A thread to politely discuss the merits of jazz

[robinjessome]

..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.

...

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.

Okay,

"Jazz is just deducing the mode, picking a scale, and mimicking motifs from either the tune or from others' solos."

I suspect this stems from your relatively limited listening experience...Have you dug into your dad's record collection yet? I can't disagree with the above statement in many cases - especially when dealing with younger players

That's how you learn to play...you study. You lean you scales and modes, and the relationships between them (I'm trying to keep to laymans terms here). You transcribe the masters, you learn the tunes, you memorize common patterns (licks)... The problem arises when the players feels this is satisfactory and that proficiency with these basics constitutes mastery of the genre. The university jazz education scene is laden with morons who think like this. Even many prominent professionals - heralded are heavies - are prone to flying on autopilot.

I agree with you - unthinking, unlistening robots are a bad thing. YOU however, have likely not been exposed to enough SERIOUS jazz to be able to tell the difference.

I assure you Dan, that true masters of jazz have surpassed the mere technical requirements and assimilated, ingrained and molded the skills into their own personal voice. This is the ultimate goal of any jazz player - to be unique and individual...and to play and interact with other uniquely individual voices.

ALSO, we're talking about a HUGE friggin umbrella encompassing a vast genre. Jazz means so many different things, to so many different people... but that's yet another discussion.

Also, if it's the idea of improvisation that bothers you (as I suspect it might), don't dismiss the entire practice of jazz composition. You're talking as if jazz is entirely made-up and lacks the premeditation and forethought of it's boxy cousin (boxy...square...classical...get it?). Not so - even when discussing improvisation, as others have mentioned. Solos are as logical and intricate as any 'composed' music - and jazz incorporates many of the same principles of composition as classical.

...

More to come...

[Guest DOFTS]

I think I am perfectly qualified to have an opinion about music that I have played

No. Well, fine, you're allowed an opinion, doesn't mean it's worth much. I've played many classical pieces, but by no means does my opinion really matter when it comes to judging classical musical. I only go based on what I like and don't like. That's fine for me, but it doesn't put me in a position to say what good or bad classical music is.

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,

I wouldn't say while playing, perhaps while writing the piece.

Jazz is just deducing the mode, picking a scale, and mimicking motifs from either the tune or from others' solos.

Makes ya wonder where the first solos came from...

[JonSlaughter]

One thing you have to understand about jazz is that there are a lot, and I mean a lot, of sorry donkey jazz players. Because jazz is "free" just about anyone can call themselves a jazz musician but there are actually very few true ones.

Second, jazz is relatively sophisticated musical form when compared to most others but few actually understand it on the level its meant to be.

Third, there are many sub-genre's of jazz and not all are created equal.

Fourth, Jazz is mainly an improvisatory art form and therefore its much more difficult to compose good sounding pieces for most people. Specially since you usually have several other guys improvising at the same time(of course around a common framework so it doesn't get too out of control).

Having said that I think the whole point of jazz is to find that "moment" when everything comes together in some orgasmic musical expression of human creativity. Its kinda like a bunch of monkeys typing on type writers hoping that they will type something good but never do.

I think if you understand it from the context that 99% of jazz musicians suck donkey then you'll have a good understanding. Most people who can't make any good music become jazz musicians so they can just play scales and pretend to be hip because they know they can make this substitution here and its "jazzy" or play this mode over this chord and its "cool". (in reality they have no idea how to make good music though)

I'm being a bit harsh though... it's only like 97% or 98% of them that are like this.

[Guest thatguy]

Why God why

[Tokkemon]

One thing you have to understand about jazz is that there are a lot, and I mean a lot, of sorry donkey jazz players. Because jazz is "free" just about anyone can call themselves a jazz musician but there are actually very few true ones.

Second, jazz is relatively sophisticated musical form when compared to most others but few actually understand it on the level its meant to be.

