What about Jazz?

[retrouvailles]

I don't like jazz either, and I REALLY don't like Kapustin or Gershwin.

It's because you don't like jazz. There are definitely elements of jazz in both composers, so it's understandable. That and you're a ridiculously picky bastard.

[pita bread]

=)

Jazz is ok as long as its in the form of jazz elements synthesized by Ravel

[retrouvailles]

=)

Jazz is ok as long as its in the form of jazz elements synthesized by Ravel

And of course Debussy. He invented jazz, you know.

[pita bread]

Actually, early jazz drew some of its influences from Debussy and Ravel.

[jazz-piano]

I love jazz, above all because it is based on improvisation.
I can compose my music in real time.
I love musicians such as Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Wayne Shorter, Bill Evans,
Keith Jarrett and many others.
I live just for music improvisation! 

(However improvisation is not only jazzy but also classical or rock or pop)

[andyd]

https://www.somethingawful.com/d/your-band-sucks/your-genre-sucks-3.php

Note especially the section on Classical

[thierry13]

Well, to be frank, i never heard anything by either Rachmaninoff or Horowitz that was as virtuoso as Tatum at his most frantic, therefore i'm inclined to believe their comments regarding the latter were serious.

Is it so hard to believe Jazz could have produced a greater virtuoso at that point in time?

Art Tatum implented more notes yeah that's true, but it's because neither Rachmaninoff nor Horowitz aimed for mindless virtuosity. There were passages in Rachmaninoff who were as(or more) virtuosic than tatum, simply he didn't base his music on this.

[frigo]

I don't like jazz either, and I REALLY don't like Kapustin or Gershwin.

Sorry, I can't believe you don't like Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue"... it is simply amazing! And his "An American in Paris" is terrific either.... It's not a question of Jazz or Classical, it's a question of feelings, ideas and art above all. I would never say Bill Evans sucks just because he is a Jazz player...he is marvellous! 

[thierry13]

Sorry, I can't believe you don't like Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue"... it is simply amazing! And his "An American in Paris" is terrific either.... It's not a question of Jazz or Classical, it's a question of feelings, ideas and art above all. I would never say Bill Evans sucks just because he is a Jazz player...he is marvellous! 

Gershwin's rhapsody in blue is far inferior to his second concerto. Both his concertos are inferior to the major (and even the not so famous ones) concerti. Ideas are important, but more important than that is how you develop them ...

[andyd]

t13

If ignorance is bliss, how come you sound so unhappy?

[arensky]

And of course Debussy. He invented jazz, you know.

Surely, this is a joke.... 

Actually, early jazz drew some of its influences from Debussy and Ravel.

This is true, Jelly Roll Morton was familiar with their work, as were the musicians from the 1920's who followed him. And later on Bill Evans was as influenced by Debussy and Ravel as by other jazz musicians.

[thierry13]

https://www.somethingawful.com/d/your-band-sucks/your-genre-sucks-3.php

Note especially the section on Classical

If you believe in that crap, you have nothing to do in this forum and YOU are the ignorant one, I am sad to say. Ignorance of the popularity of jazz would be blissful indeed, that's why I am unhappy.

[andyd]

The article makes the point that sweeping generalisations are ridiculous and cause offence.

You say "Jazz sucks.  All of it". 
So you have heard all jazz and it's all rubbish?  How to justify such words?  The response to them was almost inevitable.
On the internet, language used is everything - we can't see you smile & wink when you write.



Here are links to couple of jazz works which have wide appeal that you may not have heard, and which I sincerely hope you enjoy a little:

The 1940 Art Tatum improvisation of Sweet Lorraine that inspired Andre Previn to study jazz:
https://www.savefile.com/files/1397820
(scroll down the screen to download, you don't have to login)

A work composed and played by the highly respected Bill Evans, Waltz for Debby:

[bacchuspaul]

I like everything that is good, regardless of genre. I like a lot of jazz.

I think the views expressed by thierry13 in this thread are sad. Without wanting to preach, I think that the attitudes (particularly the snobbery) say more about the author than they do about the subject (music).

The issue of virtuosity is an interesting one. I think that virtuosity should be considered with respect to its field. For instance, Hendrix or Stevie Ray Vaughan I think can be considered virtuosos, not because of their technical abilities, but because of the ferocity of their playing. I would consider Ian McEwan a virtuosic writer of prose.

If the above is accepted, then it follows that the virtuosity of say, Rachmaninov or Tatum should  be considered with respect to what their musical priorities are.

When considering virtuosity, it is important to consider where the virtue lies.

edit: some spelling mistakes

[exigence]

Jazz sucks. All of it.

  then don't listen to it.

Myself, I'll take some Red Garland.

[thierry13]

The article makes the point that sweeping generalisations are ridiculous and cause offence.

You say "Jazz sucks.  All of it". 
So you have heard all jazz and it's all rubbish?  How to justify such words?  The response to them was almost inevitable.
On the internet, language used is everything - we can't see you smile & wink when you write.



Here are links to couple of jazz works which have wide appeal that you may not have heard, and which I sincerely hope you enjoy a little:

The improvisation that inspired Andre Previn to study jazz:
https://www.savefile.com/files/1397820
(scroll down the screen to download, you don't have to login)

A work composed and played by the highly respected Bill Evans:

About me saying "Jazz sucks. All of it." : nobody has heard everything of course. I obviously meant I despised all the jazz I heard (wich is a significant amount). Of your two links I only listened to the youtube link of bill evans, and I DID listen to it. I, of course, did NOT enjoy it. At all. There is, to me, absolutely NO interest in such music. It was exactly like all the other jazz I heard... to me, jazz allways sounds the same, anyways. As much as you could say : that sounds Mozart, I could say : that sounds jazz. The difference is that you would expect much more variety in a whole style of music, studied by tons of people, than in a single composer. The truth is that this variety is non-existent. Of course there are LOTS of different jazz, different styles, different genres, different types, different whatever you will want, and I am very aware of that, so do not try to refute that with : "you know nothing to jazz". I heard tons of it and will not close my ears to jazz, as just the other day I met an old friend in a bus and he got out his electric guitar on the trip and played tons of jazz (he's studying it), and I listened to everything he had to play with interest. <- Again there I see you coming : you can't judge jazz with one single friend of yours who THINKS he knows it but if you didn't like it he OBVIOUSLY didn't. No, no, I would not even answer to that. I heard much, much more (too much) jazz and that was one little example. Bacchuspaul's points about virtuosity are interesting and I would tend to agree with him, but the beginning of this post (more precisely the part on snobbery) tells much more about HIS snobbery than mine (inexistant), and his hipocrisy, also.

[Petter]

Are you sure he was your friend?

[mknueven]

I once had a recording that said "Ten million fans can't be wrong"
That was said of Elvis Presley -for rock.

I think the same can be said of Gershwin for jazz.
For whatever you may not like him- the public voted for him
in concert tickets and CDs.

[mknueven]

Of course - some of the best pianists I've heard claim they can only play "a little!
  Re: What about Jazz?
« Reply #40 on: February 19, 2008, 12:04:10 PM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: webern78 on February 19, 2008, 03:43:29 AM
"I was never a Jazz musician"

- Nikolai Kapustin.

 


"I am not a pianist."

- Kaikhosru Sorabji

Sometimes statements such like this simply don't do justice to the abilities of the individual making them. I often 

[webern78]

Art Tatum implented more notes yeah that's true, but it's because neither Rachmaninoff nor Horowitz aimed for mindless virtuosity.

Notwithstanding the fact there's nothing "mindless" about Tatum (even his runs acquire structural relevance in his late style), the context was the opinion held by those classical artists about the former's virtuosity.

[indutrial]

You put your own mindless quote into your signature?!? You really must be trying to become a full-out troll. You are contributing nothing to this thread whatsoever because it's painfully obvious that you don't know anything about jazz accept for the shallow fact that you don't like it. Now stop derailing the discussion into these insipid tangents about the tragedy of your pathetic college years. I absolutely do not care and I seriously doubt anyone else does.

Back to the topic...

Jazz to me has mutated into a larger world of simply improvised music, especially when you take into consideration the important contributions that have been made by European and other non-American musicians in recent years. The jazz scene, which used to be heavily steeped in the blues, now encompasses all sorts of ethnic folk musics and elements from the classical scene. One of my favorite musicians, cellist Erik Friedlander, has explored an incredible range of musical territory ranging from reinterpreting Eric Dolphy's jazz music to composing chamber music for small string-woodwind groups (see his album "The Watchman") with no traditional jazz rhythm players to performing solo free improv pieces that don't sound anything like "Autumn Leaves."

To be sure, the jazz scene has a lot of dead leaves floating on the surface, but like classical (which might even boast more dead leaves), anyone who really explores the finer points of the genre will find plenty of excellent stuff to listen to.

[frigo]

[There is, to me, absolutely NO interest in such music. It was exactly like all the other jazz I heard... to me, jazz allways sounds the same, anyways.

There is a long distance between saying "i don't like jazz" - it's a matter of taste, we can't discuss it - and "there's no interest in jazz". Jazz music, even simply from the historical point of view, has a lot of interest, and we can't ignore it. If you don't like jazz music, that's fine to me, i rather prefer to have more space seeing a jazz concert (without you there to occupie it) than try to convince to like jazz, but, please, don't be more stupid saying "there's no interest in jazz", that demonstrates ignorance - even if you have heard "a lot" of jazz.

[richard black]

I think our friend Thierry is missing the point of what music is about. Speaking purely for myself, I can't abide Andrew Lloyd Webber's music: it puts my teeth on edge and bores me half to death, but it has moved millions of people and thereby served a greater purpose  than a lot of late-20th-century 'classical' music which has probably never moved anyone, intellectually interesting though it may be. (Lots of other late-C20 classical, of course, is deeply moving.) Jazz has proved moving for millions, over decades, and therefore any statement along the lines of 'Jazz is bad music' is simply absurd - and arguably both pretentious and arrogant.

[webern78]

but it has moved millions of people and thereby served a greater purpose  than a lot of late-20th-century 'classical' music which has probably never moved anyone, intellectually interesting though it may be.

I had no idea that the purpose of art was the raw entertainment of the masses.

[thalbergmad]

Indeed, it should be for a select few.

Thal

[webern78]

Indeed, it should be for a select few.

Thal

No, it should merely stand for an ideal, that of human achievement, whether it speaks to the few or the many. If pleasing people by the numbers was the only worthy ideal why even bother perpetuating a tradition that has meaning for less then 1% of the population?

[thalbergmad]

Interesting stat.

I think that is complete crap.

Thal

[webern78]

I think that is complete crap.

Of course you do. Anti-elitism is the norm this days, and everything must revolve around the *people* or have no other possible value. Excellence and artistic truth have become secondary to making the masses feel good about themselves.

[thalbergmad]

Aghh, the poor old "masses", what do they know?

Nothing i guess. Excellence should be decided by a select few.

Perhaps people with beards and college grads only.

Thal

[webern78]

Nothing i guess. Excellence should be decided by a select few.

Perhaps people with beards and college grads only.

Ha yes, because "excellence" is something that is decided upon rather then being a fundamental truth. Next you are going to tell me the reputation of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven is the result of propaganda perpetuated by bearded college grads. 

[richard black]

I had no idea that the purpose of art was the raw entertainment of the masses.

I could see this kind of infantile post coming.... 

[andyd]

The purpose of art is communication.

The discussion now seems to be whether or not all people are created equal  .


Frigo, I didn't answer your question.  I love many types of jazz and music, but being a pianist my favourites are Tatum, Peterson, Evans and Jarrett.  If you want jazz discussion, the best site I know of is 'Learn Jazz Piano' forum.  

[thalbergmad]

Ha yes, because "excellence" is something that is decided upon rather then being a fundamental truth.

Ha no, because "excellence" is something that is clearly evident and does not require a mandate from the masses or elitist beard growing grads.

Thal

[mephisto]

I don't think the quality of any art has to do with how many people actually like the music. Some really great music is enjoyed by the masses, and some really great music is only appreciated by few. If only the masses could chose what is great and what is not, than everybody in this forum have extremely bad taste.

I am also sick and tired of this "anti-elitism". I don't belive something is good just because few people like it, BUT something doesn't have to be bad just because few people like it either. AND those few people who like it doesn't neccesarely just "pretend" that they like it.

Some examples:

I like The Beatles: The Beatles is loved by people all over the world.
I like Oscar Peterson: He is loved by a lot of people, although not as many as the Beatles.
I like Beethoven: Liked by most listeners of classical music, meaning quite many.
I like Xenakis' Evryali: Need I say more.......

All of these composers/artists are loved by different amounts of people. The Beatles by a hell of a lot, while Xenakis' fans you could count on the fingers of your right hand (assuming you have one; I am kidding of course...).

Is The Beatles automaticly better than Xenakis because more people like him them? Or is Xenakis automaticly better because fewer people like his music? IMO those questions are irrelevant, and the number of people who appreciate a certain type of music doesn't have anything to do with the greatness of the music.

Btw, I have to be honest and say that most often I like music that few people like (since this is a classical music forum, I would guess this is true for most people here), but it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that few people like it (I like a lot of pop-music /videos too )

[thalbergmad]

Is The Beatles automaticly better than Xenakis because more people like him them? Or is Xenakis automaticly better because fewer people like his music? IMO those questions are irrelevant, and the number of people who appreciate a certain type of music doesn't have anything to do with the greatness of the music.
 

Balance has returned to this thread.

Thal

[thierry13]

I don't think the quality of any art has to do with how many people actually like the music. Some really great music is enjoyed by the masses, and some really great music is only appreciated by few. If only the masses could chose what is great and what is not, than everybody in this forum have extremely bad taste.

I am also sick and tired of this "anti-elitism". I don't belive something is good just because few people like it, BUT something doesn't have to be bad just because few people like it either. AND those few people who like it doesn't neccesarely just "pretend" that they like it.

Some examples:

I like The Beatles: The Beatles is loved by people all over the world.
I like Oscar Peterson: He is loved by a lot of people, although not as many as the Beatles.
I like Beethoven: Liked by most listeners of classical music, meaning quite many.
I like Xenakis' Evryali: Need I say more.......

All of these composers/artists are loved by different amounts of people. The Beatles by a hell of a lot, while Xenakis' fans you could count on the fingers of your right hand (assuming you have one; I am kidding of course...).

Is The Beatles automaticly better than Xenakis because more people like him them? Or is Xenakis automaticly better because fewer people like his music? IMO those questions are irrelevant, and the number of people who appreciate a certain type of music doesn't have anything to do with the greatness of the music.

Btw, I have to be honest and say that most often I like music that few people like (since this is a classical music forum, I would guess this is true for most people here), but it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that few people like it (I like a lot of pop-music /videos too )

I have to agree with this. And would like to add that I think the greatness of the music can only be judged by the amount of people *able to study deeply and consequently understanding the music* who actually like it. Of course some people have personnal preferences or things they don't like, but they can still admit the greatness of those things if they can actually understand it.

To Frigo, read the quote YOU yourself placed in your post, and you will see that I placed "to me" just before there is no interest to jazz. Wich means it is my point of view, and that your whole post(s) is rubbish.

[webern78]

Ha no, because "excellence" is something that is clearly evident and does not require a mandate from the masses or elitist beard growing grads.

It's irrelevant whether it's "evident" or not, it just is.

[webern78]

I don't think the quality of any art has to do with how many people actually like the music.

So you mean some people are unable to understand quality? How elitist of you to acknowledge the existance of the objective assessment of art, don't you know that individual perception is all that matters? Your anti-relativist views have earned you the scorn of the post-modernist brigade. Repent or suffer the consequences.

