A thread to politely discuss the merits of jazz

[Dan Gilbert]

Please don't hate me for starting this thread. There are so many other reasons to hate me. The reason I am starting this thread is because I made the claim that "Jazz musicians pretend that Jazz is much more complicated than it actually is." This pissed of Robin, and he told me to make a thread so that he could educate me.

I am ready to learn.

A background note:

I was in a jazz band for a couple of years and we played gigs around town. I would not claim to be a good jazz pianist, but I at least have some experience playing jazz. Obviously, this is not nearly as much experience as Robin, but since one can have an opinion about music they have never played, I think I am perfectly qualified to have an opinion about music that I have played :)

I'm going to guess that he is going to start listing off concepts in Jazz that I haven't heard of. But let's keep in mind that this is doesn't prove anything - my experience with jazz is not necessarily relevant to my claim. Also, i believe that there are concepts that exist in Jazz which are very complex. But my claim is that Jazz musicians would have us believe that there are ideas of extreme complexity which they are processing at any moment when playing a tune, but I would argue that most of Jazz is just deducing the mode, picking a scale, and mimicking motifs from either the tune or from others' solos.

And that is where, I am about to be told, I am completely and utterly ignorant.

I'm ready.

[Dan Gilbert]

A couple quick, possibly irrelevant points comparing classical music to Jazz:

• A much greater percentage of great jazz artists have been notoriously doped up, in which condition your intellectual capabilities to process complex thought are severely hindered.
  
• The progression of Classical music has been in the hands of the smartest elites in society. Jazz is derived from the various musical stylings of poor, uneducated people.
  
• How can something which is improvised by nature be as complex as something which is highly premeditated and worked on for a very long period of time?
  

[Old Composer]

Because suckiness IS a word.

P.S. You have provided absolutely nothing to back up any of your ridiculous claims. So, uh, I didn't read it all.

Sorry, but if you want to attempt to disparage an entire genre and culture, you have to provide a source of some sort.

Also, Jesus hates you.

[Voce]

I'm going to guess that he is going to start listing off concepts in Jazz that I haven't heard of. But let's keep in mind that this is doesn't prove anything

Actually, it does. It proves that you don't know enough about jazz to argue that it isn't complex, and so you don't know about the complexity involved in the genre.

my claim is that Jazz musicians would have us believe that there are ideas of extreme complexity which they are processing at any moment when playing a tune,

Are you saying that every classical tune is incredibly complex?

but I would argue that most of Jazz is just deducing the mode, picking a scale, and mimicking motifs from either the tune or from others' solos.

I would argue that a great deal of classical music is also based off of scales and motifs.

[Voce]

[*]A much greater percentage of great jazz artists have been notoriously doped up, in which condition your intellectual capabilities to process complex thought are severely hindered.

They were doped up every minute of their lives? I didn't know that.

[*]The progression of Classical music has been in the hands of the smartest elites in society. Jazz is derived from the various musical stylings of poor, uneducated people.

The amount of money you have and your class has absolutely nothing to do with your musical ability.

[*]How can something which is improvised by nature be as complex as something which is highly premeditated and worked on for a very long period of time?

Classical music, and music in general, originated out of improvisation. Remember that fugue, thought to be one of the more complex forms, was also an improvisatory practice. Add to that that many pieces of classical music are just improvisations written down, and your point makes little sense.

[nikolas]

since when complicated things are "better"?

Since when opinions are actual facts (this refers to the word "better" in my post).

I realise, Dan, your will to educate yourself and I'm not the one to educate you, since I know nothing of jazz. But I don't see any reason to be 'upset' about a while genre, or a whole world. It's like hating every single American, and we know that this is bullshit, don't we? :D

[Dan Gilbert]

Nik: I'm not upset at all. It's just a friendly debate, and I realize my opinion is kind of extreme. I don't hate jazz or think it's stupid, I just hate listening to jazz myself and I think that like many things, people pretend it's more complicated than it is. And this argument is solely about complexity, because that is how this thread was spawned.

[Dan Gilbert]

Actually, it does. It proves that you don't know enough about jazz to argue that it isn't complex, and so you don't know about the complexity involved in the genre.

