Can someone explain the appeal of jazz to me? I've tried listening to this a few times and I'm really not getting it, do people actually enjoy it or is it some kind of faux elitist genre people pretend to like?
that isnt even a good jazz album
>>64405575
You're listening to the wrong kind
1940's jazz, 60's smooth jazz, and modern jazz fusion is what you should be listening to
The latter. It's just noodling. Culture has simply been particularly protective of jazz pretension because >black artists matter.
>>64405575
I'm not a big fan of that album but I like jazz. Try something like this instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2MfbhWYGM8
christ fuck off, just because you don't like something doesn't mean other's can't or are lying about their enjoyment of it.
>>64405624
>guy getting into jazz
>hey try Out To Lunch!
nigga wtf are u doin'
>>64405613
>1940's jazz
>modern jazz fusion
haha well memed friend
>>64405575
jazz doesnt begin and end with a 3 hour kamasi washington album
here a good modern band. chris lightcap's bigmouth. great melding of jazz, west african rhythms and mdoern classical (philip glass and the like)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS-DtFH3OKU
>>64405575
also, listen to thelonious monk. this song single-handedly started me on a jazz kick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuHjgKQDofs
That's not jazz
>>64405946
Gave it a short listen.
I get it. A soloist and a couple of people moved to the background. But life's too short to listen to the same formula over and over. It's easy to listen to one jazz record after another, but it doesn't expand my horizons. That pieces shares the problem of all jazz: it's easy to consume, but there isn't much to learn from it musically.
>>64406267
>That pieces shares the problem of all jazz: it's easy to consume, but there isn't much to learn from it musically.
>I get it
no you don't get it. if you're the OP and you're not just taking the piss then listen to black saint and the sinner lady by charles mingus, a love supreme by john coltrane, the shape of jazz to come by ornette coleman or kind of blue by miles davis, all classics and some of the best music ever recorded. although miles may not appeal to you immediately and if you're coming from a rock background mingus would probably be a better place to start. seriously this is the best shit.
>>64406393
Listened to all of those IIRC.
>>64406267
To elaborate what I mean: every time I listen to a jazz record, including those in >>64406393. I have a feeling of bloat. I feel that I heard a lot of nothing. I feel the superficiality. I understand -- the veneer of soloing can occupy you for a couple of minutes, that's where appreciation of jazz comes from, but when the piece ends, you compare it to the composed pieces you've heard, and you realize that it was just a pitfall of your brain; that the incessant playing was designed to keep you from noticing the broader lack of ideas, like a sleight of hand. Jazz is for impatient, lazy listeners who can't delay gratification.
>>64405575
The Epic is a garbage, cheesy album that wallows in the most obnoxious cliches of Jazz from the past 50 years.
Listen to Bix Beiderbecke, Charlie Parker, and Thelonious Monk.
>>64406520
List your favorite artists/composers.
>>64405613
>smooth jazz
Literally end your life
>>64406520
>broader lack of ideas
What I'm getting from this is that you need vocals to appreciate a song? Or are you just unintentionally being vague on your reasoning? I would say jazz listeners are the most patient, probably more willing to decipher the complexity of what is being played.
>>64405624
oh fuck I forgot how good this album is
>>64406267
>life's too short to listen to the same formula over and over.
>But it is long enough to complain about music that other people like on some random music board
Honestly I love Jazz because I'm a huge horn whore. I'm a sucker for good smooth jazz.
>>64406520
Yeah, you don't get the soloing part
>>64406267
>jazz
>repetitive
What the hell are you prattling on about?
>>64406649
>you need vocals to appreciate a song
I by and large dislike vocals in music.
>>64406760
>complexity
>>64406760
>non-repetitive
Jazz isn't complex or non-repetitive. It's unique. The formula for jazz uniqueness is very simple. Age-old mistake/fallacy.
>>64406630
I like Yes, The Mars Volta, Estradasphere, Zappa.
It's hilarious that you asked me this question.
>>64406800
>likes Zappa
>hates Jazz
it's hilarious that you think you have good taste
>>64406778
Quit acting like you enjoy nothing but classical music, you pretentious waste of space.
