A thread to politely discuss the merits of jazz

Originally Posted by Voce

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.

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!!



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??

Your thread title is completely irrelevant to the actual discussion.

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.

Originally Posted by Dan Gilbert

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:

YouTube - Chick Corea & Hiromi Uehara - Spain

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.

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.

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

There not even worth comparing

Originally Posted by 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.

ok

Nik: I think Dan was talking to me!

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