9_mrOK0
This was alright. Very deary sounding. Anyone know any jazz albums with lots of players you wanna rec?
>>64191669
I was exposed to Sharrock's playing as a child because I loved SGC2C. The wild feedback driven guitar would always unsettle me yet always intrigued me as a kid. It's funny how I love his music now as a 20 year old in almost the same way I did when I was 10.
Reminder to come get involved in the /Blindfold Test/ threads every Friday. It's fun and a great way to discover/talk about jazz.
This week's theme is the criss cross record label.
http://www58.zippyshare.com/v/18nM0DFx/file.html
ever notice how b8 threads about jazz get way more replies than these?
>>64193478
No one actually listens to jazz
It's just cool to say you do.
I picked up Chick Corea - Return To Forever on LP per my uncle's recommendation and was surprised at how much I liked it! Equally haunting and jovial, the latin vocalist Flora Purim really shines
>>64193496
accurate
>>64193478
It's easier to get people on /mu/ mad than to get them talking about music.
>>64193478
Those of us who like actually talking about jazz congregate in these threads>>64192997
>>64193660
pls stop shilling your threads
We know already
>>64193718
oh ok
>>64191204
>Woddy Shaw on that album
Ugh so good.
I've been really impressed with pic related over the last few days. Between the arrangements and how Stan improvises over them, I haven't been this crazy about a record in a while.
Any live Return To Forever shit. YouTube it my niggers.
>>64193531
Return to Forever has some huge jazz fusion albums. Hymn of the Seventh Galaxy and Romantic Warrior are also great
John Coltrane looks way different when he smiles. I came across this and it occurred to me I don't think I've ever seen a photo of him where he's not either scowling or playing before.
>>64195411
He looks like he's missing a tooth
>>64195436
Hmm. Maybe that's why he doesn't smile so much...
>>64195494
drugs do that
bump
>>64195411
ya that is pretty weird lol
The Crimson Jazz Trio Volume 2 is one of the best jazz albums I have ever listened to.
bump
>>64197892
more jazz essentials charts?
what's more like this?
I like the instrumentation, the textures, the dynamics
>>64197935
pretty different desu but you might like this
/r/-ing that jtg's beginner's chart sister, the one with albums from vocal and latin jazz, and a whole section of Monk albums,
>>64197935
i think you might like pic related
>>64198244
It's the 48th anniversary of pic related's recording, you can listen to it in recognition
>>64199116
oh thanks a million! I was trying to remember that Our Secret World that i listened to a few months ago
>>64199759
shit wrong pic
bump
Quick Q. Are there any Charlie Parker recordings that don't sound like shit? I tried both albums in pic related and they were muddy as hell. I realize this is old shit but even the blues recordings of the time had more clarity.
where might i get started with Yusef Lateef? What might be his essentials, because he does have quite the discography
>>64201147
maybe Jazz at Massey Hall? I thought the Bird soundtrack did a good job of remaking the backing parts, but some might consider that a sin
>>64201226
How about the Complete Savoy Sessions? I'm listening to the master take of Tiny's Tempo right now and it's pretty crisp. It's 137 tracks tho. That'll take a few days to get through, alternate takes and all. Also no idea about Yusef Lateef. Sorry.
>>64201147
A lot of Bird comps are just cash-ins from Europe where copyright laws are lax. Look for the Savoy and Dial sessions as released by Spotlite - they use good source material and treat it with respect.
>>64201361
Got it. Thanks for the heads up.
Also did some quick research on Yusef Lateef.
Eastern Sounds ('62) and The Golden Flute ('67) seem to be the big albums by him.
>>64201147
His verve recordings have the best sound but the best are the Savoy/Dial ones. They're really iconic and has the young Miles on most of them so it's very interesting.
>>64201413
ah holy fuck did i say Yusef Lateef? I totally meant Rohsaan Roland Kirk, totally switched those silly Nation of Islam names. I've already been acquainted with both Eastern Sounds and Golden Flute.
As for Bird, imo the Savoy/Verve/Dial are too bloated for easy listening. I've always went with comps like Parker With Strings, Groovin' High, Bird and Diz, even the Bird ost and the Ken Burns' Jazz comp
>>64201517
So I've been reading. I'm just trying to avoid shitty-sounding cash-in comps desu.
>>64201679
Yeah, i try to avoid anthology's for just that reason. the first time i listened to Fats Domino and Bo Diddley was through massive 3-4 albums anthology's. Never again. I decided to go with Swingmatism.
I gave Parker With Strings some thought but I prefer my jazz in tight combos. Honestly, that Sketches of Spain stuff always seems overblown to me. I'll come back to it eventually.
>>64201777
>I'm just trying to avoid shitty-sounding cash-in comps desu.
So listen to the verve recordings. Also the massey hall concert but it's kind of hard to listen to, very long tracks with very long solos. If you're up to it though it's pretty awesome. I used to be like you but I just kept listening to it and now I really enjoy the Savoy/Dial sessions. it's just a thing to get used to but it's really worth it.
this has me tapping my foot
>>64201806
i have no problem with lengthy riffing and improvisation. it's just those retrospectives were full of alternate takes and false starts and shit. not a good place to start. thanks for the recs.
>>64202051
You can always delete false starts and alt takes. That's what I do. But I don't force you to anything. I promise you though that if you'll really get into bird nothing will stop you from listening to those recordings.
any recs for good books for a jazz newcomer?
>>64201679
Whenever I get into someone new from that era I tend to use the big bloated comps but delete the alts and false starts, then sort it into manageable playlists usually based on a couple of sessions recorded around the same time.
