>"Jazz serves a cultural function in the music scene. It is a signifier for musical 'adulthood'. To embrace jazz is to don a kind of graduation cap, signifying a broadening of tastes outside 'mere' rock music. This ostentatious display of 'sophistication' is an insult, and I find the graduation cappers transparent and tedious. Certainly there must be interesting music one could call 'jazz'. There must be. I've never heard it, but I grant that it is out there somewhere. Jazz has a non-musical parallel: Christiania, the 'free' zone in Copenhagen. In Christiania, like in jazz, there is no law. People are left to their own inventions to create and act as they see fit. In Jazz, the musicians are allowed to improvise over and beside structural elements that may themselves be extemporaneous. Sounds good, doesn't it? Freedom — sounds good. The reality is much bleaker. Christiania is a squalid, trashy string of alleys with rag-and-bone men selling drugs, tie-dye and wretched food. Granted Total Freedom, and this is what they've chosen to do with it, sell hash and lentil soup? Jazz is similar. The results are so far beneath the conception that there is no English word for the disappointment one feels when forced to confront it. Granted Total Freedom, you've chosen to play II V I and blow a goddamn trill on the saxophone? Only by willfully ignoring its failings can one pretend to appreciate it as an idiom and don the cap."
B A S E D
Jazz is a lamentable example of people zooming in on details to the point of losing the bigger picture. Under a microscope, even literal shit is entertaining. There is no way to convince a person that a correlation is not a causation. Every sequence of notes farted out by a jazz musician becomes a consciously crafted, improvised micro-composition if the listener *wants* to believe that there is a conscious composition in it.
Hahah. such a dumbass. This is why I hate Rockists. They think rock is somehow the default style and everything else just exists to be contrary to rock. It never dawns on them that there are plenty of people who don't give a shit about rock
This is a strange tendency for those who view themselves as 'good writers' to almost trick themselves into having apparently willfully stupid opinions. It sounds like someone teased him for not getting jazz and he formed this view after the fact.
In other words, jazz does not 'sound all the same' the way 'F fggfff ggf fgfgggffgg!' and 'Fgffgffgg fgfg, ffgggfg!' are two different poems. True -- and on any level that's not blinded to the broader context, irrelevant.
>inb4 you need to listen to more jazz to understand
That's like developing a floor tile fetish, literally autistic. Sure there are minute differences between a 'GOAT jazz pianist' doing his tinkling on one record and the other, which can be 'discussed' in terms of how they 'fit' the purported mood and structure of the piece in question better. But it's a waste of time, a musical dead end, musical schizophrenia whereby one just chooses to dwell on and 'understand' the nature of a piece in which there's nothing to understand in the first place, hardly a conscious decision even involved. It is really no wonder that it is niggers' music, with their low IQ.
(Because every time a scam is called art, it devalues the term 'art' that should refer to things that take skill, leaving skilled creators of those things unjustly underappreciated.)
>paying for music
>caring whether something is art or not
>>caring whether something is art or not
I do care when jazz crap is put on, or, more often, above the level of
>all the butthurt people offending him personally
If you disagree, how about you you actually criticize what he is saying
But then again, I don't expect any worthwhile discussion from you guys
you write EXACTLY like him, down to the double dashes
minor 4chan esp. /lit/ meme whose writings primarily focus on video games and philosophy, but also on music, film, pick-up artistry, and more
He doesn't say "this is my opinion". He makes a claim that people who like jazz above, or even just in addition to rock music are merely pretending to seem more sophisticated. This is stupid on it face for the simple reason that Jazz music has existed longer than rock music. One can easily imagine that people criticized early Jazz fans in the opposite way, say they are merely pretending to like this 'music' as a desperate clinging to youth or it's transgressive associations with black culture and drug culture.
Even if that were not the case, you can still imagine that there are many people who like Jazz that haven't even heard much rock music, or are small children, so the idea of them having some kind of reactionary Jazz taste, is a little absurd.
To be fair he does qualify his whole paragraph, with "In the music scene", whatever that means. But it is quite clear that he simply can't get his head around the idea that people can have different tastes and one can't prove by algebra who is right and who is a poser.
>Granted Total Freedom, you've chosen to play II V I and blow a goddamn trill on the saxophone?
>Within the relative freedom that rock offers you've chosen to play a 4/4 drum beat and I-IV-V?
Literally every definition of jazz relies on arbitrary pleading. 'It is a supreme form of music because it's spontaneous/soulful/feelful/intimate/changing/direct/adapting/undescribable/undefinable/"polyphonic"/...'. Asked 'why does that make the music supreme', the definition says 'Because.'. When I listen to jazz records being touted as the masterpieces of the genre, I hear a couple of instruments playing along that avoid being dissonant just enough to make claims of the piece being a masterpiece unfalsifiable. When I watch people who listen to it, I see white people whipped by the society into declaring appreciation and conceding complexity of a genre of 'unprivileged' artists.