Third, there are many sub-genre's of jazz and not all are created equal.

Fourth, Jazz is mainly an improvisatory art form and therefore its much more difficult to compose good sounding pieces for most people. Specially since you usually have several other guys improvising at the same time(of course around a common framework so it doesn't get too out of control).

Having said that I think the whole point of jazz is to find that "moment" when everything comes together in some orgasmic musical expression of human creativity. Its kinda like a bunch of monkeys typing on type writers hoping that they will type something good but never do.

I think if you understand it from the context that 99% of jazz musicians suck donkey then you'll have a good understanding. Most people who can't make any good music become jazz musicians so they can just play scales and pretend to be hip because they know they can make this substitution here and its "jazzy" or play this mode over this chord and its "cool". (in reality they have no idea how to make good music though)

I'm being a bit harsh though... it's only like 97% or 98% of them that are like this.

Bless your soul! You hit it right on the nose!

[Tokkemon]

...Specially since you usually have several other guys improvising at the same time(of course around a common framework so it doesn't get too out of control). ...

Not unless your Mingus. Haitian Fight Song anyone? :D

[robinjessome]

...if you understand it from the context that 99% of jazz musicians suck donkey then you'll have a good understanding. Most people who can't make any good music become jazz musicians so they can just play scales and pretend to be hip because they know they can make this substitution here and its "jazzy" or play this mode over this chord and its "cool". (in reality they have no idea how to make good music though)

I'm being a bit harsh though... it's only like 97% or 98% of them that are like this.

Not true.

I think jazz is even more discerning and difficult to succeed in. We don't tolerate charlatans and I think you're confusing amateur 'jam session' players with serious pros.

---------------

...this argument is solely about complexity, because that is how this thread was spawned.

:hmmm:

I just came across this...

Solely about complexity? While jazz can be complicated, it can also be deliciously simple. This can also be said of classical...or any other music.

How does "complexity" have anything to do with it?

[Dan Gilbert]

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.

Hokay, I will TRY to respond to all of you in time, but you have to understand that it's going to be difficult. Anyways, ROBIN:

Can't argue with the "your opinion" segment there, because that's all very subjective. I can agree that it allows more freedom for the PERFORMER than classical music, but that's one of my problems with it - it leaves the design element in the hand of the masses, rather than the few elite.

I'm not sure I can pinpoint what turns me off of jazz. It's just not pleasing to my ears, and I feel like I am hearing exactly the same wall of sound no matter what track off which album is playing. I know from playing in a jazz band that "wall of sound" is something which is avoided, but I don't feel like there is any variety, despite the fact that if I listened closely, I could pinpoint the elements that are different. I feel like I am hearing the same sounds over and over and over again. I get it, a whole tone scale sounds such and such a way over this particular chord, but so what? I feel like there are no climaxes, no points of interest, it's just a smoothly flowing wall of sound.

But again, my point is simply that performers exaggerate the complexity and nuance. But then again, I never said this was NOT true of classical music, or of other types of music. Everyone wants to glorify their own work. I just think this is particularly true of jazz.

[Dan Gilbert]

Why God why

It's because you touch yourself at night. NEXT!

[Dan Gilbert]

One thing you have to understand about jazz is that there are a lot, and I mean a lot, of sorry donkey jazz players. Because jazz is "free" just about anyone can call themselves a jazz musician but there are actually very few true ones.

Second, jazz is relatively sophisticated musical form when compared to most others but few actually understand it on the level its meant to be.

Third, there are many sub-genre's of jazz and not all are created equal.

Fourth, Jazz is mainly an improvisatory art form and therefore its much more difficult to compose good sounding pieces for most people. Specially since you usually have several other guys improvising at the same time(of course around a common framework so it doesn't get too out of control).

Having said that I think the whole point of jazz is to find that "moment" when everything comes together in some orgasmic musical expression of human creativity. Its kinda like a bunch of monkeys typing on type writers hoping that they will type something good but never do.

I think if you understand it from the context that 99% of jazz musicians suck donkey then you'll have a good understanding. Most people who can't make any good music become jazz musicians so they can just play scales and pretend to be hip because they know they can make this substitution here and its "jazzy" or play this mode over this chord and its "cool". (in reality they have no idea how to make good music though)

I'm being a bit harsh though... it's only like 97% or 98% of them that are like this.

First - Ok, so say we are only talking about the ones that you personally approve of.

Second - Can you demonstrate that it is more sophisticated than any other form of music? Are you saying that it is more sophisticated than country music? And if so, then I'll play devil's advocate and say "Nope." Demonstrate how it is more complex - as a country advocate, I'm going to argue that there are millions of tiny nuances in the performance of country music which aren't apparent to your untrained ears.

Third - If you suspect that I'm just referring to the subgenres that you consider inferior, you will have to be more specific.

Fourth - I think you are just describing why you like jazz, and not how it is really more complex than meets the eye. Yah, coordinating your improvisation is a challenge, but is it really that complex? Isn't it just developing a sense of how not to step on other people's parts?

[Dan Gilbert]

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

I was dropped as a child, probably. No, when I was born, my mom had terrible aim and shot me right into a bedpost. That's it.

[robinjessome]

I'm not sure I can pinpoint what turns me off of jazz. It's just not pleasing to my ears, and I feel like I am hearing exactly the same wall of sound no matter what track off which album is playing. I know from playing in a jazz band that "wall of sound" is something which is avoided, but I don't feel like there is any variety, despite the fact that if I listened closely, I could pinpoint the elements that are different. I feel like I am hearing the same sounds over and over and over again. I get it, a whole tone scale sounds such and such a way over this particular chord, but so what? I feel like there are no climaxes, no points of interest, it's just a smoothly flowing wall of sound.

:hmmm:

Perhaps you just haven't found a jazz you like - there's so much out there.

If you're not hearing climaxes, points of interest or anything to perk you r ears, then you're just not hearing it...simple as that. You're either too embroiled in the criticisms and negative things you don't like and can't hear past them to the passionate and emotional music; or you're just listening to contrite scraggy with few creative points to be found.

...........

I'm curious, what have you listened to? There's some powerful music out there - It'd be a shame you missed it for a misconceived prejudice against wankers. ;) Let's get away from this whole 'COMPLEXITY' or 'SOPHISTICATION' argument.... it's weak, and lame.

Complexity is often a hindrance...

YouTube - John Coltrane - Alabama

Hear that? Pure, raw, honest music..... hear it? No? Maybe?

[Dan Gilbert]

Okay,

"Jazz is just deducing the mode, picking a scale, and mimicking motifs from either the tune or from others' solos."

I suspect this stems from your relatively limited listening experience...Have you dug into your dad's record collection yet? I can't disagree with the above statement in many cases - especially when dealing with younger players

That's how you learn to play...you study. You lean you scales and modes, and the relationships between them (I'm trying to keep to laymans terms here). You transcribe the masters, you learn the tunes, you memorize common patterns (licks)... The problem arises when the players feels this is satisfactory and that proficiency with these basics constitutes mastery of the genre. The university jazz education scene is laden with morons who think like this. Even many prominent professionals - heralded are heavies - are prone to flying on autopilot.

I agree with you - unthinking, unlistening robots are a bad thing. YOU however, have likely not been exposed to enough SERIOUS jazz to be able to tell the difference.

I assure you Dan, that true masters of jazz have surpassed the mere technical requirements and assimilated, ingrained and molded the skills into their own personal voice. This is the ultimate goal of any jazz player - to be unique and individual...and to play and interact with other uniquely individual voices.

ALSO, we're talking about a HUGE friggin umbrella encompassing a vast genre. Jazz means so many different things, to so many different people... but that's yet another discussion.