I find a lot of that sort of music suits roughly EP length presentation, so most of my Bird stuff is sorted like that. That Bird and Diz album is great, but Parker with Strings is far from his best work, and Groovin' High is a weird mash-up of small group and big band from what I remember. And it misses Shaw Nuff from the small group session, which is a great tune.
>>64202125
Just for listening or for playing anon?
Could anyone upload Mingus' Epitaph? Archive link is dead
Also, any recommendations in terms of fully realized works like Black Saint and Sinner Lady? Prefer that type a lot to the 'song collections' that most albums are
>>64204973
Wrong board, buddy
>>64204903
Yeah sure. My internet is piss slow but I'll up it now.
You should consider using rutracker or soulseek, they're better for this sort of thing than the archive.
Also, as far as other "fully realized" albums you should check out, try:
Chris Potter - The Sirens
Keith Jarrett - Koln concert (or basically anything where he's playing extended compositions, they're mostly improv and they all just kind of evolve like jazz classical suites, it's incredible.
A lot of Duke Ellingotn albums like Far East Suite, Such Sweet Thunder, his version of The Nutcracker and Money Jungle.
Money Jungle isn't intentionally a concept album but if you listen to the 1987 blue note release of the album, they have the tracks in the order they were recorded and you can hear a lot of the frustrations the trio were having recording the album come out in the music which kind of climaxes in the title track with Mingus furiously plucking his bass with his fingernails, Ellington slamming the most dissonant chords of his career out in response and Max roach in the back foaming at the mouth playing polyrhythms.
>>64191669
that sax is wrecking me
>>64191204
As soon as a musician becomes ambitious, he grows out of pseudocoherent jazz exercises and begins to compose in a mature idiom.
Of course, since jazz is nigger music and niggers are lazy, they never aspire to much, musically. That's why jazz is so simplistic.
>>64206088
>That's why jazz is so simplistic
I know, sometimes I'm listening to Giant Steps and I can't help but think: "wouldn't it have been so much better if he'd used more chords?".
>>64206088
Speaking of laziness, this is some lazy b8
>>64206239
Typical jazzfag fallacy. A jazz 'musician' lacks the creativity to conceive of a change of a piece in any other terms than of microalterations e.g. chordal. His musical imagination is too narrow to conceive of a relationship among parts of a piece that spans longer than a couple of seconds or a handful of mental arithmetic, addition or subtraction. It is really lamentable.
>>64206239
>Giant Steps
I'm listening to it as I write and I literally can't stop smiling at the narrow-mindedness of it.
>>64206327
Post a couple of your compositions. If you won't do that I'm sure you'll understand if nobody takes you seriously henceforth.
>>64206346
There is no need for me to prove my point because you already know I'm right. You're just in denial, long-locked into the social stranglehold of pretension that jazz has any ambition or imagination to it.
>>64206367
>There is no need for me to prove my point because you already know I'm right.
Speaking of fallacies...
>>64206435
What you quoted does not constitute a fallacy.
INDEPENDENTLY, your implication that only a maker has the right to criticize was one. An age-old one.
kamesai washington, the list goes on...
>>64206367
lol are you the same person who used to always come in these threads and post stuff like this and then you didn't even know any music theory?
>>64206481
>music theory
Music theory should be a means, not an end itself. And it definitely shouldn't be used as a way to distract from the fact that the musician lacks the IQ to compose anything.
You're all guilty for implicitly teaching jazz 'artists' that their shit can fly. The whole fragile, ludicrous, consensual jazz mythology, that of 'interplay' and 'improvisation' and 'understanding' and 'interaction'... it is embarrassing to see adults concede to the entirety of it just to save a couple of lazy people from criticism.
>>64206304
Do you think John Coltrane didn't build and develop thematic ideas over the course of pieces too?
>>64199116
very nice chart
>>64206558
Anon, if you're just here to blow hot air could you take it somewhere else? Go bother the hip hop general or something.
>>64206558
Whether or not you can articulate your ideas in the language of musical theory is one thing, but so far you haven't shown any reliable evidence that you actually have any ideas to begin with...
>>64206558
But how could you possibly arrive at any of those conclusions without an understanding of music theory?
>>64206562
THAT fallacy again. Somehow I do begin to wonder if I'm the only person who's ever realized it.
All jazz pieces I've heard, unless they've been infused with some structure that somehow still manages to get accurately referred to as 'rock-jazz' or 'avant-jazz', has been just spaghetti turds of a performance, the cracks and bends on which -- the purported 'variations' and 'changes' -- will regrettably continue to allow jazzfags to pretend that 'every jazz composition has numerous profound thematic developments in the course of it, just listen to it carefully!'.
There is no way for a jazzfaggot in denial to admit how insignificant, small-minded, and uncreative the 'changes' they're bent on apologizing and legitimizing jazz with really are.
>>64206612
>you actually
>>64206620
>how could you
It's hilarious that you jazzfags are so shameless at using the fallacy that my personal qualities are relevant in this discussion. You might just as well tell me to kys. Why even pretend that those two replies of yours were valid? You can't possibly hope for other readers of this thread to think you're right. Clearly your grasping at fallacies serves to convince *you yourself* that you're right, to contribute to your own denial of jazz merit.
>>64206658
Using big words doesn't make you not a retard.
>>64206721
True, but irrelevant in the discussion at hand.
Like most things jazz fans say.
>>64206658
you just can't into abstract ideas.
the more abstract it gets, the more confused you are. you need something to hang on to. something almost tangible to make sure you aren't losing your mind.
you want the artist telling you what to think and how to react.
making up your own mind about a work of art, creating your own interpretation of it, is not your piece of cake it seems.