>The definition of Jazz is "a supreme form of music because it's spontaneous/soulful/feelful/intimate/changing/direct/adapting/undescribable/undefinable/"polyphonic"/"
American music developed especially from ragtime and blues and characterized by propulsive syncopated rhythms, polyphonic ensemble playing, varying degrees of improvisation, and often deliberate distortions of pitch and timbre.
it's probably because the bar is so low. i mean jazz is obviously superior to metal/rock (all sounds the same), hip hop (just 8 sec loops of jazz tunes) and all forms of pop/dance music.
Jesus Christ. What do you expect me to do, quote all 15 pages I browsed to compile that line?
In other words, to paraphrase: jazz is a joke, anyone could do what jazz 'musicians' are doing, but most people have the courtesy not to. I'm just glad that I dodged the bullet. A couple of years ago, when I hadn't yet looked into prog and subgenres, I would probably enjoy jazz; now I have grown out of the danger of doing so.
And you (I'm assuming this is another Albini quote) say all those definitions are something like what I greentexted, which is just demonstrably factually wrong.
What 'arbitrary pleading' is there here:
a type of music of black American origin characterized by improvisation, syncopation, and usually a regular or forceful rhythm, emerging at the beginning of the 20th century. Brass and woodwind instruments and piano are particularly associated with jazz, although guitar and occasionally violin are also used; styles include Dixieland, swing, bebop, and free jazz.
are these posters underage or just trolling?
i'm surprised there are so many people who cannot understand the appeal of jazz. I can't speak for everyone, but my experience with jazz has been positive as both a listener and a musician. I don't claim it to be superior than any other kind of music, although i do have my opinions.
At a fundamental level, I enjoy jazz because of how it sounds. this is true for any music most people like.
Jazz is enjoyable for me also because I like hearing how the musicians themselves interact with each other through improvisation. Good jazz music features musicians that can freely harmonize and progress with each other, just by knowing each other's musical pockets and playstyle. usually jazz music has a very loose feel to it which is hard to emulate in non-improvisational music.
as you get deeper into more improvisational, freer jazz, it's analogous to noise music, which brings my point back to it literally just sounding good. what sounds good to you might not sound good to me and vice versa.
i come from a family of various musical artists, some jazz, classical, rock. my dad is a black metal guitarist and my grandfather was a saxophonist who has played alongside some big names in bebop. i'm not trying to pick sides. i just can't see why an entire group of people would choose to disregard a genre of music that literally invented the musical styles they likely enjoy (rock).
In fact, I am relistening to top albums of  just now.  just left me cold, but  actually made me crack a smile, it is so incoherent. A couple of black 'musicians' who have managed to remember a piece of a tune and so now they insert it whenever they sense a opportunity. Again, as befits IQs of 85.
>sun ra atlantis (the title track) it's hailed as a masterpiece btw
>Allmusic [five stars]
>a masterpiece that twists and turns through many soundscapes
>the sonic churnings and juxtaposed images reveal a brilliant display of textures and tonalities set against an ocean of occasional rhythms
I see. Thanks for broadening my horizons, anon.
What rockists like Steve Albini don't understand is that in a good jazz ensemble every member is equally important, that part of what makes jazz fascinating, the interaction between the members and the role each of them plays
Name one rock band where each member is truly equally important
The average white man doesn't understand egalitarianism
>meaningful flow of spotlight
At this point I have to assume you have some kind of mental deficiency
Each member is equally important - not necessarily equally important/present throughout an entire piece
When the bass or drums get the spotlight (for an extended period of time, not just a brief lick or fill) in a rock song it almost always sounds forced
>not necessarily equally important/present throughout an entire piece
Except that's pretty much the condition of all jazz pieces I've heard. A tapestry with no variety at all, as if the 'musicians' just had two modes, 'play relatively little' and 'play relatively much'. Which is probably true.
In short, here is a linguistic analogy.
dissonance/consonance = grammar
composition = story and style
A jazz piece might be grammatically valid, but it will be just an unvaried string of words, like a child would write: 'I went to school and then I met Tim and he said that he met Alex yesterday and then we went to...'. It is correct; it doesn't offend; but there is just one level, it is just a serial spaghetti of isolated phrases. There is no variety across many levels, no emphasis, no references, no suspense, no nothing. A crude analog of mine of a real musical piece could be, off the top of my head, 'Having, choosing no sooner so to do so than the effects were already known, told him of the story, he proceeded to undo it that same very evening.' Jazz is just not on the same level.
He's not wrong when he says the genre is used by certain people as a status symbol as opposed to a source of
enjoyment, and to be fair, he does give jazz the benefit of the song, but overall I think it's a matter of simply it not being his preference (he's really said as much)
Albini had understandable opinions on things but feels the need to state them in very outspoken and dissenting way, so it's always good to take what he says with a grain of salt
>basic guitar riffs
>mostly just playing/singing the chord progression
>often lyrical, long melodies
>substitutes chords often to increase variety of the music
You're a fucking moron. Are you even a musician?
how much rock music have you listened to?
Didn't answer my question about whether you are a musician.
TMR is a bunch of very normal, tonal riffs mashed together to sound dissonant. It is not the same as creating a single improvised line that darts between several chords and affects.
In fact, TMR's songs have VERY few chords in them and the melody in guitars/vocals are almost entirely dictated by the chord progression.