Also, if it's the idea of improvisation that bothers you (as I suspect it might), don't dismiss the entire practice of jazz composition. You're talking as if jazz is entirely made-up and lacks the premeditation and forethought of it's boxy cousin (boxy...square...classical...get it?). Not so - even when discussing improvisation, as others have mentioned. Solos are as logical and intricate as any 'composed' music - and jazz incorporates many of the same principles of composition as classical.

...

More to come...

Well, you are just telling me that there are many musicians who validate my statement, and a select few who don't. But you still aren't telling me what it is that these select few are doing which is so complex and genius.

As far as improvisation goes, how can a solo be as complex as premeditated composed music if it is composed on the spot? You are just telling me it IS, but one important part of my opinion is that I really doubt it. As a musician and master of a particular instrument, wouldn't you be more inclined to play the notes which fit under the fingers? You are playing notes which you have never practiced, so they have to be simple enough so that you can play them perfectly the first time... But of course the practice you DO have playing those notes comes from the fact that they are part of a scale which you employ over and over and over again, so that just contributes to the repetitive, mindless nature of it all...

[Tokkemon]

Why are we discussing this? The whole thread seems like an utter waste of time and server space. Dan won't budge on his stance no matter what. So why waste time trying to respond? Jazz is jazz, classical is classical. Both are two completely different concpets using the same 12 notes. Their like apples and oranges, both fruit, but two completely different fruits. So drop it everyone! :angry:

Nice subtle changing of the thread title by the way.

[robinjessome]

...you still aren't telling me what it is that these select few are doing which is so complex and genius.

As far as improvisation goes, how can a solo be as complex as premeditated composed music if it is composed on the spot?

Again...drop the 'complexity' thing. I don't give a scraggy about complexity...and neither should you. Reread my posts, you might be replying too fast before I get them finished. ;)

------------------------------------------

Why are we discussing this? The whole thread seems like an utter waste of time and server space. Dan won't budge on his stance no matter what. So why waste time trying to respond?

Because it's important to some of us.

Nice subtle changing of the thread title by the way.

Thanks.

[Tokkemon]

I know it's important. I think it would be nice to correct injustices to Jazz (which is not my preffered style but I like all the same). It just seems to dumb to waste your time with someone who will not change his opinion no matter what you say.

Dan, should I pull out an Ellington score and carefully analze and disect it for you? Will that help you shut up?

[robinjessome]

I know it's important. I think it would be nice to correct injustices to Jazz (which is not my preffered style but I like all the same). It just seems to dumb to waste your time with someone who will not change his opinion no matter what you say.

Dan, should I pull out an Ellington score and carefully analze and disect it for you? Will that help you shut up?

Good grief... I don't think I'm wasting my time. Perhaps Dan is wasting his time trying to understand a genre he simply will not like. I'm just trying to figure out the underlying predisposition for some people to quickly dismiss a genre after a few unsatisfying listens.

Also, leave the Ellington score alone - I want to avoid more of this "jazz is complex, seee!! Look here: C7sus(b9)/Ab OoooH! FANCY! " ...it's bullshit.

Jazz is jazz.

Classical is classical.

Good music is good music...be it excruciatingly complicated or devastatingly simple.

[also, there's really no cut and dried line to distinguish jazz from classical anymore - there's a lot of genre-bending composers out there...perhaps a different place to start Dan, rather than the boppers. ;) ]

[Dan Gilbert]

:hmmm:

Perhaps you just haven't found a jazz you like - there's so much out there.

If you're not hearing climaxes, points of interest or anything to perk you r ears, then you're just not hearing it...simple as that. You're either too embroiled in the criticisms and negative things you don't like and can't hear past them to the passionate and emotional music; or you're just listening to contrite scraggy with few creative points to be found.

...........