>>64206719
>that my personal qualities are relevant in this discussion.
They are though. How can you discuss the finer points of Russian literature if you don't speak Russian?
>>64206658
So far the only argument you've presented is some variation of the phrase "no it doesn't", with no development. If I say jazz features thematic development, you say "no it doesn't". If I say it features talented composers, you say "no it doesn't".
No one can make valid refutations of any of your arguments because you don't actually have any arguments, just controversial statements not backed up with any substance. Of course all the responses to you are going to attack your character - there's nothing else to attack.
>>64206773
I wish you were retarded, but you're just a jazzfag desperate to drive me away from your thread and you're, again, consciously grasping at broken reasonings to try to tire me out. Me not having been on 4chan for some time, it's been a time that I last saw it.
My knowledge of music theory is not relevant, because I'm not discussing it, but the nature of reliance on it by jazz 'musicians' -- resulting from (and intended to obscure) their inability to compose -- and willful ignorance of it by jazz listeners.
>>64206658
>that somehow still manages to get accurately referred to as
plz stop butchering the English language, I'm not gonna read your posts if you won't explain your thoughts clearly in plain English because this embarrassing attempt rhetorical language is killing my soul to read.
Now, what I'm reading here is that you've never actually listened to a jazz song attentively.
>every jazz composition has numerous profound thematic developments in the course of it, just listen to it carefully!'.
This is an absolutely ridiculous expectation to have, not every jazz solo has a huge overarching development to it any more than every Mozart piece was a genius inspired and game changing statement.
If you've legitimately never been able to hear thematic development in a jazz song, I'd be happy to point it out to you though.
>>64206658
I don't understand you're argument. Are you just arguing that there is no thematic development whatsoever in any jazz?
If that's your argument I think this transcription and analysis of a Bill Evans solo proves your argument wrong. Here we see the introduction, variation, development and combination of several melodic motifs.
>>64206833
>willful ignorance
>it's an Ame post
lol
Hey guys, I need your help.
I found this gem by accident, but I have no idea what genre it is or where to look for something similar. since it says jazz in the description I figured you might know something.
would you please take a listen (especially to the track "At The River") and rec me something?
https://duplicaterecords.bandcamp.com/album/nine
>>64193980
listening to some now. it's really fun
>>64206757
Jazz is not 'abstract'. A shitty rock ballad by a fifteen-year-old is more abstract than a string of jazz mental arithmetic of chords or scales. There is no desire (nor ability) to combine textures or timbres to produce an effect, to develop a melody over the course of more than a couple of seconds (such is the attention span of jazz 'masters'), all those aspects of creativity lie neglected. And when it's pointed out, the jazz coward says 'nuh-uh, TRUE abstraction is what I've been doing, nothing else'. Jazz to rock is what arithmetic is to math. It is the most concrete, heavy-handed genre of music there is.
>>64206790
>If I say jazz features thematic development, you say "no it doesn't".
>>64206852
>Are you just arguing that there is no thematic development whatsoever in any jazz?
Obligatory strawman.
No. I'm saying that the jazz developments are painfully transparent and I'm glad to have grown out of jazz when I was 20 or so.
Jazztards are really coming out of the woodwork in this thread. I won't be able to keep up with your errors for much longer.
>>64206852
>introduction, variation, development and combination
Addressed in >>64206658, as you are full aware.
>>64206922
In other words, the complexity of jazz corresponds closely to the average IQ of black people of <90.
>>64206960
>Jazztards are really coming out of the woodwork in this thread.
>Jazz thread
>full of people who like jazz
The fiends!
>No. I'm saying that the jazz developments are painfully transparent and I'm glad to have grown out of jazz when I was 20 or so.
>I don't like it so it's bad
>>64206960
>No. I'm saying that the jazz developments are painfully transparent
This is the first time you've said anything resembling that. But if they're so transparent as you claim then I'm sure you'd have no problem in listening to the rest of the solo transcribed here>>64206852 and pointing out the rest of the melodic development in the next minute or so of the solo right? After all they are "painfully transparent".
>>64206960
Well ok then, examine that BIll Evans solo and explain why it is:
>spaghetti turds
>insignificant
>small-minded
>uncreative
I've been checking out Charles Gayle, pic related and Touchin' on Trane
>>64207018
Oh wait. You forgot that Ame can't read music!
So it turns out that an understanding of music theory actually is relevant to this discussion. Imagine that.
>>64206922
>There is no desire (nor ability) to combine textures or timbres to produce an effect
That might be true for a lot of classic jazz, though it's equally true for a lot of genres of music in their formative years, including rock, but it's obviously not any more
>>64206922
If you analyze the majority of western music, most of it contains a string of (jazz) mental arithmetic of chords or scales. It's about what these constructions conjure up in your mind. To reduce any form of music to some kind of mathematical formula, is fine, but it actually means you don't understand it musically. It's not your taste. You don't like it. Get it? No need to convince people of your opinion, because you know what, it's your opinion. You can have it, you don't have to state is as a fact and convince people of it. Feel free! You are now rid of your chains and you can move around freely without having the need to objectify anything you don't feel or understand.
>'nuh-uh, TRUE abstraction is what I've been doing, nothing else'.
I've never heard any jazz guy say that 'true abstraction' is what they do.
Also, you know that abstract means, right? Abstract does not mean 'good' or 'bad' or 'artsy' or 'deep'.
>thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances:
Math and arithmetic are actually very abstract practices.
Arguably arithmetic is the most abstract math.
>It is the most concrete, heavy-handed genre of music there is.
