How do I get into free jazz?

>>68668857
You're already into it. Everyone is born into jazz. It's innate. It's only with time that one grows to appreciate structure it eschews.

>>68668857
wew

>>68668878
I had suspected every jazz fan was on the spectrum and you've proven it.

>>68668893
I'll fuk u up nigga

>>68668899
No no no, you misunderstood. Jazz is shit. The structure I mentioned is to be found not in jazz, but in genres whose practitioners' grasp of them is something more than just asserted.

>>68668961
Not that guy, but I've suspected every non-jazz fan was on the spectrum and you've proven it

>>68668961
I think you can say this retrospectively but I don't think this apply to the genres pioneers.

>>68669004
Applies*

>>68669004
>genres pioneers

I have to agree. Jazz pie-on-ears is a highly fitting term.

>>68669007
If you weren't you would have come up with something zingier

>>68668893
wtf, i'm going to kill you now

>>68669033
>something zingier

How about this: the pun I adapted in >>68669020 I originally heard from an autistic person.

>>68669020
True that my man. Honestly, I've never been a pie man myself, always leaning more towards cakes.

>>68668893
Ay I'm 'bout to truck you

>>68668961
not this asshole again?

>>68670598
>complains about truth about jazz
>ages the thread

File: hqdefault.jpg (21KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x360px

>>68668857
It's an acquired taste

>>68670630
>truth
coming from the troll who:
>isn't a musician
>never listened to jazz
>refuses to listen to jazz because lol niggers xDDD
>thinks his inexperience in the music somehow makes him the arbiter of what's good/true/nonoffensive etc etc etc

A pretentious teenage autist everyone.

>>68670759
JTG?

>>68670776
JTG is dead you fucking retard

>>68668857
To answer your question, try Coltrane's Ascension or maybe the olatungi concert

>>68670794
wishful thinking anon

>>68670759
>refuses to listen to jazz

So far, I went out of my way to listen to some jazz in every jazz thread I posted in, even without jazz fans' usual dismissive suggestions that I do so. By all means keep lying though.

>never listened to jazz

'If you listened to jazz and didn't like it, it means you didn't REALLY listen to it! xDDD '

>>68668893
You asked for it, pal

>>68670849
Every thread you've been in you parrot the same bullshit. If you don't like jazz, it's probably because you can't play an instrument and have no idea what's going on musically. For it being such a low brow music that you say it to be, it sure does seem to be out of your realm of understanding, which as we said in earlier threads, only proves how retarded you are.

Still waiting for you to post your "compositions"

>>68670886
>parrot

For all your incapacity to understand linguistics which also leads you to declare that jazz is a language in spite of lacking grammar, you should really understand that this word implies that there is at least one person beside me who is critical of jazz, which person I then parrot.

>"compositions"

The scare quotes, jazz fan, imply that I have claimed to have composed anything. I did not claim so because it is irrelevant. By all means keep manipulating, though.

>>68670932
...In fact, the pattern is uncanny.

>'Metal sucks.'
>[counterarguments]

>'Prog sucks.'
>[counterarguments]

>'Rap sucks.'
>[counterarguments]

>'Jazz sucks.'
>'WHERE ARE YOUR COMPOSITIONS THEN VOCAROO NOW??!??!?'

>>68670932
>he literally cannot understand rhythm, motifs, scalar patterns, common progressions, and basic jazz language
>he's has such a bad ear he can't pick out where motifs shift around a group
>he continues to claim jazz is structureless, when corrected says "Hurr well is abbaaabababbaac xDD"
>every thread is about how much better of an understanding of music he has
>despite not playing an instrument

Somehow you're the only person in the world who can't fathom jazz as a language. Who's wrong, 100 years of jazz musicians or you?

Rhetorical question. You're fucking retarded.

Still waiting on those masterpiece complex structure compositions of yours kid

this fgt is a master troll and he's managed to rustle some serious jimmies.
8/10 troll

>>68668857
wew

>>68671137
Shut up you ugly cunt

>>68671024
>those masterpiece complex structure compositions
>those

Oh jazz fan, it breaks my heart to see you rely on lies -- as of the fact that I have claimed to have composed something -- so persistently.

>continues to claim jazz is structureless, when corrected [...]