I'm curious, what have you listened to? There's some powerful music out there - It'd be a shame you missed it for a misconceived prejudice against wankers. ;)

YouTube - John Coltrane - Alabama

Hear that? Pure, raw, honest music..... hear it? No? Maybe?

I tried, I really tried, but four the first four and a half minutes, I heard a scale. THEN it changed, but it just in texture and mood, not harmonically, except for a couple changes later on. And the texture and mood change didn't really do it for me - they certainly didn't cause me to feel the emotions they felt apparently reflecting on the alabama church bombings (as was apparently the inspiration). The second half just seemed so limited by the fact that it still had to be jazz... What's so honest about it? The emotions you feel when reflecting on these things are bound up into a 7-note scale? The only thing that made sense really was that it LINGERED, but with jazz, what else can you do?

...sorry for that one.

EVERYONE:

Artists on whom I'm basing my opinions, those artists who are apparently the lame-os of jazz who are shielding me from the worthy jazz:

Miles Davis,

Parker,

Coltrane,

Rheinhardt

Monk

Evans

Marsalis

Among others.

[Euler]

"an Ellington score" implies there is jazz which has a score, which was just what I wanted to ask. BTW, "Mood Indigo" - who can not like it?!?

To be clear in my question - is there some jazz that is not improvised making the defining characteristics of the genre the rhythm and harmony?

[robinjessome]

I tried, I really tried, but four the first four and a half minutes, I heard a scale. THEN it changed, but it just in texture and mood, not harmonically, except for a couple changes later on. And the texture and mood change didn't really do it for me - they certainly didn't cause me to feel the emotions they felt apparently reflecting on the alabama church bombings (as was apparently the inspiration). The second half just seemed so limited by the fact that it still had to be jazz... What's so honest about it? The emotions you feel when reflecting on these things are bound up into a 7-note scale? The only thing that made sense really was that it LINGERED, but with jazz, what else can you do?

Ummmm....

:hmmm: *shrug* I think you're trying to be too cerebral about it...but, whatever...that's your prerogative. It's hard to explain what you're missing in it - you heard a scale, yes. You also heard a man pouring his life's experiences and a world of emotion through that horn, using that scale.

I say, give it some time - perhaps return to straight-ahead jazz in a few years. Your ears and tastes will develop and change...you might still come around.

------------------------

"an Ellington score" implies there is jazz which has a score, ...is there some jazz that is not improvised making the defining characteristics of the genre the rhythm and harmony?

Short answer: yes. Most of it.

[Stevemc90]

I'm not sure I can pinpoint what turns me off of jazz. It's just not pleasing to my ears, and I feel like I am hearing exactly the same wall of sound no matter what track off which album is playing. I know from playing in a jazz band that "wall of sound" is something which is avoided, but I don't feel like there is any variety, despite the fact that if I listened closely, I could pinpoint the elements that are different. I feel like I am hearing the same sounds over and over and over again. I get it, a whole tone scale sounds such and such a way over this particular chord, but so what? I feel like there are no climaxes, no points of interest, it's just a smoothly flowing wall of sound.

based on what you've had to say, I'd gather that you haven't listened to Wayne Shorter, Herbie Hancock (played with ChicagoSO at 11), Mingus (Black Saint anyone?), Eric Dolphy (advocator and performer of Varese, among other contempary composers), Andrew Hill (studied with Hindemith), Cecil Taylor (atonality!), Bill Evans (studied composition at Mannes College of Music), Keith Jarrett (was offered to study with Nadia Boulanger as a teen) or even Zappa (extremely advanced classical composer as we all know) for that matter...you act like these guys are mindless screwballs, they know their scraggy and yes their stuff is complex, not like it matters in the first place

[Dan Gilbert]

One more thing and then I quit for tonight (but I will come back),

I never said that music has to be complex to in order to be good, although I personally prefer more complex music.