That you think of it as concrete, only emphasizes the fact it doesn't resonate with you. You reduce what means a lot to a lot of people - because of their imagination - to a simple composition of events in time.
You don't like it. Get over it.
>>64207009
>>I don't like it so it's bad
No. It's bad because it probably won't even offer me one fifth of the musical ideas some generic Radiohead album or whatever you people and folks at RYM like offers, and I have never even heard a full Radiohead album (or song).
>>64207011
>>64207018
I already explained this error of yours. (Though then, with all the ways in which jazz relies on rehashing the same paucity of ideas over and over, I reckon you've become quite accepting of repetition...)
Mindless progressions as in >>64206852 reflect an offensively narrow musical horizon and range of interests. There is so much more to evoke in music, so many possible co-occurrences of instruments, changes of tempo, clusters of phrases... When I listen to jazz, for instance >>64206852's, I honestly fear that I'll forget the sense of exhilaration when I see people whose musical knowledge doesn't neglect units longer than a couple of seconds. Unlike in jazz, where, again and again, any three seconds are in no relation to any other three seconds.
>>64207049
Well yes, jazz has been learning from more ambitious genres. Too bad that the resulting hybrids will probably fail to give proper credit and refer to themselves as jazz-x instead of, properly, x-jazz (jazz-tinged x).
>>64206894
anybody pls?
I have been churning my way through the /mu/ jazz essentials like there is no tomorrow trying to gain a foothold and some general knowledge of the genre. Currently re-listening to and loving pic related. Recs would be welcome.
>>64207235
>I don't like it so it's bad
This is still all you've said.
>>64207150
>>64206922
Jazz isn't made up of emotionless melodic runs through harmonic hoops.
Unless you're listening to some conservatory tier kids who're just playing for the sake of playing, most good jazz musicians care about the emotion conveyed in their piece and have a sense of lyricism in their playing.
>>64207235
>co-occurrences of instruments, changes of tempo, clusters of phrases...
All things that happen in jazz.
>>64201226
Listen to Eastern Sounds first. Not only is it very good but it gives a good view of his style.
>>64207150
>If you analyze the majority of western music, most of it contains a string of (jazz) mental arithmetic of chords or scales.
We have another 'true but irrelevant'.
As well as another 'I already addressed this'.
(I always forget how quick people are to just repeat fallacies of choice in discussion and claim victory when one tires of pointing out the above two.)
Of course all music relies on theory. A problem is that jazz is too uneducated to rely on anything but theory. And the real problem is that jazz 'musicians' and jazz listeners alike claim that means jazz's superior.
>You don't like it. Get it? No need to convince people of your opinion, because you know what, it's your opinion.
'Stop pointing out that I'm being lazy and doing a sloppy job while bullying people into pretending that it's being the pinnacle of music! ;_; '
>you know [wh]at abstract means, right?
I do.
The rest of your post is just generic 'you don't understand'.
>>64207235
>any three seconds are in no relation to any other three seconds.
This contradicts what you said early. >>64206960
>Are you just arguing that there is no thematic development whatsoever in any jazz?
>Obligatory strawman.
>No. I'm saying that the jazz developments are painfully transparent
Here you said they exist but are "transparent" but there you just said that there's no relation between any particular three seconds of a jazz piece and another.
>>64207300
ANOTHER 'I already addressed it'.
At such rate, I can't guarantee to reply to every comment like this anymore.
Congratulations, you'll soon be able to say the sacramental 'you've stopped replying to posts, this means you've lost the argument'. GG.
>>64207367
Just shut up and let us do our thing please. I don't care how technically bad it is if I enjoy it.
why does nobody on /mu/ have any clue whatsoever about how to argue?
>>64204029
oh sorry, for listening
I have a bit of a background in music theory so I can handle it if it's a little technical
>>64207235
Well now you're just repeating the same buzzwords over and over and still managing to posit nothing substantive.
>rehashing the same paucity of ideas over and over
How is development possible without repetition of ideas? Please post an example of music with "good development" that doesn't "rehash the same ideas"
>>64207235
>Mindless progressions
What makes the progression "mindless"? Please post an example of a better progression and what makes the difference.
>There is so much more to evoke in music, so many possible co-occurrences of instruments, changes of tempo, clusters of phrases...
True, and there's plenty of jazz that utilizes these ideas. Listen to Out to Lunch! But if all music only strove for those exact same ideals then it would still all "reflect an offensively narrow musical horizon and range of interests"
>Unlike in jazz, where, again and again, any three seconds are in no relation to any other three seconds.
This has already been proven untrue by this>>64206852 where the melodic themes carry through for longer than 3 seconds.
Besides, aren't you actually criticizing the amount of repetition in jazz?
>>64207367
You can't lose the argument, because this isn't an argument, it's just you repeatedly refusing to address anything we say, and then pointing to your refusal to address it as evidence that you've already addressed it...
>>64207351
There is no contradiction. The 'jazz developments' as a matter of fact do only occur within the scope of a couple of seconds. 'Three' was of course a figure of speech. Sure a jazz piece might pick up some tempo over its whole length. That's clearly irrelevant. What's important is that unless you're a *literal* autistic savant, you can't locate a sampled slice of a jazz piece. You won't remember if it's been at the beginning or at the end. Which is the true point of 'all jazz sounds the same'. OFC it doesn't literally sound the same, but your claims of its difference are by all practical means irrelevant.
>>64207367
Ok, well humor me.
Are you saying that no jazz musicians consider the program of their music?
That individual melodic phrases played in a jazz solo bear no relation to the rest of the solo or as mentioned above, some sort of overarching idea in the solo?
And that jazz music has never produced a song that features a more compelling performance than any given rock group's?