[richard black]

I am also sick and tired of this "anti-elitism".

I don't think anyone involved in this thread has been advocating anti-elitism in the sense it's usually used. I've no problem with being elitist now and then, I've done very well out of it and have every reason to be grateful to an 'elitist' (as many would describe it) education system, for a start.

I am, however (and I have good reason to suppose that many habitués of this forum agree with me here) against two other understandings of elitism:

1. Your art is the art of the few and is in some measure intellectual, therefore it is only for the elite and is inferior:

2. My art is the art of the few and is intrinsically intellectual and is therefore only for the superior elite.

I think both those views are, frankly, dumb.

[frigo]

To Frigo, read the quote YOU yourself placed in your post, and you will see that I placed "to me" just before there is no interest to jazz. Wich means it is my point of view, and that your whole post(s) is rubbish.

Yes, that's what I was talking about - your comprehension of music is very limited by your taste, since YOU can't see any interest in a music genre that as proved its historical importance. For example, I may tell you I don't like today's pop music...but I have to admit it's interesting since great part of the world's population nowadays is influenced by pop music and, therefore, it changes the curse of our history every second. I don't hear it, of course, but I admit it's interest (in a scientific point of view, to say so...)
What's rubbish now?

[thierry13]

Yes, that's what I was talking about - your comprehension of music is very limited by your taste, since YOU can't see any interest in a music genre that as proved its historical importance. For example, I may tell you I don't like today's pop music...but I have to admit it's interesting since great part of the world's population nowadays is influenced by pop music and, therefore, it changes the curse of our history every second. I don't hear it, of course, but I admit it's interest (in a scientific point of view, to say so...)
What's rubbish now?

Actual music is not about history. I never denied the importance of jazz historically. I just said the actual music I didn't like. Your post wasn't even an argument against what I said, it was only a further proof of your lack of understanding of the situation. As to what you think of pop, no comment ... dude wake up, pop is appreciated only (or mostly) by people who know NOTHING about music. Now this is a huge generalisation of pop, because of course there was valuable things in it, and/or some few select pieces/songs that was interesting. You are talking about historical interest, not actual musical one, and therefore you win for staying rubbish.

[webern78]

I just said the actual music I didn't like.

Actually, you went a bit farther than that.

[thierry13]

Actually, you went a bit farther than that.

I meant in the quote on wich we argued 

[frigo]

Actual music is not about history. I never denied the importance of jazz historically. I just said the actual music I didn't like. Your post wasn't even an argument against what I said, it was only a further proof of your lack of understanding of the situation. As to what you think of pop, no comment ... dude wake up, pop is appreciated only (or mostly) by people who know NOTHING about music. Now this is a huge generalisation of pop, because of course there was valuable things in it, and/or some few select pieces/songs that was interesting. You are talking about historical interest, not actual musical one, and therefore you win for staying rubbish.

Well, you might be right about that. I think I'm not seeing the question as it is, I admit...
Nevertheless, I continue to like Jazz music, and you continue to dislike it, of course, but you have to admit that jazz has a lot of interest, no matter you like it or not.

[frigo]

https://www.somethingawful.com/d/your-band-sucks/your-genre-sucks-3.php

Note especially the section on Classical

Well, that's truly rubbish... 

[thierry13]

Well, you might be right about that. I think I'm not seeing the question as it is, I admit...
Nevertheless, I continue to like Jazz music, and you continue to dislike it, of course, but you have to admit that jazz has a lot of interest, no matter you like it or not.

The interest you are talking about is a historical one, and I give that to you 100% ... the problem is that we were talking about the actual music and it is the music I find uninteresting musically.

[thalbergmad]

It's irrelevant whether it's "evident" or not, it just is.

And therefore does not require human verification.

[webern78]

And therefore does not require human verification.

Only to maintain it's existence, rather then determine it's nature.

[counterpoint]

Evidence

I really like it! 

[thalbergmad]

Only to maintain it's existence, rather then determine it's nature.

Not required. It will live forever even if their is nobody to appreciate it.