As you can tell from capitalization, the person you're talking to is not me.
That said, I'm not, and I couldn't care less for the opinion of people whose opinion that admission would influence.
Jazz fans being twats is a universal law, its what Whiplash was about. Bunch of pretentious thundercunts acting superior to everyone around them over something that sounds awful and no one else gives a shit about.
Jazz fan: "ooh have you heard John Coltrane isnt it fantastic why arent you worshipping the ground I walk on"
*jazz fan begins masturbating in public thinking about himself*
Normal Guy (me) "lol who gives a shit this music is lame and heartless and any valid ideas created by it have been coopted and improved by better genres" *beats up jazz fan and humiliates him in front of women that then spit on his broken and crying body*
(The jazz fans broken body is a metaphor for jazz as an art form)
>Shits on jazz
>Likes shitty memeprog
If a person isn't a musician but they are trying to claim that for reasons relating to the way both genres are composed that one is better than the other, it's incredibly ignorant and pretentious.
If you don't know how something works, then don't talk about that shit.
>Bunch of pretentious thundercunts acting superior to everyone around them over something that sounds awful and no one else gives a shit about.
This can be applied to music fans from across the spectrum - leaving "something that sounds awful" aside because that's just your immature, uninformed opinion
>>substitutes chords often to increase variety of the music
It's pretty easy to self-absorbedly do that from time to time if expectations from the piece are non-existent to begin with. As a matter of fact, I am disappointed by repetition in *some* rock I listen to, but this occasional minor disappointment is insignificant in the face of variety from part to part of a piece, from piece to piece of an album, from album to album of an artist... from artist to artist in a genre. But jazz musicians focus on chords because they lack the imagination to conceive and diversity a piece in broader terms like that. They are like human calculators who can't do math and only can do arithmetic.
>But jazz musicians focus on chords because they lack the imagination to conceive and diversity a piece in broader terms like that.
No: they focus on chords because that's what music is made out of you fucking idiot.
Are you one of those fucking "muh timbre" kidddies?
If so, get an education because spectral jazz music exists too.
Not all jazz relies on chords. From about the late 50s and early 60s onwards, the avant, modal, free, and other scenes depended entirely on eschewing conventional chord structures and progressions
I agree anon. I personally as a musician genuinely enjoy jazz music. I love how spontaneous it is, how complex it can be, how it can range from serene and beautiful to chaotic, claustrophobic and noisy. I also really love hearing musicians working together, listening to each other play, actually working as a team and not just a group of individuals.
I also listen to all sorts of metal and rock, a small amount of electronic music, and very tiny doses of hip hop, but I still love all these genres, although rock, metal and jazz hold a strong place in my heart. I wish to one day be a competent enough musician to be able to play the complex chord changes that Coltrane did on his Giant Steps album. Or be able to spontaneously improvise and create a masterpiece, like the musicians on Bitches Brew did. Or play in a more calculated manner, more composed, but yet still retaining that sense of fluidity, like The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady. Alas, one can dream. I'll stick with playing riffs and power chords for now.
It means that one more criterion for judgement of quality has been removed out of the way of jazz pseudomusicians. Instead of identifying enjoyable patterns, such as, but not limited to, of tones, with more and more accuracy, in terms of longer and longer and more and more structurally diverse units, the society is telling people that 'chaos' and 'noise' (>>61509377's words) are arbitrarily fine as well. It's the equivalent of telling people that poetry doesn't need to rhyme or alliterate or have syllabic patterns. Lowering the standards.
Dr. Henry van Dyke
>"As I understand it, it is not music at all. It is merely an irritation of the nerves of hearing, a sensual teasing of the strings of physical passion. Its fault lies not in syncopation, for that is a legitimate device when sparingly used. But 'jazz' is an unmitigated cacophony, a combination of disagreeable sounds in complicated discords, a willful ugliness and a deliberate vulgarity."
Anne Shaw Faulkner, head of the Music
Department of the General Federation of Women's Clubs.
>"A number of scientific men who have been working on experiments in musico-therapy with the insane, declare that while regular rhythms and simple tones produce a quieting effect on the brain of even a violent patient, the effect of jazz on the normal brain produces an atrophied condition on the brain cells of conception, until very frequently those under the demoralizing influence of the persistent use of syncopation, combined with inharmonic partial tones, are actually incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, right and wrong."
Yet people in this thread still defend Jazz.
In other words, instead of embracing chords as a way to construct units, co-occurrent or not, that correspond to each other in more and more ways, which are variations of each other in more and more different ways, eschewing them leads to cessation of pursuit of ways to diversify a piece altogether, resulting in incoherent mashing.
Are you retarded? African folk music was around way before European folk music.
But you criticized jazz for using chord progressions and working within a tonality. I mean, over the history of the genre, several different variations were developed on the musical origins of the genre, and musicians were able to create and identify certain harmonies which worked for them, and created an environ of variation and interaction through soloing and ensemble improvisation. Later on, this interaction went to the extreme when musicians were encouraged to start working outside the bounds of structure, and play based on what they heard instead of what was formally annotated. The latter case is simply a more extreme of the former
Oh, and your argument is a contradictory one. You can't have your chord cake and eat it too
>But you criticized jazz for using chord progressions and working within a tonality.