>>64207392
>let us do our thing please
Sure. You're free to leave /mu/ and take your 'music' (I just realized that 'sonic' probably shares the suffix with 'music', and as a noun would be a good term for sound production that, like jazz, falls short of compositional standards of a typical teen...) with you.
Reminder that this is the same man who said Laughing Stock was bad because "they just play the same thing over and over again"
>>64207437
>unless you're a *literal* autistic savant, you can't locate a sampled slice of a jazz piece
Anon, some people enjoy this music and listen to it often. I know entire jazz pieces by heart and could sing through them in their entirety.
>Sure a jazz piece might pick up some tempo over its whole length. That's clearly irrelevant
Do you actually believe that's the full extent that a jazz solo can develop? Cause again, I'm a little confused when you make comments like this as to whether you've ever actually heard a jazz album before.
Have you ever listened to A Love Supreme?
>>64207336
>And the real problem is that jazz 'musicians' and jazz listeners alike claim that means jazz's superior.
lol. you just said that's the REAL problem, not anything musically inherent to the music, but what people think of it. lmfao. you just showed your true colors.
>im butthurt because of people's opinion that something is superior, because actually MY OPINION IS superior.
you're delusional or a troll.
who do you talk to about jazz?
I've never talked to a jazz aficionado that thinks jazz is superior in any way. especially not because of the theory. They just enjoy it in their own way without thinking of it in hierarchic terms. find some new people to talk to maybe. like, outside of /mu/ maybe?
nah stay here for a while, you're fun.
maybe you can show me some statements from jazz musicians stating their discipline is the superior format of music, objectively.
>The rest of your post is just generic 'you don't understand'.
fine, again, you don't -like- what i write.
I entertain your writings. because i can.
>>64207442
>no
>>64207442
>never
YES YES NO NEVER NOT EVER NOT DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE UNIVERSE NOT EVER NO ONE NOT ONCE NIL NULL NIHIL ABSOLUTE ABSOLUTE ABSOLUTE
Stop posting.
>>64207519
I've never heard of that band.
give me something like Bohren but a little faster and maybe also with vocals please
>>64207437
>The 'jazz developments' as a matter of fact do only occur within the scope of a couple of seconds.
Then take a look at this solo
http://www-cs.canisius.edu/~bucheger/transcriptions/rollinsstthomas.pdf
Here there is a very obvious theme established of a lone descending interval of a 5th. If you listen or read through the solo you will find that melodic theme coming back repeatedly and then the last two notes of the solo are the exact same two notes that began the solo. The solo takes place over almost two minutes. Even you can't exaggerate that as "a couple seconds"
>>64207566
An exception.
That, let me guess, happens to be a rule?
>>64201147
Try Parker With Strings
>>64207585
At this point I'm not even sure what you're arguing because you keep backtracking and contradicting yourself so much. Please just state your main argument in a sentence or two thesis.
>>64207585
>An exception
Nice fallacy
>>64207402
>Please post
>>64207442
>more compelling performance
Why not. Here's an old thread of mine:
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/mu/thread/S62332092
Of course, since your appreciation of jazz is either political/ideological or empathetic/dogmatic (fashion), you'll insist that your mechanical tinkling takes talent.
>>64207402
>Out to Lunch!
>>64207545
>A Love Supreme?
Yes, I imagine. After the first fit of disbelieving laughter (I don't remember at which one of the two) I suppose I began to wonder what social mechanisms exactly can lead people into liking this.
>>64207560
Ok so, could you take some jazz song, and explain why you think the ideas presented in that song don't make for a compelling performance?
Say:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fth9UUa1Mfw&ab_channel=Jazzman2696
>>64207695
>the first fit of disbelieving laughter
...It *is* pretty important not to let people cloud your judgement. I do realize, of course, how close I am to becoming you. I realize how easy it is to willfully close my eyes to the broader picture of what takes skill and what doesn't when I listen to a jazz piece, just let go, disable the inner critic and convince myself with the mantra of 'ah yes, that purported complexity and changes, I see them, I see them, they're significant, they're significant'. But I prefer to see the reality and to see through the jazz gyp.
>>64207336
>Of course all music relies on theory.
music relying on theory is a 'fallacy'.
On top of that, your 'point' doesn't mean you're successfully evading my confrontation.
Your argument for jazz being too simple is that it relies on theory.
You may think this, as an opinion, but you can't state is as a fact, because it's music.
Yes, it employs complex theoretical concepts, but this doesn't mean it lessons in emotional value. They're not mutually exclusive.
Kind Of Blue is (deceptively) simple in theory. So a lot of jazz is theoretically very simple, too. It even revels in this simplicity for all the space that is left for individual and collective expression.
It all boils down to you not getting to terms with that it's your opinion. You don't seem to grasp that what you like is not what makes the world go round and the center of the universe. You're like Hitler.
>>64207695
You've forgotten the most important part of my post though which is where you tell me what makes and of those pieces "better" than the one we were referencing.
Stop feeding this guy, he's clearly looking for reactions more than anything.
Just respond to each other.
>>64207824
It's so entertaining though. I can't stop. It's great watching him spout so much nonsense while actually saying nothing.
>>64207631
>>64207631
THIS
All you're doing is repeating the same buzzwords and making vague generalizations.
Please post your main argument in one succinct statement.
>>64207851
it's like taking away a down syndrome's kid's candy and swinging it in front of his face
>>64207695
Why did you link that thread? You're not talking about jazz in it.
