A thread to politely discuss the merits of jazz

Originally Posted by DrPangloss

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?

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))

Originally Posted by JonSlaughter

...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 shit 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 shit if the PERFORMER is honest about it. Otherwise, again, it sounds like forced and pretentious shit: 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 shit...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

Originally Posted by JonSlaughter

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?

Originally Posted by JonSlaughter

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'.

...

ANYWAY....

Originally Posted by robinjessome

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

Honestly, who doesn't?

Originally Posted by EldKatt

Honestly, who doesn't?

Too true, especially now-a-days!

Originally Posted by robinjessome

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.

I think it is funny Justin quoted RJ, and then used Mahler as an example of what he said.

RJ plus Mahler... heh... that's funny.

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.

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.

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