A thread to politely discuss the merits of jazz

[JonSlaughter]

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.

Yes, it is more difficult than most musical art forms except potentially classical(probably for the reason you mentioned).

BUT many people can call themselves jazz musicians and get away with it with no problem because that genre allows for "far out" stuff. A person can just pretend like they are "experimenting" with stuff when in fact they have no clue what they are doing. For this very reason it opens itself up to just about anyone. Its similar to most styles except those that have been around for a long time and have a well established form such as classical music or even some of the eastern music.

I guess the difference is that jazz is very liberal. It's very similar to rock or metal where some moron can get up there and make all kinds of irritating noise and it is excepted because he's just being "different" or he's "far ahead of his time". The difference here between jazz and metal, say, is that a metal musician doesn't have the excuse(although I guess he could use it) that he's experimenting with advanced scales and arpeggios or something like that.

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

Of course... I suggest you actually find some decent jazz musicians to listen too. I too was sort of like you before I actually started to find good jazz music. Also since there is a wide range of styles you'll need to narrow it down to those musicians that have more than just a jazz background so you'll have something to relate to.

For example, some of the guys that changed my opinion are John Scofield, Pat Metheny, Allan Holdsworth. Now surely I don't like all there music but there are songs that I like and they happen to be jazz songs.

It's also really nice to hear some of the more varied use of harmonies instead of the same 4 chords.

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.

I never said it was more sophisticated than any other form. The basis of jazz is much more sophisticated than the majority of other styles and this is easy to prove.... one just has to look at the average music produced and compare it.

Now first off we have to define what sophistication means here!! I mean it w.r.t to the harmonic, rhythmic, and melodic framework that is used and not, say, how fast one can play or techniques that one uses.

If we are strictly speaking about western music then jazz competes on the level with classical music in that respect. It does fall slightly short though because of the improvisatory nature that limits its ability(which is not necessarily a bad thing but they just have different goals). (of course not all jazz is improvised but that is a formal trait of it)

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?

Do you know what tritone substituions are? Your augmented 6ths? German, French, Italian(and even the so called "Swedish")? How bout diminished chords and how they are used? What about the 3rd mode of the harmonic minor? Lydian dominant? Locrian mode? Non-dominant substitutions? Tensions? Pan-tonality? Modulations? Whole-tone scale?

All these things are typical jazz concepts(and also much of it is classical). Its more complex because the musician has more stuff to choose from to make it more complex(of course this isn't necessary but since we ruled out all the bad jazz guys then it is).

Most rock music, for example, is usually based on 3 chords for 90% of the song. The scales that are used tend to be either from the major or minor and rarely are modes used.

So tell me how rock can be more complex if it uses only a small subset of the material used by jazz? Note we are not talking about what sounds good. 3 chords can easily beat 1000 chords sound wise. 1000 chords are more complex(assuming everything else is consistent).

Your proof is in the pudding. Compare your average jazz song with your average rock song(or other genre) and you will most likely find that the musical material that is used is much greater with jazz than that genre. Is it always the case? No... of course not.

-------

I think what you are missing is that jazz is an intellectual approach to music. Its more about "What can I use to get new cool sounds and how do I do it" while, say, something like rock is just about making cool sounds using the minimum amount of work and knowledge about music(its more of an emotional approach where the "heart" creates the sound while jazz is about using the "brain" to create it).

When you listen to jazz you should be thinking on a different level(or trying too) than what you use for rock or pop.

Also jazz tends to be a less aggressive style than rock or metal. If you take metal, for instance, if uses a lot of distortion. That fact makes it difficult for complex harmonies because they tend to sound muddy. This is one reason why you don't hear them much. Another reason is that the majority of metal musicians only try to milk that little bit of knowledge about there music to get the most out of it.

Now realize that all styles are not bad in and of themselves. Both are good. Both offer different facets of musical expression. Jazz uses more of an intellectual approach and has a large harmonic, rhythmic, and melodic basis to choose from. Metal, for example, has a much more limited harmonic basis but tends to have a much larger intimate relationship with the instrument and trying to milk what they know as much as possible.

I guess it boils down to jazz being like a generalist and most other genre's being specialists. Both have their shortcomings and both have there advantages.

It's best to try and like all the styles you can because that will make you a much more rounded musician and person. The ultimate goal of any musician is to be able to express himself in the best possible way. You can't do that if you limit yourself.

The issue is that almost all musicians limit themselves exactly like this. Your typical jazz musician looks down on most other forms such as metal and considers them to be amateurish. Most metal guys thing that jazz is "snobbish" and sounds like crap. Both are true to some degree but wouldn't it be cool to combine them into some ultimate form? Assuming there is one... but at the very least you'll be more rounded if you like all kinds of music.