So right, When you hear>>64207723
You can't hear any of the repeated and developed melodies that are introduced and referenced throughout the piece? Right? Cause there are themes that John is playing around with the whole way though his solos as mantras, written as a homage to God. So when he's playing and improvising, the whole time he's thinking about and expressing the emotion he felt at his spiritual awakening that got him off heroin. He details the struggle that getting clean was and the awe he felt when he gave himself over to believing in God.
Now I know it's a little over the top, but this guy has gone through an addiction that nearly killed him, found religion and gotten clean of it and he's laying his feelings down in music just at the other end of it and you can't understand how any human in their right mind could find this interesting?
>>64207788
Hush, anon. You're jazzing to the choir.
Oh, wait, sorry. You have chosen to lie about my point so shamelessly, I'll point it out specifically after all. 'Your argument for jazz being too simple is that it relies on theory.' Cf. >>64207336 for how you lied that my argument isn't about ethicality of jazz and its lack of education.
Other jazzfags' claims of 'buzzwords' 'generalizations' 'nonsense' aside (they don't matter as much), and insults such as >>64207931 -- you really shouldn't sacrifice your integrity for lies so shameless, anon, just to seem to win an argument. Even if you're anonymous, lying is really bad for your character.
>>64207723
>why you think the ideas presented in that song don't make for a compelling performance
>>64207794
>what makes and of those pieces "better" than the one we were referencing
As I described in a former thread, algorithmic complexity. An algorithm generating/composing a jazz 'masterpiece' would be much shorter than one generating a generic prog suite. I would say 1 to 20 at least. The former would be just smashing a couple of numbers according to a couple of preset patterns. No sense of what moves a person at all, no understanding of psychology needed (so much about the 'jazz is about the soul' bullshit), whole musical variables omitted.
>>64207824
>Just respond to each other.
Spoken like a true jazz listener!
>>64208005
>No sense of what moves a person at all
Are you now asserting that every person who has ever claimed to have been moved by A Love Supreme (or any jazz piece for that matter) was "just pretending"? I think this is more a problem with you connecting emotionally with jazz music. Not a problem with the music itself.
>>64208066
No, not pretending. Just having a low discriminatory ceiling. So to say, clipping occurred; a shit piece moves them as much as one that took real work. (Well, maybe more.)
>>64208005
>As I described in a former thread, algorithmic complexity.
So algorithmic complexity is the sole factor in determining musical quality? Wouldn't pretty much all music pale in comparison with the music of composers like Ferneyhough?
>An algorithm generating/composing a jazz 'masterpiece' would be much shorter than one generating a generic prog suite. I would say 1 to 20 at least. The former would be just smashing a couple of numbers according to a couple of preset patterns.
This isn't true at all. If you wish to use it as evidence then please feel free to prove with with a detailed mathematical analysis of both a jazz masterpiece and a prog suite.
>>64208005
>algorithmic complexity
so first you claim jazz is too theoretical, or at least relies too much on theory, and now you say algorithmic complexity makes something better..? How does that work?
The complexity allowing for emotions to come through?
So now because the music is so complex if you analyze it, it is better?
Ever heard of the saying 'less is more'?
Just the mental representation of the number 1 in my mind can move me, really.
>no understanding of psychology needed
To express yourself, you don't need an understanding of psychology. Expression is mostly done by tapping into some kind of subconscious, without rationally thinking about it.
Also, you seem to generalize different kinds of jazz. Some are very complex, some are very simple. Some are very mathematical, some are very emotional. Its range is across the board.
>>64208162
>So algorithmic complexity is the sole factor in determining musical quality?
>>64208295
>now you say algorithmic complexity makes something better..?
>>64208295
>To express yourself, you don't need an understanding of psychology.
Of course you would misunderstand it so...
Yes, but not in the way you think. In the understandably simplistic manner of a jazz fan, you associate the word 'complexity' with integers and relate those in turn to tones and intervals and maybe a handful more. In reality, generatable are (obviously) *ALL* discernible qualities of a piece, all falling under the (admittedly unfashionable) term of 'complexity'. How much a piece 'unsettles' you? How much it 'startles' you? How many parallels you find between the manner in which it unsettled or startled you at the beginning of the piece and at the end? How much one part echoes another? How the player inserts a note or a phrase or another unit not necessarily tonal at all, in a place that is in no direct numerical relation to neigbouring units?
>a detailed mathematical analysis of both a jazz masterpiece and a prog suite
Since it would only be the jazz piece in which the structure is transparent and obvious, I, only being a hobbyist programmer, would only be capable to analyze the former.
>>64208295
>generalize
Jesus Christ.
>>64208391
tl;dr 'emotion', 'soul', 'moving', etc. etc. etc. are all computer-generable as well. Possible to define in a ruleset. And the length of the jazz ruleset is far shorter and simpler than the rock ruleset.
where do I go if I want jazz recs?
this doesn't seem to be the best place for that
>>64207560
>of that band
You've never heard of Talk Talk on this board
That's actually somewhat sad
>>64208469
'Talk Talk' rings a bell if only by name.
But I've only heard some 4 or 5 minutes of '/mu/-core' in my life in total.
>>64208391
I literally laughed out loud at this post
Listening to some Nina Simone earlier. Her piano solo on Love Me or Leave Me surprised me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQpipS_qfc
Didn't know she was classically trained. Also Bud Powell is deservedly amazing.
>>64208446
Here's a decent chart
>>64208446
And try rym too. The jazz best of is just fine.
>>64208097
more work doesnt equal better work.
quality isnt the same as quantity. wow.
YOU MUST APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE SOMEONE WORKED HARD FOR IT
Some people create pure sincere beauty without even thinking about it, others work a whole life to create something and fail miserably.