Are you saying that every classical tune is incredibly complex?

I would argue that a great deal of classical music is also based off of scales and motifs.

1. But my position doesn't hinge on the fact that I know everything there is to know about jazz and that there isn't that much to know. Robin has to demonstrate that musicians consistently apply complex knowledge and theory to their performances, not that said knowledge and theory exists.

2. No, but that doesn't have to be true to validate what I am saying.

3. Classical music may be based on scales and motifs, but as I said, it's highly premeditated, and every note is there for a reason. I would argue that in a situation where one has a week to write a piece, the outcome will be completely intentional. If one has to come up with a minute of music as he is playing, then it's more likely one will throw notes into place because they fit within the scale or mode, and not because that is the perfect note.

[Dan Gilbert]

They were doped up every minute of their lives? I didn't know that.

The amount of money you have and your class has absolutely nothing to do with your musical ability.

Classical music, and music in general, originated out of improvisation. Remember that fugue, thought to be one of the more complex forms, was also an improvisatory practice. Add to that that many pieces of classical music are just improvisations written down, and your point makes little sense.

1. Obviously they weren't, but I don't think you can argue that many very famous jazz tunes were written and performed under the influence, as they say. I remember seeing some footage of Theloneus Monk walking into a room, and just walking around in really erratic circles because he was so high, ending up finding the piano bench, and then playin' some classic Monk. It's considered great Jazz, but how can one process complex thought when you are so high you can't really walk? Seems to me that those scales and modes were just ingrained in him enough that he was able to place right-sounding notes in right-sounding places, and that's really all that Jazz requires.

2. The amount of musical education you have does contribute to the sophistication of your music, though.

3. Although fugues may have roots in improvisation, i doubt these improvised fugues were ever as complex as the Bach inventions or whatnot. And I would suppose that classical music which is improvised is less complex than classical music which is premeditated. There may be great classical music which sounds improvisatory, but I think most people on this site would agree that they could not improvise a piece of music which they are as proud of as the music for which they have provided a score.

[robinjessome]

Don't worry guys, I'm working on it...once I stop laughing I'll be able to type up a coherent and informative response!!

:laugh:

But whilst I think, I'm curious Dan: is it 'improvisation' that you have a problem with? Jazz harmonic concepts? Jazz feel - i.e. swing? The Jazz lifestyle (Obviously part of it since you mentioned the historical tendencies of drug abuse)? Or have you simply got a beef with the whole idea of jazz??

[onearmedbandit]

Your thread title is completely irrelevant to the actual discussion.

[JoshMc]

Jazz is just as complex as classical music but often in different ways. You can do what you've said and just follow around some basic chords with predictable scales and whatnot but that's just the basics. If you start trying to really figure out what's going on you'd find a ridiculous amount of chord substitutions, voice leading that's possibly even more complex than you'll find in classical music especially since it's usually figured out on the fly, crazy polyrhythms and syncopation, etc. Honestly, I'm having trouble summing up all the things that go into the music as there's too much to list really.

Maybe it would be easiest if you just listened to some of the better jazz artists or checked out their lead sheets. For instance, Coltrane had some really complex chord progressions going on. Thelonious Monk figured out how to use phrasing to make progressions that shouldn't work sound wonderful. Ornette Coleman took improvisation to it's limits by using some creative aleatoric tricks. You also have people like Chick Corea who is pretty much an amalgamation of jazz from the last century with a lot of classical aspects thrown in. Joe Pass would be a good place to look to understand how jazz musicians use chord substitutions to morph a tune into something completely different as it progresses.

Ok, this is starting to seem impossible. I don't know how to sum complexity up. How about this. What do you think makes classical music so complex? If you tell us that then I can pretty much guarantee you that we could list jazz music that contains these same elements and sometimes these ideas probably even came from jazz.

[JoshMc]

1. Obviously they weren't, but I don't think you can argue that many very famous jazz tunes were written and performed under the influence, as they say. I remember seeing some footage of Theloneus Monk walking into a room, and just walking around in really erratic circles because he was so high, ending up finding the piano bench, and then playin' some classic Monk. It's considered great Jazz, but how can one process complex thought when you are so high you can't really walk? Seems to me that those scales and modes were just ingrained in him enough that he was able to place right-sounding notes in right-sounding places, and that's really all that Jazz requires.

