A thread to politely discuss the merits of jazz

Disclaimer: I am not a jazz musician.

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

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

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

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

Because it isn't trolling.

And because Robinjessome told Dan to make this thread.

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

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

Dan-

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

Originally Posted by Maelstrom

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

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

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

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

YouTube Video

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

(Original Source)

YouTube Video

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

(Original Source)

YouTube Video

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

(Original Source)

now tell me that jazz isn't complicated.

Edit:

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

YouTube Video

Adrian Mears

(Original Source)

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.

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

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

Just my two cents.

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

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

Originally Posted by Dan Gilbert

..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...

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...

One thing you have to understand about jazz is that there are a lot, and I mean a lot, of sorry ass 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 ass 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.