(Main point here is that you have to give the music that you don't like a chance. Just cause you don't like some of that genre's music that you here doesn't mean it all sucks or that you won't grow to like it)

(I might be rambling here but I'm pretty tired ;/ Hopefully I got my point across though)

[SSC]

Just to sum up my opinion, real quick:

Jazz to me is two things:

An aesthetic. That is, it's a set of parameters which form up what is "heard" as "jazzy" and that includes chords, progressions, motives and harmonies.

An approach to music. To me, this means that instead of thinking in terms of "a composition", music is thought as an ongoing "moment" where things happen. This is right in line with the improvisatory nature of the genre and as far as improvisation is concerned, you could be playing playing Couperin figured bass improv in baroque style or doing solos in free modern jazz, and you need the same "Mentality" to tackle it. That is, you have a groove.

The main differences aren't in approach, but in what tools you use to build up your "moment" of music. Jazz isn't built the same way as Baroque music despite sharing many elements, and that's part of the aesthetic which makes both aurally different.

I'd say it's silly to talk of complexity when in both practices, practice makes perfect. I know people who can improvise fugues and entire baroque suites, and to them it certainly isn't very complex. Indeed, things are built out of improvisatory "building blocks" that once you get a good hold of them you can re-arrange and form things depending on what's going on at the moment.

It's a matter of perspective. To the person improvising seemingly "complicated" things it's very much a reflex/practice -> spur of the moment choice game. So, likewise, it's just a way of looking at it from the outside.

As for the origin of jazz, I'd say the whole mix is held together by the philosophy of "music to play with" rather than a sort of "set of rules" like a traditional western harmony system or what not. And that sort of mentality "let's play together and make some noise" has existed for very, very long, in all circles and cultures.

Also, LOL at the title. :>

[JoshMc]

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.

That was amazing. I especially liked the guy in the beginning using a wine glass as a mute.

[robinjessome]

...I think what you are missing is that jazz is an intellectual approach to music.

I think this mentality is precisely what's wrong with jazz (and most art musics) today. Jazz, like most musics got too academic - to big for the proverbial britches. Starting with the bebop cutting sessions jazz took a turn towards becoming closed to the public - an elitist club of advanced musical thinkers. A lot of it WAS like that - still is - it got too fast, too high, too harmonically dense, too melodically angular, too rhythmically complex...alienating and ostracizing the listener/dancer.

Not that there's anything wrong with using advanced concepts, but too often new listeners (and old ones) can glance off the power inside something and scrutinize the inner workings. Bah - too complex? Too slow? Too simple? Not Loud enough? Wrong notes? gently caress it!

Jazz is not to be intellectualized. Jazz is (as SSC mentioned) an aesthetic - it's a FEEL, a SOUND...a way of life; a frame of mind; a state of being.

...

[/philosophy

Again, I think this topic is too broad - there's SOOO many comments I want dearly to address...but I'm lazy, and have better things to do.

[JonSlaughter]

I think this mentality is precisely what's wrong with jazz (and most art musics) today. Jazz, like most musics got too academic - to big for the proverbial britches. Starting with the bebop cutting sessions jazz took a turn towards becoming closed to the public - an elitist club of advanced musical thinkers. A lot of it WAS like that - still is - it got too fast, too high, too harmonically dense, too melodically angular, too rhythmically complex...alienating and ostracizing the listener/dancer.

[\QUOTE]

I do not necessarily things there is anything wrong with that as one can do what they want and who knows where it will lead... the problem is that some people tend to think that is the only way(mainly its an ego issue).

I sorta used to be that way with science/logic. I thought that was the only important thing. I thought emotions were useless... but then I thought about a world without emotions and without conflict, etc... It would be a very boring place and I doubt even science or logic would exist.

Not that there's anything wrong with using advanced concepts, but too often new listeners (and old ones) can glance off the power inside something and scrutinize the inner workings. Bah - too complex? Too slow? Too simple? Not Loud enough? Wrong notes? gently caress it!

People are going to find fault with anything they don't like. Problem with jazz people is that a lot of them are "snobbish" thinking there art form is the ultimate one similar to classical musicians. Sure metal might be simple in some respects but its not in many others which jazz could learn from and vice versa. But this is how people are... they choose sides. Its not a bad thing I suppose cause without it we wouldn't have all the different forms of music(and other things) to ultimately appreciate.

I guess the real winners here are the ones that can appreciate it all and not the close-minded ones that develop there own art form.