What? No. Not at all. That's a fucking strawman. What I said, in >>61509302, in that improvised ad hoc chord alterations are only a thing in jazz because jazz musicians are preoccupied with their own instruments, while the pretense of 'listening to other musicians is the band' is false and farcical because jazz is expected not to display instrumental coherence, with every musician largely doing his own isolated thing. So everything flies. I also said that rock musicians might not be bothered to compose perfectly diversified songs because their time is better invested in researching and testing other, higher-level ideas.
That jazz is for violent morons. For instance, a smart person would refute an argument; you, instead, openly admit to not understanding a clear argument and in your short attention span can only think to throw out a "you're a child" ad hominem. Maybe if you didn't listen to devil music your attention span would be longer.
I explained the psychology of 'no, you're wrong, it doesn't all sound the same' in my first posts ITT. Sure it doesn't sound all the same, but the variation is below the threshold worth my time.
But that's precisely what jazz musicians utilize chords for.
There are turnarounds and changes within the overall harmony, and interaction of said harmony with the soloist (such as in comping) that introduce that element of unpredictability and variation within the music. It's a different musical vernacular, that functions upon the communication of the members of the ensemble as opposed to the rigid nature of composition (if we are ignoring swing and classical jazz, that is)
Not that poster, but you are retarded. I bet you're literally googling "arguments against jazz" Do you even understand what you're posting? Do you even ply an instrument? Clearly not.
"Also he seems like a total fucking prick in every interview I have ever read with him. Like one of those a-holes who acts like he’s having a bad time at the party, but rather than leave the party, dude just hovers around radiating bad vibes.".(On Steve Albini)
No, Satie made "furniture music" which is the exact same thing as Ambient.
Certainly the same as what Eno was doing.
Would you remember the names of teen pop albums you have heard?
I sampled some of those Miles and Coltrane guys, probably ten or so more. You can assume I listened to the top five jazz albums on some list. More than I should have.
But there's a clear distinction between an ensemble that interacts and one that is made up of people simply "doing their own thing".
Jazz certainly has coherence, and it is incredibly rare that any piece abandons structure, melody, harmony, and rhythm completely. The "ad-hoc" variations you mention are usually carefully crafted to introduce some dissonance (and the inevitable resolution), and maintain interest within what otherwise might be an entirely static harmony. If musicians didn't play together, and simply did their own thing, that structure of building musical motifs from within the structure of the song would fall apart.
Also, to say jazz lacks variety is an entirely misinformed and somewhat inane opinion, and I feel like you lack both the authority and the experience to compare these two genres so freely
>what you are saying is that you have a thorough understanding of a genre
No, nor do I need to. I don't need to understand histology to be able to tell that skin-picking is a shitty thing to do, or number theory to understand that arithmomania is a shitty thing to do. Jazz is to music is what 'philosophy' is to thinking. It is the catch-all bag into which falls everything that fails stricter standards. If a piece of thinking fails to display logical coherence or falsifiability or predictive power or employ strict definitions, it becomes 'philosophy' by default -- pointless discussion about concepts. If a collection of sounds fails to fulfill instrumental or structural standards for a genre, it becomes jazz by default -- a pointless, variation-less compilation as well. Jazz is everything that displays no better aspirations.
Well there are drone elements in folk music and some classical music from medieval times but those were background elements in the overall song. It's not like the drone was the primary musical element.
Why are you talking about something you don't understand?
Your paragraph is meaningless.
I more than once and more than twice looked up >jazz masterpieces, >best jazz records, and so on. What the fuck else do you expect me to have done? >TRUE jazz masterpieces? >TRUE best jazz records? If I listen to purportedly best things a genre has to offer and it's still shit, why on Earth should I keep digging?
The only similarity that it has with ambient music is that both are intended to be listened to in the background. It may have influenced ambient theoretically, but musically speaking, ambient music has a unique features that's putting an emphasis on tone and atmosphere over traditional musical structure or rhythm.
>Jazz is everything that displays no better aspirations.
(Which is, incidentally, the very reason that it is 'difficult to define' -- just like 'philosophy' is 'difficult to define'. You can't define something that just collects musical dregs from every single other genre.)
you have no idea. traditionar tibetan music instruments like singing bowls, bone trumpets and stone percusions were used to create ambient music. specifficly for meditation and shit. thats just one example
You can't name the albums so clearly you either 1) didn't listen to them and are b8ing 2) listened to them in the background between /mu/core.
Gymnopedies has importance on tone and atmosphere too though...
I think you're trying to make Satie seem more sophisticated than he was.
lol fuck him i dont care what he thinks about jazz i like it anyway but why talk about christiania when he obviously hasn't got a clue of what he's talking about
sure they aren't as free as the proclaim but its still a chill ass place
>philosophy has no logical coherence
>what is metaphysics
>what is modal logic
>what is political/scientific philosophy
Aside from that, you still maintain that jazz has no structure, as if it was some wild abandonment of music as a whole. There are still melodies, rhythm, and harmony. Many pieces had been created that have been carefully composed and geared towards a certain purpose (Rhapsody In Blue, Black, Brown, And Beige, etc.), and to throw all of this aside because of a flawed understanding of the musical language of a small portion of such a gargantuan genre is simply foolish. If you've tried it and simply don't enjoy it, state that. Otherwise, any overarching statements you make are bound to be scrutinized
>functions upon the communication of the members of the ensemble as opposed to the rigid nature of composition
>ensemble that interacts
>jazz certainly has coherence
>structure of building musical motifs from within the structure of the song
>carefully composed and geared towards a certain purpose
And this is, again, just pure pareidolia. You are hearing 'coherence', but it is vague and haphazard. Like seeing shapes in a Pollock painting. It is pleasant, but unrewarding. Jazz is deliberately limiting itself to performance in which musicians can't make a trainwreck out of the piece anyway, no matter what alterations come to their mind. They are literally playing it safe.
>a small portion of such a gargantuan genre
>a limited knowledge
What a fucking cop-out. 'Nuh uh, just listen to more of it.' You're going to repeat this forever.
>you still maintain that jazz has no structure, as if it was some wild abandonment of music as a whole
Second glaring strawman of yours. I am forced to conclude they are intentional at this point.
I don't dislike Bitches Brew but that period of Miles is kind of shaky on an ethical ground for me, mainly for the fact that he didn't want to be obsolete in the face of rock and funk music, and was clearly simply trying to reach a wide audience
people will get mad at me for posting it but this chart is legitimately helpful for finding some of the more essential pieces from the forefront genres
Also, way to misunderstand my point about 'philosophy'. If a field of inquiry has an own name, such as logic or philosophy of science, then it is, well, not philosophy in general, but that very field. Similarly, if a music accomplishes something within a standard for a genre, such as rock or folk or whatever, it is not jazz. Jazz is meaningless collages just like 'philosophy' in itself is meaningless questions such as 'what is the nature of reality?' or 'what is the nature of concepts?'.
But it's not intended as background music. If we follow your point, free jazz and indeterminacy are ambient music too. I acknowledge the influence of Satie, but he's not really "ambient music."
I like it. It was the first jazz album I heard though, and if someone's first album in a genre is as dense and unique as that, they might have a tendency to blow the rest of the genre out of proportion.
Not sure. Jtg might have thought Mingus = avant-garde jazz and nothing else, even though that album and a few others like Blues & Roots are pretty far from avant-garde. It would have made more sense for him to put something like Black Saint & The Sinner Lady or Let My Children Hear Music.
Background music is simply all music intented to be passively listened to. Ambient music, besides being made so it can be listened to at any level of attention, puts an emphasis on tone and atmosphere over traditional musical structure or rhythm, something that's not present on other forms of background music.
>But it's not intended as background music.
Furniture music, or in French musique d’ameublement (sometimes more literally translated as furnishing music), is background music originally played by live performers. The term was coined by Erik Satie in 1917.
whatever you want to believe kid
I just want this argument to be over, so here are my final responses:
The patterns and structures of jazz are honestly are everything but vague or haphazard. Many standards and originals follow similar progressions and song structure, and it is entirely the choice of the player as to what they do within that space. The "reward" of the experience is honestly rather subjective, but I can say that if you can't understand how a jazz fan could derive pleasure from the genre, then you may need to revise your view
>the musicians can't make a trainwreck
This is entirely wrong. As a soloist or a member of a group, you're walking on eggshells most of the time. As someone who has played in several jazz bands and orchestras, the failure of any one member can bring the whole unit of the band crashing down. Why do you think there's the distinction between good/bad soloists and jazz musicians?
Also, I'm saying that you're basing your opinions on the form of jazz on a casual listening of an era when jazz was moving away from its conventional forms. If I wanted to get into rock music and listened to TMR and Faust first, and then made overarching statements about how the genre was terrible, you would say the exact same thing.
As for the straw man, you basically stated as much so I don't see how that was exactly a strawman. Anyway, let's just finish this because I've become bored of repeating the same retorts in response to the same arguments
>how a jazz fan could derive pleasure from the genre
I can definitely understand it, the way I can understand why people read tabloids or follow celebrities. It's simplistic and unchallenging.
Rock music is objectively worse than Jazz.
>simplistic chord progressions
>basic solos without any sense of independent musical thought
>simplistic melodies sticking to the safest of chord tones
>often focuses on "muh timbre" rather than musical quality
Rockists are the absolute worst shits on this board.
>Muh riffs repeated ad hoc are better than jazz
This is who we're arguing with?
>Dead art form
Same could be said for rock.
>Only listened to so people can feel smart
>That doesn't work
>This is who we're arguing with?
My reply was >>61510263.
Of the bands in >>61510332, I only recognize Nirvana, to a song by whom I only first listened a couple of months ago, and I didn't find it music.
Because while I don't remember how it sounded exactly, I remember that it was just uninspired singing with a sparse sonic background on guitar. Not all that's written is literature, not all that's sonic is music.
Eh, no. Organization is necessary, but not sufficient. Again, this is the distinction between organized language and literature -- organized imagery and art -- organized construction and architecture -- and so on. But I don't care very much for definition of music.
I hear no jazz on that album.
Being a musician doesn't make your subjective taste better than someone else's subjective taste, that's not the issue. If you want to try to discuss the structure and harmonic/melodic content of music to try to dismiss one of the most significant genres of music of the last 100 years, you should be able to show you have some idea what you're talking about.
This is a person who thinks prog is more harmonically and structurally advanced than jazz. They literally just don't know what they are talking about. That's a different question than which is "better" and one where knowing how music works in a practical way makes a huge difference.
This is what jazz fans say to themselves as they cry themselves to sleep at night to explain why their only friend is a fat kid who looks like a hamster (hamster kid secretly hates him)
I agree, furthermore
>I hear no jazz in a jazz fusion album
Let me guess, you're a complete music theory analphabet, but you think your "opinions" on a genre with more than a century of history is valid anyway?
>This is a person who thinks prog is more harmonically and structurally advanced than jazz.
It's easy to indulge in pointless tonal gimmicks or whatever if you don't give a fuck about any other quality of the music.
In fact, look:
'Easy to indulge in targetless adaptation of toneful alteration, especially that you are disinterested in all descriptors other of one's music.'
See? I just made that sentence intentionally polished. Alliteration (ta-ad-to-al, ot-of-on, but also ea-to-es-th), affixal historical correspondence (-ion-ion), opposition (-less-ful), slightly altered order, some syllabic patterns (3-4-1-2-3), and so on. More sophisticated.
But does it sound/read better? A resounding no.
That's jazz. Indulging in low-level changes at a gross expense of the piece as a whole. It is painful to read/listen to, unless you just take it as a whole and don't read/listen too critically. Which is exactly what jazz listeners do. They're fascinated by a handful of low-level changes while forgetting to integrate it at the higher levels. To be an artist, you need to do both, to sacrifice nothing.
In other words, I understand completely. A jazz 'musician' reduces some chord or slides something or prolongs it or inverts it... I understand. It is just arithmetic that you can learn. But it is banal to do when you are not interested in music itself. It is like writing pseudocode. while(x += x(x++, x || (x::y).z)) is impressive from the notational point of view, but it is a wreck of a code that stands for nothing.
Well, what could I do?
Post the first song from the last rec from >>61509965, , and say that it is uninspired, automated execution that requires no creativity, which will in ten years at most be generated automatically, thus rendering jazz 'musicians' even more obsolete than they are now?
(In fact, apparently there are jazz generators already, like those postmodernist text generators or New Age text generators. Again, this is because jazz is the simplest 'music' to program, involving the least number of variables/parametres.)
I'm not even him (the one you asked before) but I do play guitar, bass, drums, trumpet and piano.
So normal listeners can't express their joy or disgust about music? How does knowing music theory give an authority on knowing what is enjoyable or not? I understand listening to more music gives a broader sense of what's more innovative or not, but that has nothing to do with being a musician in itself.
>So normal listeners can't express their joy or disgust about music?
Except anon was portraying himself as an educated listener.
>How does knowing music theory give an authority on knowing what is enjoyable or not?
He wasn't discussing enjoyability, but the literal musical validation of jazz.
Please read the thread before you comment.
I don't play music.
But meanwhile, I'm becoming really interested in that jazz masterpiece generator. I think it would be a good bachelor's project in CS. It wouldn't involve whole swathes of definition of, such as mood, or cultural or emotional references, or diversity beyond the random seed of the structure representing the pitches during the twenty minute instrument runs. Then some code determining lengths, but jazz pieces don't even seem to display piece-wide tension, so it's basically a constant property of a run. Then a couple of weighted pairings of different instruments (how well they go together). Basically you just need to hardcode a couple of relationships.
Maybe I should pitch the idea to >>>/g/.
>I don't play music.
That would make sense why you don't understand jazz
>But meanwhile, I'm becoming really interested in that jazz masterpiece generator. I think it would be a good bachelor's project in CS. It wouldn't involve whole swathes of definition of, such as mood, or cultural or emotional references, or diversity beyond the random seed of the structure representing the pitches during the twenty minute instrument runs. Then some code determining lengths, but jazz pieces don't even seem to display piece-wide tension, so it's basically a constant property of a run. Then a couple of weighted pairings of different instruments (how well they go together). Basically you just need to hardcode a couple of relationships.
>Maybe I should pitch the idea to >>>/g/.
That's fine. I hope you enjoy your pursuits.
But remember that art attempts to comment on the human experience, especially jazz in which the human soul is celebrated. Completely automating that seems to contradict the point of it.
>jazz in which the human soul is celebrated
This is exactly not the case. Jazz is soulless precisely because it is the most easily automatizable genre of music. Try to generate any of >>61508177.
By normal I meant non-musician, and I said I'm not him. Jazz music sounds very bad, it's not enjoyable at all, and requires the listener to make his own interpretation of such an uninspired piece, which I would rather do with toilet flushing sounds, at least it wouldn't have that awful saxophone timbre of a badly played trumpet.
I reckon it would be possible to measure music complexity with some sort of pattern detector, identifying... well, yes, timbre, tempo, numerical relationships, numbers of different relationships, numbers of *kinds* of different relationships, dependence of occurrence of those relationships on specific contexts (co-occurrence), numbers of progressions belonging to different genres, volume... I imagine that's been done in minor terms. I imagine jazz would turn out somewhere pop and rap.
Why would I care about rock music if I thought jazz was better? Right now you're like one of those religious people who claim atheists believe in God but refuse to acknowledge it.
>as you get deeper into more improvisational, freer jazz, it's analogous to noise music, which brings my point back to it literally just sounding good. what sounds good to you might not sound good to me and vice versa.
The problem ITT is that "Jazz" can be a million different genres. Compare Kenny G and Herbie Hancock. Both are consideres Jazz musicians. Don't make blanket statements about a genre that can be literally put on anything.
I just happen to, I have truly tried to like jazz, but it just sounds to me like when I'm doodling around my instruments, which I only enjoy coming from myself in that specific time frame. Rock is more lasting, more planned, more about the big picture of how the song works with itself and not how the next note will sound with itself. Jazz and most metal are the only genres I really cannot enjoy as much as I try, the former being because I do not enjoy the "angry" mindset they try to convey, and similarly, I can see how the noodling mindset might work, but when I want to doodle around I do it myself.
>Post the first song from the last rec from >>61509965, , and say that it is uninspired, automated execution that requires no creativity
What you've posted here so far wasn't an argumentation, just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and fallacies disguised under some of the most pedantic and pseudo-intellectual writing I've ever seen.
>[...] which will in ten years at most be generated automatically
You can do this right now for any music genre. Just use markov chains to generate new tracks based on analysis of repeating patterns in tracks from a certain music genre. This doesn't say anything about the music.
Not the guy you are talking too.
But in order to get certain music, you have to simply play an instrument and know certain "things" about music theory. It's not a conscious effort, but Jazz musicians actually use the linguistic centre in their brain when improvising. A (good) Jazz musician uses music like a language and if you improvised a lot in your life and listened to a shit-ton of music you simply "get" more of the music being played. I like this analogy: If Music is a language only someone well versed in it can understand a complex poem in that language. Of course someone might like the sound of the it without knowing it, but in order to get every detail, you'll have to invest some time. That's why sometimes Jazz music sounds awfully dissonant to a casual listener, while pleasing a music nerd. It's not about being "better" at listening to music it's about listening to all the music and getting bored with obvious situations.
>Try to generate any of >>61508177.
But music that is considerably more interesting than that shite you posted has already been generated before.
Get into math then, why bother with artists trying to be all soulful.
Beauty conveys emotions too, it's a very wide array of emotions, but it produces an emotional response, just because some art focuses more in specific emotions it doesn't diminish it as an artwork.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
>Just use markov chains to generate new tracks based on analysis of repeating patterns in tracks from a certain music genre.
I had this very idea as I was writing my posts and I discarded it. The point is not to reproduce, it is to program from scratch. The size of the resulting algorithms, whose validity will be measured by double blind trials, will determine the complexity of the genre.
Don't try to make blanket statements that are obviously talking about a certain form of art you deem the best. Many musicians who were much more proficient than you are knowingly conveyed emotions with their music. It's natural: An artist will express himself in many different ways, because unlike you they don't need to justify themselves and act like they are the authority on art. They just like doing their shit because of what it is and so should you.
>Beauty conveys emotions too,
Beauty CAN convey emotion but that's not it's primary purpose. Beauty is about aesthetic form and the truths its form reveals.
If you take art just as something to please you or tickle your emotions you're shallow as fuck.
Nonsense. You have simply invested emotionally in the small number of variables jazz recognizes and refuse to acknowledge the rest.
To paraphrase some further, everyone can 'get' jazz, most people just have the decency not to. I can see the appeal of jazz perfectly, I just refuse to waste time on it and let it keep me from studying more rewarding genres.
>Don't try to make blanket statements that are obviously talking about a certain form of art you deem the best.
No, it's not just one form of art, all art is reflected in aesthetic form and to deny this is the sort of ontological ignorance that gets you to 'dude anything can be art!'
No it just means they use art in a different way. I listen to all kinds of music, complex, easy, deep and shallow and I don't listen to it because I try to impress anyone. I don't elevate myself because of my taste. I make music myself and met a lot of muscians, good and bad. And most of them just play until they find something they like. They don't question "why" they like it or what it means artistically, they just do it because it's "fun", fullfilling or whatever. Of course sometimes you compose a song entirely, but many of the great Jazz standards came from improvising together.
And when someone improvises and does something that is aesthetically pleasing or simply beautiful, they'll remember it either way. Your distinction isn't in any way realistic for a musician. You have to like every aspect of music in order to grow artistically.
The fact you believe art is something that is 'used' shows you haven't got even the faintest clue on what you're talking about.
