A thread to politely discuss the merits of jazz

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?

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

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.

Originally Posted by JonSlaughter

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.

End of thread.

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...)

Originally Posted by Ferkungamabooboo

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...

Originally Posted by Dan Gilbert

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! ) 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.

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.

Originally Posted by robinjessome

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.

Originally Posted by Ferkungamabooboo

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.

I agree - Ornette's approach (and his harmoloical followers) is certainly an advanced system, but I don't feel it focuses on advanced concepts with rhythm or melody or harmony; but instead is a devious system to combine and intertwine all of them...

It neat, eh!

Originally Posted by Ferkungamabooboo

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.

I think my sweeping generalization applies to any heavy improvisors...they (I'm also assuming we) aren't approaching anything from a theoretical or academic perspective; nor from any solidified musical standpoint. Interaction/reaction blah blah blah in the moment blah blah spontaneous blah blah...I dunno.

I can kindof see where you're coming at with the Brit-improv angle...but I think the same can be said of ANY creative music scene, Brit/Euro/Downtown...once they let it congeal into a 'STYLE' then the heavies move on, and the rest stay mired in their own self-imposed methods.

That said, I think Evan Parker was one Brit who certainly does push and innovate - dig his Electro-Acoustic ensemble records, they're fabulous! Also, cats like Kenny Wheeler/John Surman/Paul Rutherford certainly did their share of innovating somewhere along the line ...

but ANYWAY!!