...sorta the difference between generalists and specialists... generalists don't get scraggy done but are able to "play" around with a lot of things and appreciate them and see the large picture. The specialists advance the individual aspects of there field but don't get to see the others(or not as much).

Unfortunately you have to choose which one you want to be and no choice is wrong. (not sure if it applies completely to music though but essentially it's because we have finite memory and finite time... but I'm getting off base here...)

Jazz is not to be intellectualized. Jazz is (as SSC mentioned) an aesthetic - it's a FEEL, a SOUND...a way of life; a frame of mind; a state of being.

Yes but so is all forms of art. Jazz is not special even though you might want it to be. Its no different than metal or any other form of music and everything has an aesthetic quality too it.

Now depending on what you by intellectualized I would have to disagree. If you mean that it is not to be understood then I think that's wrong. If you mean "over intellectualized" then of course I'd have to agree by the definition.

[sterilium]

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.
  

Yes, it's true that some are doped out but if you had the statistics for that then much more people will believe you. You can also note that some classical composers have been under the influence of a drug of some sort (it is thought that Berlioz had an opium trip prior to writing Symphonie Fantastique, Mussorgsky was an alcoholic; alcohol in a technical/medical context is a drug).

• 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.
  

As said by some of us here, intellectual capacity has nothing to do with a person's economic situation. Though wealth and status may bring about more opportunities for intellectual growth, sometimes it's within the low economic classes that some of the greatest minds emerge. Would you think that Franz Joseph Haydn, who was always hungry during his childhood, had a low intellectual capacity just because he came from a poor family?

• 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?
  

If you have studied music carefully, you'll know that much of classical music valued improvisation. Allow me to provide examples:

> Baroque music had avenues for improvisation (e.g. Basso Continuo).

> Bach was known during his time as a great improviser

> The Cadenza

> Chopin wrote most of his pieces out of improvisation.

> Indian classical music (and much of music from Asia) is highly improvisational in nature, yet it has complexities and intricacies (e.g. the Raga)

I hope that could enlighten you.

[DrPangloss]

I think it's important to go back to the original question: whether or not jazz is or isn't as complicated as jazz musicians claim it is. We've established that, really who the hell cares how complex it is if you produce good music, and of course "good music" is entirely subjective.

But, as I pointed out earlier, we can't look at the lowest common denominator to decide what an art form is capable of. Someone painting off shapes that don't enhance the viewer's experience of the artwork and calling it cubism cannot be the deciding factor in whether cubism has any merit. An artist who knows how to use geometric shapes to form recognizable figures, but show them in a new light, open for interpretation while also casting a definite perspective on the scene shows the greatest capabilities of cubism.

Jazz has the potential to be complex, therefore it is a complex artform. It is up to the individual musicians and composers to use that complexity where and how they choose. But to say that jazz as a genre isn't complex because there are a lot of jazz musicians who don't utilize its complexities is bull. If everyone could create brilliant, complex compositions, there'd be nothing special about it. We can't all be geniuses. (Even though 'No Child Left Behind' seems to think that the average score on standardized tests should be above average... but we don't need to go into my own personal political issues...)

The point being, if an artform is capable of complexities, it is a complex artform. We need only the potential. The cream will rise to the top.

[SSC]

Jazz has the potential to be complex, therefore it is a complex artform.

... What is this now? That's just...

You know, I read these posts and I'm not sure what you guys are arguing about! Do we like jazz? Yes or no?

If yes: Yay!

If no: Aw.

Problem solved.

Rob already said it, I also said it, and someone else said it and really, why should we keep repeating any of it: Jazz is just a musics some people like to make, and it thrives on "the moment"! It's as different as the people playing it.

ANYTHING can be complex if you just MAKE it complex, considering complexity is relative, you just need to know what is "simple" and do the opposite.

It's makes absolutely no different really, since the music produced is either a matter of "I dig this" or "Nope, I don't dig this."

So, uh... Get to the respective points, if there are any, please. All this beating around the bush is making me dizzy.

PS: And the topic is really annoying. "Merits"? Jeesh. What, Jazz won a medal? It's a nice guy? It'll lend you their car when yours is in the shop?

[JonSlaughter]

lol... yes, we know that but the original poster doesn't!

Music is music and its there to be enjoyed. Enjoy it!! If you don't then listen some more!!

I've spent my entire music life thinking that "complex" music was good music and I missed out on a lot of music because I was closed minded. Even simple stuff can sound very good. It's true that usually simple music is not as pleasing as complex music but it's not always true and simple music is the foundation for complex music.