Monk was in no way known as a druggie. He probably had some psychological issues, hence the weirdness, but he was still amazingly creative. And complexity doesn't require you to think about every little aspect of what you're doing. Do you think Mozart was thinking about the theory behind every note that he wrote down before he wrote it? Just because you have used these ideas enough that you no longer have to think about it doesn't mean that they aren't complex.

2. The amount of musical education you have does contribute to the sophistication of your music, though.

It does, but you don't need to have a sophisticated musical education to create complex music. Take Berlioz for example, self-taught. Besides, lots of jazz musicians have/had a very strong musical education. Your example of Monk, well he went to Julliard.

3. Although fugues may have roots in improvisation, i doubt these improvised fugues were ever as complex as the Bach inventions or whatnot. And I would suppose that classical music which is improvised is less complex than classical music which is premeditated. There may be great classical music which sounds improvisatory, but I think most people on this site would agree that they could not improvise a piece of music which they are as proud of as the music for which they have provided a score.

Sometimes improvising music brings out things that you wouldn't expect that are much more satisfying than scored music. The reason is you don't have to worry about all the little technicalities of writing down what you hear in your head, you simply have to play it which for a lot of people is way more natural. Here check this tune out and come back and tell us how you can find it to not be completely amazing:

You know how much of that track was written down? The lead melody and the original chords (which were definitely morphed into something different). I think you'd probably spend months and months trying to score a song that sounded so fluid and incorporated all the complexities that these two inject into it.

[JoshMc]

Oh yeah, another good example of a jazz musician who knows his stuff, Dave Brubeck. He's worked a lot with polytonal ideas and odd key signatures and had lessons with Milhaud.

[note360]

Jazz music is about something different than classical music...

There not even worth comparing

[Nik Mikas]

Nik: I'm not upset at all. It's just a friendly debate, and I realize my opinion is kind of extreme. I don't hate jazz or think it's stupid, I just hate listening to jazz myself and I think that like many things, people pretend it's more complicated than it is. And this argument is solely about complexity, because that is how this thread was spawned.

ok

[nikolas]

Nik: I think Dan was talking to me! :P

[blm22]

wtf, jazz is very complicated, what the hell is your problem.

[DrPangloss]

Disclaimer: I am not a jazz musician.

You say that even if someone can provide you with examples of immensely complex theories in jazz, that doesn't validate jazz as a complex artform because many people--you would argue--don't utilize those theories. You also say that it can't be all that complex if performers can perform it while intoxicated. Are we to use the lowest common denominator as the deciding factor in the potential complexity of the music? All one person has to do is utilize the complex theories while sober to prove that jazz has the capacity for that kind of complexity. It doesn't matter if there are performers and composers who don't do it that way. That's their choice, or possibly their ability.

Perhaps your beef is with people who cite the complexities of jazz without making use of them. I understand that. But that doesn't change the complexity that still exists.

I'd also go so far as to say that it's easier to make something sound good using all those nuances (motif, counterpart, fugue, etc.) when you have the time to think it all out. It's got to be harder to try something for the first time in front of an audience, hoping it will work, and creating a sound that they like. In those instances you have all of the theory, and you've got to choose--on the spot--which would be most effective in the moment and then make it work, without any time to test it first. You'd also generally be playing with at least two other people (figuring on a piano/bass/drums trio) and hoping all three minds come together to make up something that will work.

I also want to point out that William Shakespeare was not a wealthy man, nor was he an educated man, and he is the only playwright of his time to influence not only the theatre, but literature and the English language, the way he did. He's also the only playwright of his time who carries that kind of name recognition over four-hundred years later.

[Ananth Balijepalli]

Because it isn't trolling.

And because Robinjessome told Dan to make this thread.

And, yeah I think that the people who claim that jazz is complex... are right. There are many wacky chord progressions that you don't see any where in pre-1900 music simply because it was frowned upon to do such a thing.

And don't say that improvisation is necessarily an on-the-spot process. If you look at the transcribed and chord-mapped solos of famous jazz musicians, you'll see that what is improvised is actually highly logical, smooth, and coherent. They write pieces on the spot. This same thing happens in classical music too, btw.

[Nathan Madsen]

Dan-

Why don't you memorize Joy Spring in all 12 keys and be able to play it flawlessly at tempo. But wait- after playing the head then be able to improvise 3 choruses of solos for each key as well with a pro rhythm section backing you up. Then do this with Giant Steps and 7 Steps to Heaven and Cotton Tail. After doing all of this, then tell me jazz isn't complex. Do you even understand how much substitution goes into playing jazz? The mere fact that there is so much freedom to choose your path makes it more complex simply because there are more variables. Finally, to be a good jazz player you must be able to roll with the punches with your soloist decides to go off in another direction. Sonny Rollins used to change keys on purpose to see if he could trip up the players around him. He would sometimes pick completely illogical key changes to make it hard. Did it make sense musically? Maybe, maybe not. But the mere fact that some of these jazz legends were able to pick up on the change instantly and play off of it well (while continuing to improve) demands respect. You are either an idiot, completely naive or just trying to start a flame war. I'm not sure which is accurate yet....

[Nathan Madsen]

And don't say that improvisation is necessarily an on-the-spot process. If you look at the transcribed and chord-mapped solos of famous jazz musicians, you'll see that what is improvised is actually highly logical, smooth, and coherent. They write pieces on the spot. This same thing happens in classical music too, btw.

The prep for improvisation isn't an on the spot process- sure. You either have to learn all of the chord symbols and how to play the appropriate scales, arpeggios and the proper substitutions for all of them. Then you learn licks (either from memorizing other people's solos or slowly playing through the chord changes yourself) to build up a vocabulary and familiarity with the chords.

I'm sure there are re-occurring licks for all players- it because the manner in which one plays solos (just like people have a tendency to speak in a certain manner). However, jazz improv (particularly when done by masters) is an on-the-spot art. Just because it is logical, smooth and coherent doesn't change the fact that they're making it up as they go. It just means they're really good at it! :)

[Franzman]

I am boiling with anger, just after reading the title.

Giant Steps (with actual sheetmusic so classical musicians can understand)

Leap Frog (Intense solo dueling between Charlie Parker and Dizzy gillespie)

Straight no Chaser (An Awesome example of Big Band exellency)

now tell me that jazz isn't complicated.

Edit:

Here's a good example on how much emotion goes into jazz soloing. It's just not puking out notes (as Giant Steps makes you believe)

Adrian Mears

[robinjessome]

Okay, first of all, let's all lay off the Danny-bashing for a moment. He has expressed a genuine desire to understand, and I can respect that - so should you. Let's be gentle with Dan, because I know he's trying and nothing he says is doen with any malicious intent...

SO...my opinion: Jazz offers by far the most room for personal expression and requires the most dedication and study to be performed well.

I won't mention any complex techniques, cause you don't care. Jazz is complex - there's A LOT going on. You're a little off base with your suspicion that jazz musicians are conspiring against you to keep the music from you. With some attentive listening, and an open mind-set - jazz becomes very simple.

Dan, I'm not sure what it is specifically that turns you off jazz; is it the idea of improvisation? The feel? The harmony? The lifestyle?

I'll think about this a little more...this is perhaps too broad an issue for me to address directly.

[Nathan Madsen]

I'll lay off Dan once he stops making up-surd comments and starts asking questions about jazz, jazz performance and jazz theory. He can't sit there and make outrageous statements and expect to be treated kindly. If all he is wanting is knowledge- then there are much better (more polite and efficient) ways to go about it.

I have no problem with someone not knowing something and wanting to learn- I do have a problem when someone makes inflammatory statements against an entire genre that for the most part is widely respected.

Just my two cents.

Edit: Something Dan needs to consider is if he was wanting to learn about jazz then why name the thread "The Suckiness of Jazz"? If I want to learn about a musical genre that is new to me (or better yet one that I'm not super fond of) then I would approach the community in a more respectful manner. Since Dan hasn't done this- why should we show him respect and lay off him? He should apologize to the jazzers and those that love this art form for being offensive in the first place.

Oh and Franzman- you're videos ROCK! Thanks so much for sharing!