>>64406823
And this is why your question was hilarious.
The very idea of asking 'post your fav artists then' in a jazz thread as if 'shit taste' weren't the guaranteed reply puts a smile on my face.
>>64406800
You couldn't have made a worse answer if you tried, jesus. Are these the musicians you think of first to look smart? Dear god.
>>64406778
literally just listen to that Eric Dolphy song and tell me that its repetitive
>>64406838
If you read >>64406520 carefully, you'd see that I do enjoy jazz, the way I enjoy pop. It's hard not to enjoy jazz. It's good bubblegum listening -- 'there's so much going on all the time!'.
>>64406851
You do realize Hot Rats is the most mediocre Jazz record of all time right
>>64406875
>listen to that Eric Dolphy song and tell me that its repetitive
*sigh*
It is EXTREMELY repetitive.
I really don't know how people can't grasp this simple concept. Maybe it's my minor experience with programming that makes the difference...
You seem to think that 'repetitive' means 'the exact same notes are repeating', e.g. played by a bassist. Wrong. Repetition refers to the creative formula behind the piece, the design. There is no design in jazz -- the extent of design in it is the broad solo/background idea and 'let's be random'. This is an extremely impoverished, unintelligent approach to music even if the result is completely chaotic (= 'diverse' in your wrong understanding of the term).
...Of course, every time this is explained, the pareidolic defence kicks in -- 'there is a lot of design, what you refer to as chaos was carefully planned from the beginning!'.
hey uh this is bait
>>64407018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g363_p7p77M
does this suit your tastes?
It's time to stop responding to this person.
Reminder that if you see "Generalizations Guy" (GG for short) to either just ignore him or respond with
>generalizations
to remind him that nobody here is going to take him seriously when all his arguments are based on generalizations.
Really, just watch how aggravated he will get when you stop responding.
>>64407018
and thats just not true. there is design in jazz. there are modulations, structures. theyre there, if you seek em out. trying playing bass on a jazz song, the base is there to keep a fundamental structure overlaying the 'randomness' that you so detest. have a little fun man! art doesnt have to be quite so scripted.
>>64407123
its my last post
>>64407087
The main beat is obnoxious, but yes, the phrases seem prettier; the solo becomes more palatable when the background is more coherent owing to limited improvisation. Unsurprisingly, I see it's classified fusion on RYM.
>>64407178
>there is design in jazz. there are modulations, structures.
I already described your pareidolia. There are *relationships* in jazz, but they're not *causal*, do not arise in that mythical 'response' to what the other players are doing.
>>64407123
>generalizations
Do use this word. That's one of the surest ways for no one worth talking to to take you seriously.
>>64407123
Tbhfam despite how much I love jazz, I think there's a lot of truth to what GG is saying.
I don't agree with what seems to be his philosophy on art--that anything below pure innovation is hedonistic--but I agree that most jazz tends to follow formulas that have been used consistently over half a century, whereas classical has been much more varied.
Of course, jazz hasn't had as much time as classical to grow. Then again, the fleeting nature of jazz seems to make innovation difficult. Of course, blended with classical, there seems to be much innovation.
So far I've only lurked, but my two cents to OP (if you're reading this) is that jazz, as a culture, seems to provide a relatively-constructive creative outlet for people who might otherwise succumb to unhealthy habits. What jazz taught me is to second-guess myself less and accept change more easily. It's a constant force in my life, and it seems, in thousands of others' lives.
Of course, there are the few who fall into drug-addled lives while being part of the jazz world, but it seems rare nowadays.
>>64407320
honestly dude the more I hear your appraisals I think you would love this chris lightcap album. very controlled jazz music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur8EcF6aDa8&index=8&list=PLkTW7SzF0lDf6TBR3n9YBRoBHZZ191QmM
>>64405622
>mfw redpilled /pol/acks actually believe this
one thing that a lot of great jazz has that you havent accounted for in yr criticisms is groove. makes you want to move.
We've got the jazz, we've got the jazz.
one thing a lot of classicist/prog rock autists never really learn is how to feel groove.
so concerned with structure and coherence that the competing motions mean nothing to them, when really motion is the fucking key. hard to explain
>>64407320
>that mythical 'response' to what the other players are doing.