Simple music is like a diamond in the rough just waiting to be polished. Complex music is already polished and you can't do much more with it to make it better. (although philosophically these are relative terms so theres not much point in arguing about it)

I think the main problem is that the original poster(damn, I guess I should look up his name ;/) doesn't really have a clear idea what he's trying to figure out or what he wants to understand. Surely these 7 pages of comments are not about "Complexity = good, simplicity = bad"? (I have a friend composer that writes very simple pieces and doesn't have a clue about theory but it is some of the most beautiful music I have heard(although I guess it depends on my mood))

[robinjessome]

...Even simple stuff can sound very good. It's true that usually simple music is not as pleasing as complex music but it's not always true and simple music is the foundation for complex music.

Simple music is like a diamond in the rough just waiting to be polished. Complex music is already polished and you can't do much more with it to make it better.

[ARGH! I've gone through about 3 responses here... This is REALLY hard scraggy to talk about, eh!]

I feel simplicity is a virture - one to which most complex music should aspire. If something sounds complicated and forced, than the effect is lost. All you get is a brief "oooh...that sounded hard!". If an advanced concept sounds organic and flows well, it shouldn't even be noticed as something difficult of complex.

Sure, with scrutiny and analysis it's fun to figure out Vijay Iyer time signatures...but when listening to it, I don't want to notice them switching from 9 to 15 to 7 back to 9.

Also, I only want to hear complex scraggy if the PERFORMER is honest about it. Otherwise, again, it sounds like forced and pretentious scraggy: complex for the sake of being complex. Too often younger players fall into that trap: "oooh, I gotta play something hip here! Alright, a D7(b9) chord, I'll play that wild diminished lick I've been working on for 4 months!" It's bullshit.

Personally, I'd MUCH rather hear a beautifully played ballad than anything overtly complicated. I'd also rather hear a nice, simple arrangement than a poorly structured, but intensely complicated composition. MOST players, excluding the upper echelon of pros, simply can't make extremely advanced concepts sound natural - that's why we work on it so hard, to get to the point where ANY concept flows naturally. Some guys can wrap their heads around things quickly, others don't.

Anyway, this is getting a bit convoluted, and I really hate spewing off too much about this scraggy...and, you're right when you say "philosophically these are relative terms so theres not much point in arguing about it".

PLUS, I found more of your comments to poke at ;)

Do you know what tritone substituions are? Your augmented 6ths? German, French, Italian(and even the so called "Swedish")? How bout diminished chords and how they are used? What about the 3rd mode of the harmonic minor? Lydian dominant? Locrian mode? Non-dominant substitutions? Tensions? Pan-tonality? Modulations? Whole-tone scale?

THIS is the approach that I'm talking about!! This is precisely what Don (the original poster) can't get past. He thinks that all jazz is, is an endless barrage of self-professed 'advanced' concepts (which, as you noted are certainly not jazz exclusive). Students of jazz must assimilate and internalize all the techniques and tools available. Technical proficiency on the instrument, and intimate knowledge of harmony, rhythm, form...and more advanced things like feel. We spend A LOT of time trying to get to the point where we don't have to think about this stuff anymore; so it sounds natural. It's an ongoing, life-long process.

No listener needs to pay ANY attention to tri-tone subs, or what mode is used, or ANY of that bullshit...only: does it sound pure and honest? Does it feel good?

I guess it boils down to jazz being like a generalist and most other genre's being specialists.

I have no idea what this means. If you mean that jazz players need to understand most all other genres, then sure ... I just don't like the word 'generalist'. :whistling:

...

ANYWAY.... ;)

[EldKatt]

If you mean that jazz players need to understand most all other genres, then sure ...

Honestly, who doesn't?

[robinjessome]

Honestly, who doesn't?

Too true, especially now-a-days!

[Tokkemon]

I feel simplicity is a virture - one to which most complex music should aspire.

YES! Mahler's probably the best example of this. He was able to make the most complicated orchestraions with massive forces sound very simple and naturally so. Perhaps this Dan guy should listen to some Mahler before he branches into another Genre because he is clearly most comfortable in "Classical" music.

[Dev]

Q: Do jazz musicians pretend that their genre is more complex than it really is to make themselves seem smarter?

A: Some do. Some don't. Elitists and I guess "posers" exist regardless of genre or style.

There, thread over. And as for whether or not jazz is "good" or whether the genre is worth study or anything - purely opinion and completely not worth arguing.

[Tokkemon]

Here's a great quote by Sousa, of all people: "Jazz will endure just as long people hear it through their feet instead of their brains."

'Nuff said.

[SSC]

Sousa should be shot-- oh wait. I guess you can still blow his remains up with a grenade if you really wanted to...

[Dev]

I like how a guy known for his MARCHES was criticizing something for being "heard through the feet"

Besides, why can't music you dance to be good?