Doesn't take away anything from both kinds people, though, imo.
>Of course you would misunderstand it so...
i thought of that, you just didn't explain it properly, imo.
my god.
Those things you are talking about, are not really considered theory yet, because some of those qualities are, at the moment, impossible to quantify, or at least, it hasnt been done yet. So in practice, it is not theory, because no computer or human can understand it. That is why it is defined under the term 'emotion' and others.
Whatever.
Jazz clearly does these 'very complex things' to people, but not to you. and that's all there's to it.
If it moves someone, who are you to say it isn't there?
I see all those 'complex' qualities you talk about in jazz, you don't.
Now it's me against you.
Difference is, I won't argue why my opinion is 'superior'. you seem to be stuck on where you don't understand why it moves other people in complex ways. So it must be because there's something wrong with all those people.
Please for the sake of yourself try to see beyond your own point of view, and try to understand things from different people's perspectives. At least be at peace with the fact people think different from you. There's no hierarchy, especially not in art and music.
You seem to think that your interpretation of jazz is the definite one, and you want other people to also not enjoy jazz because it is too simple.
I love simplicity, man.
>>64208443
the same music triggers different emotions
DO YOU UNDERSTAND???!!!
we're in no way even close to analyzing everything that happens in our heads when music plays and won't be for a long time.
>>64208710
>>64208757
>more work doesnt equal better work.
True.
Now if you only could tell that to jazz 'musicians' who fill 'masterpieces' after 'masterpieces' with totally-not-cookie-cutter-by-virtue-of-some-crappy-memorized-formulaic-transposition-or-whatever 'music'.
I don't see the relevance of much of what you wrote.
Yes, jazz is going to be reacted to differently. But at the side of the submitter, the jazz 'musician', the recipe for its production was simplistic. Which is why jazz is a cheap scam, a stream of criticism-terminating noise, and incidentally why much of the structure you're seeing in it is apophenic.
You also stress that you value what you hear in it. Fine. But what is not fine is, contrary to some jazz apologist's claims above, jazz elitism, the incessant implications of quality. Not because it's wrong in itself, but because it robs the talented composers and players from credit, pushing them into the second place.
>>64208913
(In fact, I now thought, as I listened to some other 'stunning' jazz performance, that if I had a child, I would be sad to learn they're listening to jazz as opposed to rock just as I would be sad to see them grind stupidly in some Facebook game rather than try Fallout or Planescape: Torment or something.)
>>64208913
>the recipe for its production was simplistic
So you claim to have been in the head of the likes of miles davis and sun ra at the moment of creation? I envy you.
>the structure you're seeing in it is apophenic.
Most is. All is and nothing is. An artist just reiterates the apopheny.
If a work of art makes me get things out of random noise, I'm actually glad. I don't care if the credit goes to the composer or the universe. I care about what it does to me. No matter how apophenic everything is (seems), it is not going to stop me from enjoying it. I don't need some authority telling me what to feel, do and like. I'll make my own truth.
If I were you I'd pay attention to other things than what I don't like, but do whatever suits you. you might be more productive focusing on the music you do like... positivity and the likes...
Or hay, please put your energy in how consumerism makes people numb... or something like that. But not jazz, man. Not jazz.
>>64208913
Once again your whole argument relies on over-generalizations and claims that are impossible to back up.
>>64209195
>So you claim to have been in the head of the likes of miles davis and sun ra at the moment of creation?
No. I'm just reading what you yourself have been saying. You (jazz fans) are describing, in articles, their individual music-theoretical gimmicks which define their individual playing technique. And that's the whole of jazz discourse. Jazz performers are too musically limited to think further and broader than the small-spirited modifications of playing, the daily bread of a musician. They can't think in terms of tension or satisfaction or resolution (insofar as they do, it is owing to assimilation to creative genres). They are stuck.
>>64209237
>over-generalizations
Anon...
>>64209363
In other words, jazz 'musicians' have the nerve to extol as the essence of music and solely make use of what musicians silently, quietly understand are just the basic building blocks of music, unworthy of mention.
>>64209363
Yes, your generalizations are meaningless. We have posted many examples of jazz that refute your claims and you have either ignored them or brushed them aside as exceptions.
Nobody's going to take you seriously when you make these inaccurate overarching statements about "jazz" as a whole. It's like insulting all of rock music based on the music of The Ramones.
If you want anybody to take you seriously then you should try listening to some music and then posting some criticisms of that specific music. Otherwise these arguments go nowhere.
I recommend these threads>>64192997
The whole point of them is to all critique the same pieces of music and discuss where we agree or disagree.
>>64209514
>jazz that refute[s] your claims
Hardly.
My claims are about the mental trap you're refusing to escape, of refusing an objective measurement for significance of creativity that goes into diversifying a jazz piece and diversifying a rock piece. The elementary analogy of smaller and larger infinity. (integers) is larger than (even integers), but both are infinite. A jazz piece is always 'different', but it's always always creatively safer from a rock piece.
>>64209580
>but it's always always creatively safer from a rock piece.
What objective qualities make it such?
You listed a bunch of things you think jazz lacks and people pointed out that there are examples in the jazz cannon where those things are present but you ignored them.
>>64209580
Take a look at your post. It's all generalizations.
>>64209580
In other words, one once subjugated to the dogma of jazz superiority will never escape it, because he'll always have some 'enormous', 'profound', 'mind-boggling' changes in his pet piece to point to as he writes a jazz apology. Ultimately, this process is related to delusions -- if a person gets convinced that there's a causation behind a causation, there's no way to convince them otherwise. If a jazz fan gets convinced that jazz 'musicians'' mechanical executions take creativity, no comparison will convince them otherwise either. It is purely a matter of clinging to one's emotional preconceptions.
>>64209643
Oh look, jazz apology #144,519.
>>64209667
>generalizations
P-please...
>>64209734
>a causation behind a causation
*a causation behind a correlation
>>64209734
(I will be proven completely right in a couple of years, of course, when jazz will become the first genre to be generated by bots, as I said. Even today, >jazz generator returns, unsurprisingly, a lot of results.)
>>64209734
>no comparison can convince them otherwise
But how would you know when you haven't presented any convincing comparisons or arguments
>>64209820
'B-but how am I going to get convinced if you didn't manage to convince me? C-checkmate!'
>>64209840
If you present a compelling argument people will listen but as of yet you haven't posted anything that backs up your point.
>>64209881
>If you present a compelling argument people will listen
'No valid argument would fail to convince me, I'm not convinced, therefore your argument was not valid.'
Yes. We've seen this in your last post.
>>64209913
Actually I'm saying that you haven't even posted any argument whatsoever.. If I'm wrong please quote the post in which you back up anything that you've claimed.
>>64209945
>you haven't even posted any argument whatsoever
That's as good a lie to end a thread with as any.
I can't be bothered to quote my posts, so just pretend that I did and reply with '
Those posts you quoted don't say anything.
', so to have a proper last word. There, I wrote that in a separate line, so just triple-click to select it before you copy-paste it.
Well wasn't this a shitshow.
>>64210026
>dat strawman
damn...
>>64210175
'I'm going to call the thing he guessed I would have said a strawman.'
Stop with the autistic arguing and post good/unique modern jazz.
>>64210199
That's the definition of a strawman
>>64209363
>>64209363
I'm not thinking about technique when i hear jazz 90% of the time. I just feel it.
Jazz is just very interesting to dissect theoretically, so there are a lot of papers and books on it, obviously. That's not the whole of the jazz discourse. There are equally many books about the emotional impact of jazz.
Do you even feel the rhythm? Rock rhythm is often neanderthal compared to jazz rhythm! I like jazz and rock equally, but it's pretty clean cut.
Again with the incredibly broad generalizations.
Ironically, you seem stuck.
I was trying to illustrate that you seem to claim Miles Davis was a musically simplistic and emotionally vapid man who couldn't articulate his feelings musically.
If you agree with the above, the Miles Davis thing, I'm done talking to you.
You know Charlie Parker played for 9 hours a day?
Rock and jazz basically came from blues.
They have a lot in common, actually.
Give me a bunch of objective measurements for significance of creativity in rock please?
What exactly makes it so much better than jazz?
Even typing this makes me feel ridiculous. You can't call a whole musical genre something. Almost every musical genre has emotional and complexion ranges across the board.
>>64210211
sorry i should start contribooting
classic free jazz album, with fantasticl fresh sounding textures.
>>64210284
Arguing with that person is pointless. Scroll up and down the thread and you will see that his posts are filled with nothing but baseless generalizations that can't be proven or disproven. There's no way you can get through to a person like this if he is serious. I suspect that he's not serious though and just an oddly dedicated troll who has a talent for talking in circles.
>>64210284
>Do you even feel the rhythm?
I'm not sure. I would like to say that I dislike simple rhythms, but I'm not sure I could quickly find examples of what I mean among the names as I manage to quickly remember such as Gentle Giant or Miriodor.
>You know Charlie Parker played for 9 hours a day?
Sounds a pretty stupid thing to do. Quite compatible with the level of performance I've come to expect from jazz.
>Almost every musical genre has emotional and complexion ranges across the board.
Absolutely.
>[...] you seem to claim Miles Davis was a musically simplistic and emotionally vapid man who couldn't articulate his feelings musically. [Do] you agree with the above
Not really. As above, his emotional and musical capacity seem to be on par -- wouldn't seem too hard to represent his feelings...
>>64210416
Why would you like to say you dislike simple rhythms? They can be the greatest, depending on their execution :).
Love me some Bonham 'simple' grooves, Like on When The Levee Breaks.
Or Ginger Baker drumming for the Cream. Ginger Baker actually came from jazz, as did John Bonham.
I really like Gentle Giant.
Sadly, for us to actually feel the same about some things, it'll be too off topic for this thread.
>>64207400
If you're still here after this shitshow of a /jazz/ thread anon, I've just finished reading Humphrey Lyttelton's - The Best of Jazz which covers the 1910's to the mid 1950's by talking about a bunch of different jazz musicians. It was a fairly fun book to read though it's certainly a shame how it missed out on basically all of bebop and everything that came after it.
Other than that Richard Williams' - The Blue Moment is a pretty great, if a really pretencious analysis of Kind of Blue from its history, to the influence it had and the album itself obviously.
>>64210580
>Sadly, for us to actually feel the same about some things, it'll be too off topic for this thread.
Well, let's agree to say that Bill Bruford was retarded to leave prog rock to launch his jazz career.
>>64210608
kek
One Of A Kind is good imo.
Jeff Berlin is a great bass player, haha.
I really like this damn low note that he hits sometimes, I don't play the sax so I wouldn't know the actual key.
Is there any good bebop/post-bop after John Coltrane died? It seems like a whole movement of music died with him.
>>64212712
Bebop was pretty much dead 5 years before Coltrane's death but post-bop was really just getting started when Trane died. Look at the work of Andrew Hill, Woody Shaw, Dave Holland, Jackie McLean, and Clifford Jordan. They were all making great post-bop into the 80's and 90's and a lot of the younger sidemen who worked with them are still making interesting post-bop and related music today.