So your claim is that NO jazz player has ever responded in any way to what any of the other players around him are doing?
In other words if I could show you clear proof of jazz players responding to other jazz players you would admit that you are wrong?
If that's not your claim, then what is your claim?
man prog rock is shit lol
>>64407700
Hush.
>>64407516
>>64407544
Video unavailable.
Either way, I can agree to see jazz as a improvisional spectrum. As I said in another thread -- I see (let's use the word 'rock' here) jazz-rock as structure tinged with change, and rock-jazz as change tinged with structure. I just think that the latter products, which take some personal premeditation from the musician, result in a, so to say, a better fit for the listener's brain. Can dazzle more. Can evoke more images. Can inter-relate in more ways. Can push more buttons.
>>64407601
>>64407657
>>64407690
One of my favourite performances ever is this. I would move to it a lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67PtPGeerzk
A fusion (fusion!) band. A Zappa composition.
>>64407730
>I just think that the latter products
*the FORMER products of course
>>64407716
right. big generalization here: theres rhythm to prog, sometimes very complex rhythm. but often it feels flat, doesn't have a compelling pull that actually gets me emotionally invested.
>>64407730
>Hush.
No. How can you have a decent discussion if you never actually state what you're arguing. Typical prog rock fan. Always trying to back track when someone proves them wrong.
JAZZ IS DEAD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RAMF9X3JFc
>>64407730
to me that niacin song wasn't too special. dynamically a bit flat. but i see what yr saying. it had groove, but it was also very much a jazz tune. yr overal argument is cohering a bit more now than yr first post - which seemed to indict all jazz as formless goop not worth two cents.
at least we can ALL AGREE on casiopea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKgjOCuW_MU
Trumpet/jazz /mu/ bro and I enjoy 1940s jazz probably because I play it
But I like stuff like Herbie Hancock and Weather Report more. You just have to experiment with it OP
>>64407730
Sure, I see your point about how calculation seems to evoke more out of the listener, more often than improvisation. Although, I think the cultural context and timbres of the instruments account for a huge margin of how well the listener responds to what the composer expects. For example, Xenakis' Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima seems to have a huge impact on listeners simply because of the cultural context. The timbres of the instruments also seem to convey what Xenakis intended.
On the other hand, Yes, TMV and Zappa seem to be as limited as many jazz musicians, when it comes to accurately conveying their ideas to the listener, even overall, throughout their careers. It seems their knowledge and application of theory is near the same level, or even less than many jazz composers. Also, many jazz composers do calculate a lot of what they write in the heads of their tunes.
Chris Potter seems to fulfill a lot of your ideals in his most recent album, Imaginary Cities. I would also say that Charles Mingus and Wayne Shorter are just as deserving of being called composers, but I'm worried that you'll call them hacks for simply being popular, which is why I mentioned Chris Potter first.
Honestly, I think more people would agree with you if you referred to classical composers rather than progressive rock artists. I'm not trying to be mean, I love TMV and have enjoyed a fair amount of Yes and Zappa, but idk man. A lot of jazz players seem to respect classical anyhow. Unsurprisingly, a lot of classical players seem to have the same disdain for jazz as you.
>>64407730
(cont.)
Although, the disdain often seems to be caused by feelings of one's masculinity being threatened, rather than questions of artistic integrity. I've sat in a classroom with both jazz and classical players who have remarked on each other's performances, and this is what I noticed. To me, people are mostly the same wherever you go. There are some who are consistently humble and willing to learn, while most others seem concerned with maintaining their egos. I like to think that humility takes work, though.
>>64407730
>I just think that the latter products, which take some personal premeditation from the musician, result in a, so to say, a better fit for the listener's brain. Can dazzle more. Can evoke more images. Can inter-relate in more ways. Can push more buttons.
>my opinion is that one kind of music has more vague possibilities than another kind
Really? this is your whole argument?
I bet GG isn't even a competent musician.
>>64409141
>bet
What are you talking about? It couldn't be more obvious that he knows nothing about music.
Can we ignore the turbopleb and just post jazz?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xoz9kb0A00