[SSC]

ANYTHING he says should be taken to be negative by default! Anyways, enough of that. ;P

[Tokkemon]

Sousa wasn't being negative. He was showing that Jazz is not about the analysis of the music but rather the feeling of the music. And truly, his claim has proven true.

[Shawaddywaddy]

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.

End of thread.

[Ferkungamabooboo]

It all depends on the term complexity. This conversation could be going on for any set of musics.

If you're looking for rhythmic complexity, the first place to start is free jazz (crap this is going to be hard with a broken z key). In free jazz, where i'm also lumping European free Improv - is a wealth of musicians who are focused on weird, obscure, and complex. Their influences range to the exotic, where rhythms such as septuplets are a main part of the repertoire. Ornette Coleman is a great place to start - an analysis of Lonely Woman gives three tempi for the head: drums, bass, and melody.

If you're looking for harmonic complexity, take a jab at third stream, such as Stan Kenton's City of Glass, or Giant Steps. Course that's taking complexity as "odd" versus something that may better describe Baroque music. More "classical" jazz composers have already been mentioned.

Melodic complexity can be shown with any good solo transcription. Course, it has to be a good one.

But here's the thing - I can show examples of rock that are beyond Bach's wildest nightmares of rhythmic complexity. I can show jingles that are more exotic than Chopin. Without a definition of complexity, there's nothing anyone can say to sway you.

But yeah, there are some mad pretentious jazz musicians. I'll call out the Marsalis family. (course, even they do crazy stuff...)

[robinjessome]

If you're looking for rhythmic complexity, the first place to start is free jazz (crap this is going to be hard with a broken z key). In free jazz, where i'm also lumping European free Improv - is a wealth of musicians who are focused on weird, obscure, and complex. Their influences range to the exotic, where rhythms such as septuplets are a main part of the repertoire. Ornette Coleman is a great place to start - an analysis of Lonely Woman gives three tempi for the head: drums, bass, and melody.

I don't want to get on too much of a tangent, but I don't think free jazz is a place to look for rhythmic complexity.

Rhythmic freedom, sure...but you'd be hard-pressed to say that Ornette was Consciously feeling three tempos in Lonely Woman...or that Evan Parker intentionally uses septuplets in free situations. You're forcing traditional notational techniques on non-traditional performances...they're not compatible. Transcriptions of free improvisors may approximate, but certainly do nothing to capture the actual spirit and intent of the musicians...

I think a better place to look for rhythmic "complexity" is in Steve Coleman (and others associated with his M-BASE concepts), Vijay Iyer (incorporates indian rhythmic/metric theories) and other modern-jazz conspirators. David Binney, Dave Holland, et al.

Anyway...

:whistling:

[TheMeaningofLIfe]

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

I don't like most "jazz"(how can we begin to define a genre of music" but I love Pat Metheny(oh jesus I hoped I spelled that right! :D) I also love Bill Evan's chord proggressions but besides that and a few other spotty characters nope.

If I may suggest a place to start start with Pat he sounds very modern and his ensembles tone color is gorgeous. I find him to sound quite a bit like Steve Reich in wierd ways.....

My main beefs!

7 chords (I now avoid them in most of my music). 1 3 b7 shell voicings make me puke....

The replacement of the development section of a song with a solo.

[w.shipley]

I strongly dislike jazz, but I have yet to meet a jazz musician (I'm a saxophone player, with many friends in the saxophone studio at school) that claims jazz is more complex than it actually is. Sorry, but I politely disagree with your claim.

[Ferkungamabooboo]

Rhythmic freedom, sure...but you'd be hard-pressed to say that Ornette was Consciously feeling three tempos in Lonely Woman...or that Evan Parker intentionally uses septuplets in free situations. You're forcing traditional notational techniques on non-traditional performances...they're not compatible. Transcriptions of free improvisors may approximate, but certainly do nothing to capture the actual spirit and intent of the musicians...

I like tangents :)

See, I disagree here. I think Harmelodics is a really deeply thought-out system. How in the world could Ornette still be playing the same way after 40 years? Not only that, but his followers, like James Blood Ulmer, have extraordinarily similar styles. Song X sounds like Ornette, regardless of Pat Metheny's major involvement.

And - aw crap that's Evan Parker, not Derek Bailey. Well, I can't go on a rant about someone I've heard pretty little of, but I find the British Free Improv scene to be a lot of talk concerning freedom from style, and not nearly enough innovation. Again, leading to a highly developed style.

And that's as good to me as composition, especially in a genre that regards improv so highly.

But yeah, Those guys ARE better examples. :nod: