I am a jazz musician. Not that I gig professionally or get paid, but I spend hours daily just playing music. I love jazz with my whole heart and feel it is one of the best forms of artistic expression, which is why misrepresentation of jazz pains me so much. To all of you on here, what is jazz to you?
1 Like
I typically hear it rather than see it.
Jokes aside, I donât listen to much traditional jazz (though I donât dislike it when itâs on, usually). Iâm drawn to jazz-influenced hip hop beats, like the album Cosmogramma by Flying Lotus
1 Like
Always nice to hear about othersâ music taste, but Iâm looking for more opinionated stuff.
What would you classify as âtraditional jazzâ?
Isnât musical taste opinionated?
Traditional jazz I guess is stuff like this:
Music taste is opinionated but instead of making connections to different topics, I want to hear your opinion on jazz itself, even if itâs 'âI donât really listen to itâ.
Iâm curious about what you said in your op, about misrepresentations of jazz paining you. What exactly are you talking about here? Can you give an example of a misrepresentation that would pain you?
Musical circle-wanking that doesnât sound very displeasant
Tonally simplistic yet structurally complex uncatchy audio.
Like a selection of books that are about how to write books.
Like a building with a lot of very weirdly shaped rooms, mostly impossible to be used in normal ways, but a coherent construction (and even worthy of applause) for architects alone⌠the decorations of each room are very gauche - so, like musical backrooms.
Tho, there is jazz that is very easy to listen to, and that strips what is most particular about it (the weirdness), and focuses on the corny.
Pain may be a slight overstatement, but many people just have a skewed understanding of jazz. Many people associate jazz with just âsounding badâ by taking Thelonious Monkâs âThere are no wrong notes in Jazzâ out of context; Thelonious Monk mainly was just talking about using tension and release in music, not consistently sounding bad. Many people donât understand the variety of jazz either; Jazz essentially has no common features across all sub-genres, but people often create a schema, often smooth jazz or neo-bop, and generalize that to jazz as a whole.
iâm probably a little bit guilty of that myself. Iâm definitely unaware of the myriad forms jazz takes. I have two things i think of with jazz: stereotypical jazzy basslines (which you can find in a lot of non-traditional jazz influenced stuff like that Flying Lotus album I mentioned earlier") and jazzy saxophone. When I was looking it up earlier, I found that jazz includes a whole bunch of soft piano stuff I wouldnât have necessarily labeled âjazzâ before.
1 Like
From a chair at a cocktail table in Vegas? I dunno, whatâs the answer.
I feel like a lot of this again comes from misunderstanding. I do see where youâre coming from with the âcircle-wankâ stuff, but thatâs almost always situational; If Iâm playing with a bunch of other cats, I might do some out-there stuff, but performing for a crowd is an entirely different story. I only play for jazz musicians when playing for jazz musicians.
I would say simplistic and uncatchy are both untrue. Listen to something like âGiant Stepsâ or Jesus Molinaâs âNight in Tunisiaâ, youâll definitely see the complexity.
Contrarily, listen to âStompin at the Savoyâ, a standard version of âCherokeeâ, or âThere Will Never be Another Youâ, and youâll likely notice the catchy-ness .
If you have Spotify, would you do something really cool? Please make a playlist of jazz that you think represents a good variety of the forms jazz can take. Start the playlist with the most stereotypical jazz and then add stuff that goes further and further from that stereotype. I want to get a taste of what you think jazz is, how jazz sounds to you.
1 Like
I can definitely provide; Iâll probably be able to get it done today or tomorrow.
1 Like
Giant Steps is very uncatchy. Compare it to âIâm blueâ by Eiffel 65 for something catchy, or âHey Bo Diddleyâ.
The fact that you glossed over that it is âtonallyâ simplistic tells more about it that anything else. It seems the complexity of tone -how instruments sound apart from the choice of notes and figures- escapes you. Jazz has very very simplistic tone, even when delving into electronica. To quote Lars Ulrich, it sounds âstockâ. Like forever using the setting âPiano 1â in a keyboard. It lacks tonal depth and complexity. Compare what you referred to with some growly rock like, say Rama Lama Fa Fa Fa by MC5, or even Bangarang by Skrillex.
Maybe it just happens that tonal complexity is something difficult for you to appreciate.
Anyway, you asked how people VIEW jazz, not how jazz is. Two very different things. I didnât write up on the snobbery aspect even
P.S.: I got your examples reversed, but then you see that the âcatchyâ jazz things are gauche. Do you think giant steps is tonally interesting? The other song certainly isnât.
You need to listen to Jaco do Giant Steps.
To say that jazz is tonally simplistic is more baseless than claiming itâs tonally simplistic. Listen to âSuch Sweet Thunderâ, listen to the way the muted brass sounds, the sharp sounds of the straight mutes buzzing, and listen to the direct sound of the saxes. Then listen to âStardustâ, notice the saxesâ sound, the subtone, notice how sweet the flugel sounds, and how that contrasts to the sharp, muted trumpets from before. Then listen to the US Air Forceâs âTake the A Trainâ, their âCherokeeâ, their âBlack Nileâ, ect. The brass usually remain unmuted, the brass sing, without harshness, just power with direction, the saxes have no subtones and play with full sounds. These all have distinct, charactaristic sounds that differ on a fundamental level.
Something is more than the same thing?
Brass has quite a very simple tone structure and evolution. Muting the brass only selectively removes the top of overtones, not much more than that. The run of the mill metal band nearest to you whose only audience is their family has more tonal complexity than anything you named so far. So, keep in mind that maybe you canât understand what you think is âharshâ tones (itâs just complex), and if you choose to remove that complexity, that is lacking.
What you think is âharshâ has structure inside - itâs not just noise. Those are things you can understand. Yeah, different instruments have differences, but that differences are not much to begin with. Given that recorded music is the norm since about 100 years, and we can since then capture and modify the sound (and not just what can be written down), not focusing on that makes mostly no sense.
ANYWAY, keep in mind that you asked how people VIEW jazz. Your examples are already taken into account
My view of it is that it was the only modern equivalent to classical music in terms of complexity and fullness, but it died about 50 years ago.
But itâs there for ever.
If you are a jazz musician, first of all, I congratulate you on your taste. Secondly, though, you will need to find the entry point for life to it, so it isnât a garage band hobby (and sounds like it) or old copies. Davis and Coltrane both did this, but died.
Monk didnât have to, he was just perennially fresh, but also died.
Listen to Acension 100 times and donât come out of the studio until youâve recorded something that hurts.