This argument started over the statement "Jazz artists pretend that playing jazz is much more complex than it really is." If we want to drop the complexity part of this argument, that's ok with me. We've basically just started to argue about whether or not Jazz is GOOD, which is not really something you can argue - it's all about how much you like listening to it. Robin's basically just being altruistic and not argumentative. So, I suppose the discussion has shifted.

By the way, is there anyone out there who, like me, doesn't like Jazz? I'm a bit outnumbered here.

[Nathan Madsen]

I tried, I really tried, but four the first four and a half minutes, I heard a scale. THEN it changed, but it just in texture and mood, not harmonically, except for a couple changes later on. And the texture and mood change didn't really do it for me - they certainly didn't cause me to feel the emotions they felt apparently reflecting on the alabama church bombings (as was apparently the inspiration). The second half just seemed so limited by the fact that it still had to be jazz... What's so honest about it? The emotions you feel when reflecting on these things are bound up into a 7-note scale? The only thing that made sense really was that it LINGERED, but with jazz, what else can you do?

...sorry for that one.

EVERYONE:

Artists on whom I'm basing my opinions, those artists who are apparently the lame-os of jazz who are shielding me from the worthy jazz:

Miles Davis,

Parker,

Coltrane,

Rheinhardt

Monk

Evans

Marsalis

Among others.

Have you considered that if you can't even recognize the talent and skill to play jazz at the level of those listed above- perhaps it is a clear indication of your lack of musical understanding or talent?

No I'm not trying to bash you. Actually consider what I'm saying.

You listed off some of the A-list of jazz musicians and claim you cannot identify or understand the emotions and complexity behind it. Because of this you don't enjoy it and don't like jazz. That is fine- it is your opinion. Hell, I don't like most of Wynton Marsalis' stuff but I respect the crap outta him because he can really play and has had a great career.

I think you're mixing too much of your opinions in with value of a style of music. I'm not one for country music- never have been. However, I can respect what professional county bands can do. Sometimes I even tap my foot a bit!

If you cannot find any value of jazz- that is fine! It is your opinion... however your sheer lack of any understanding, respect or ability to identify emotion in some of the greatest jazz around makes me question your musical talent, understanding and ability itself.

I don't mean that as an insult.... but I would argue that someone that is musically talented and at least somewhat educated can (at the very least) appreciate any musical style performed well.

"Jazz artists pretend that playing jazz is much more complex than it really is."

This statement is biased on so many levels. I can argue that classical musicians pretend that classical music is more complicated that it really is. I can even argue that polka musicians pretend that polka music is cooler or more complex than other forms of music. It doesn't prove much- it is an opinion. Also, I know many musicians that are equally talented at classical music and jazz music. My old professor during grad school was one of them. He could rock out in one of the best jazz bands in the world- then play internationally with some of the best symphonies around the world. He has high regards for both classical and jazz styles of music. In fact, he holds all good music in high regard.

What you've done is just make asinine arguments and biased statements. If jazz music is so simple- then why are you not a FANTASTIC jazz pianist? Have you thought maybe you wouldn't consider yourself "to be a good jazz pianist" because you don't have enough understanding or experience playing jazz? Why not master something (or at least get close) then throw your strong opinions around the web. Until then.... you're just wasting people's time and blowing smoke.

[Euler]

Perhaps part of what Dan Gilbert is saying was covered in the last episode of a PBS series on jazz. There a modern jazz composer, whose name I forget, said roughly "I work hard composing so the listener should work hard too." to which the commentator replied, "Yes, you can compose what you want but I can choose to listen to something else."

I thought it was an excellent PBS documentary. And BTW I like some jazz but not all jazz, which is about the same as my liking for almost any genre of music.

[note360]

jsut a bunch of guys jamming. You may not like it, but dont say it isnt the heart of music and art in general... Fun and creative energy being released.

Music is a form of expression and putting down somones form expression is wrong... Its like saying. YOU THERE YOU YOUR FEELINGS DONT MATTER. This is what I feel at the moment from your thread.