Are you honestly telling me utilising shallow ideas about art would be beneficial just because other people use them lmao
Look that is your problem and the problem of the whole board. You discuss music too much and try to categorize it like it was some form of task in school. You try to be a "better" listener than someone else, by pidgeonholeing artists and choosing the most rewarding one. That is simply not how music works. I would never refuse to listen to someone because of the label someone gave it. Especially for a lose genre like Jazz it is absolutely retarded to try and make a statement about the whole genre. There is Jazz that sounds like Metal, EDM, Rock, Folk, Hip Hop and all sorts of shit.
>the small number of variables jazz recognizes
You talk about don't exist. You probably think of lounge Jazz if you make these kinds of arguments. My advice would be to let go of labels in music and just enjoy whatever sounds good to you. That is what most musicians do.
>jazz is what prog wants to be but fails imho
If that was the case then they would just make Jazz. Prog tends to have just as much in common with Classical music as it does with Jazz. Prog is much more structured and based around long arrangements.
Sure there are some bands who get labeled Prog and do a lot of long jams or improvisations but really those bands are mislabeled Prog.
Im telling you what most muscians I know tell me. As I said in another post, most of the people on /mu/ don't listen to music because they like it but rather to fit in. There is no correct way to listen to music. I hate Justin Bieber, but if someone finds it fulfilling to listen to him I don't blame them. I don't feel what they feel, and I don't need more info than that. You are trying to establish some sort of authority, and try to differentiate between "Good" and "Bad" music. For me that doesn't exist, either I like a song or not. I don't need to justify my preference, and neither does anyone else.
There is so much music, I can't listen to all of it, but I do know some genres tend to have music that I like more. Besides some music from Evans and some moments in Coltrane's, most jazz music is unappealing to me, and I would rather spend that time listening to a genre from which I'm most likely guaranteed to find music which appeals to me.
>You probably think of lounge Jazz if you make these kinds of arguments.
I've been listening to song after song from the infographic posted in this thread, and being disappointed. Meandering and repetitive? Yes. Skillful? Yes, at meandering.
>My advice would be to let go of labels in music and just enjoy whatever sounds good to you.
This is exactly what I do. It just happens that I like almost nothing labelled 'jazz'.
Well, this is nice:
Though then, it is definitely composed, because there are improvisations by that Dave Holland man on YouTube, and they, well, sound like one.
In other words, no matter how relatively good, jazz just leaves a bad aftertaste in my brain. I just don't get why those people insist on struggling to give me a half-assed, relatively good, at times entertaining performance, instead of composing, memorizing, delivering a great, cathartic one.
I mean, it's as if a painter drew a beautiful arm on one piece of paper, a beautiful hand on another, a beautiful torso yet elsewhere, gave me all the pieces, and told me, 'imagine a great drawing'.
The musicians don't get points for effort just because they make performance harder for themselves by deciding to include one-off variations. It's the end result that counts. If it can't stand on its own merit, it is objectively inferior. Just because I try to do something blindfolded and don't fail miserably doesn't mean I do a better job than everyone who does it normally.
>I've been listening to song after song from the infographic posted in this thread, and being disappointed. Meandering and repetitive? Yes. Skillful? Yes, at meandering.
Explain why it's "meandering and repetitive". Point out what musical motifs appear multiple times through it, and explain how that would be an argument for the repetitiveness you propose. Maybe you'd have a valid argument for once.
Jesus, you are dense.
I have been explaining this over and over.
The fact that there are no EXACT repeating motifs doesn't mean the piece is not repetitive.
If it goes 11111101 11111001 11111101 11111100 11111001 11111101 11111101 11111100, then hardly anything repeats, but this doesn't mean that it is rich in any sense.
>Jesus, you are dense.
Funny how perfectly this sentence applies to you.
>I have been explaining this over and over.
Could you provide some quotes?
>The fact that there are no EXACT repeating motifs doesn't mean the piece is not repetitive.
Explain what you think makes it repetitive, then.
>If it goes 11111101 11111001 11111101 11111100 11111001 11111101 11111101 11111100, then hardly anything repeats, but this doesn't mean that it is rich in any sense.
Another false analogy. You're such a loony toon.
>inb4 false analogy
The analogy is true and you know it. I could replace that binary with any at all variable: again, pitch, volume, relationships between instruments, some sort of geometric chord distances. The variation exists on the microscale only. Jazz teaches nothing, illuminates nothing, cannt make a listener a good musician, it is disjointed, dismembered, like a toddler that spouts alphabet.
You've already admitted you don't know anything about music beyond what you think sounds nice and what doesn't and yet you think you can judge not only how good Jazz is but also how valuable it is to another musician?
>Could you provide some quotes?
>Explain what you think makes it repetitive, then.
You are not being funny.
>You've already admitted you don't know anything about music beyond what you think sounds nice
This is a thoroughly imaginary accusation.
>>He actually thinks Jazz musicians improvise just to show off
This is a thoroughly imaginary accusation as well.
I reckon you just have the attention span of an underage b& who can only remember approximately five seconds backwards, then because this is about the unit of conscious structure a jazz performer can consciously shape before he has to move on to another. I am genuinely sorry for you.