>>65116033
delete this thread

modal is a style of jazz composition
avant-garde is a term for all non-traditional jazz music

there is no possible discussion that can result from your question and it will only lead to jazz plebs posturing

modal by sooooo fucking much. i loved the switch from bebop to the static chord changes and focus on melody.

avant-garde was an interesting movement, but i think it got stale quickly.

although this comparison is kind of weird seeing as they didn't really happen at the same time, modal was around a bit earlier than avant-garde. maybe avant-garde vs fusion would be better

>>65116070
i assumed he meant free jazz and just said avant-garde

also no, modal refers to a genre of jazz, but it's also a compositional style

>implying they're mutually exclusive

Just kill yourself you false jazz bitch

>>65116102
there is no 'genre' of jazz called modal, that's how you can have albums like Kind of Blue or My Favorite Things which feature both modal and traditional compositions yet still sound cohesive. You can have modal portions of a song that features a traditional melody. Whatever it ain't even worth it

>>65116162
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jazz_genres

it's right there. there is a genre called modal jazz, jazz that is composed using a modal framework is modal jazz.

i can't tell if you're being pedantic or if you genuinely don't get it.

but i guess the easiest way to dodge actually responding is to just dismiss it as not "even worth it"

>>65116033

modal, free jazz was the cancer that killed the genre

>>65116377
I didn't dismiss anything, I'm saying that you're mistaken and explained why. I said this isn't worth it because you don't have a realistic understanding of what genre is, considering you just ignored my two arguments for how modal jazz could not be a genre, and instead posted a very stupid wikipedia list with all sorts of glaring problems

>>65116407
free jazz has far and away been the most productive and valuable export of jazz for the past 40 years, to the point where modern jazz IS free jazz. So I don't think you can say that free jazz killed it.

>>65116033
prefer avant-garde jazz

i've never been a big fan of jazz so it has to be pretty unique or the featured players have to be really great otherwise i usually can't stand it

>>65116542
you're an idiot i just explained why you're wrong and you're ignoring my points. you said that there isn't a "genre" of jazz, when there really is.

genre: "a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter."

modal jazz is more than just a way to compose. the compositions share a lot of similarities, enough to lump them into a genre (this is just from the wiki, again):

* slow-moving harmonic rhythm, where single chords may last four to sixteen or more measures
* pedal points and drones
* absent or suppressed standard functional chord progressions
* quartal harmonies or melodies
* polytonality

what other genres of jazz even encompass those specific qualities? i don't remember hearing quartal/ambiguous chords in bebop, which is very chord based. i can't think of a genre to lump these compositions into other than modal jazz. post-bop? maybe but it's still too ambiguous

>>65116033
Modal

The better comparison would be jazz fusion and free jazz. Both had some amazing stuff initially coming out from it, but ultimately became the cancer that really killed off jazz.