>make structureless jazz
>'oh shit, if we continue doing this, people will accuse us of structurelessness'
>insert a structured phrase
>'whew'
>continue making structureless jazz

>you're the only person in the world who can't fathom jazz as a language

Funny you should say so when I was at least three times reproached by jazz fans for (purportedly erroneously) likening jazz to strings of letters or simplistic human sentences which lack nontrivial grammatical features such as participles.

>every thread is about how much better of an understanding

I recall exactly no post in which I made a claim about myself, contrary to your persistent recurrence to the issue.

File: GG.png (406KB, 1600x2200px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1600x2200px

reminder

don't reply

sage

>>68671162
>>68671024
...>inb4 you cry contradiction because I was also claiming that jazz is not a language

There is no contradiction. A language must have rules for binary validity, grammaticality. Jazz is not a language as everything flies in it. But this doesn't mean that no linguistic similes can be used: even under lazy and lax production, the end product is characterized by a certain variation, which incidentally languages have as well. It just happens that jazz's variation is lesser than human languages'.

>>68671244
>inconsistancy

The lover of autology (self-description) in me just can't help grinning at this. Every time.

>>68671244
jesus, never knew he was dedicated enough to have an image about him

>>68671369
Never knew jazz fans are invested enough to make an image about me.

>>68671369
you have to give him some credit, he's definitely one of /mu/'s most talented/dedicated trolls

no doubt he will respond to this very post with unbelievably tempting b8, but hopefully we all understand by now it's no use to respond to him

>>68671405
D-does he only attack jazz?

>>68671369
>>68671405
By the way, I just randomly (of which I like the sound of using the word 'jazzily' as a synonym...) decided to look up my past posts in the archive, and I found a neat bit of contradiction, as jazz discourse is ample with.

Remember your indignance at my explanation that in jazz, there are no right and wrong choices (which is why it is not a language?)

>Jazz is not about incorrect and correct choices, it's about the freedom to impress yourself on the texture and have it recoil back and shift.
-- https://rbt.asia/mu/thread/S64443850#p64447446

(>inb4 you claim that I claimed in that thread that there *are* right and wrong choices in jazz -- that's not at all what I was saying, I was saying that jazz *listeners* are impressionably quick to treat jazz performers' decisions as correct.)

>>68671483
There is a lot of shitty genres, but few of them as voluminous at asserting they're superior.

>>68668857
Start with Ornette Coleman in 1959
Work your way through his discog
Get on wiki and see the musicians he recorded those albums with, then click on their names and go down their discographies, then find out who they recorded albums with and go down their discographies. That's kind of the easiest way to do it.
If you know anything about jazz common practicies youll see where these musicians are drawing from to create "free jazz"
It's really fascinating stuff if you really look into the headspace they're coming from, read up on the guys playing the music, etc.
some of it even sounds good lol

File: image.png (766KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 1000x500px

>>68671731
>see where these musicians are drawing from to create "free jazz"

More like what they are relinquishing. Jazz history is a history of 'actually we don't need this in our compositions... or that... or that either'.

>>68671533
are you that guy who posted the guitar solo of yourself, saying it was jazz?
you seem kinda butthurt. just sayin' anon

>>68672550
No, not me. I might have held a guitar some five times in my life.

>>68672627
did you rub your benis against it?

>>68672668
It wasn't mine.

Why would I own a guitar if I only picked it up five times?

>>68671813
>hurrr I know so much about jazz despite never listening to it extensively durrr

>>68672749
I know much about jazz *because* I haven't listened to it extensively, owing to refusing to be dazzled by the flurries of tones it throws at me and remembering to keep listening to music that took effort. Which left me with material for comparison.

>>68672799
>hurr durrr too many notes my ears can't discern modal from rhythm changes hurrr durrr I know so much xDDD

>>68672817
>jazz jazzz I can track some arbitrary mental arithmetic some player does crowning accomplishment of music xDDD

>>68672749
JUST DON'T REPLY

File: ShapeOfJazzToCome.jpg (12KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 220x220px

>>68668857
This and then his album Free Jazz

>>68672877
>>68672817
(And again, no, just because it has a name in some venerable jazz tome doesn't mean it's not arbitrary.)

>>68672933
>hurr durrr I'm tone deaf and can't tell a chord quialities and changes but that doesn't matter in music at all who needs ears hurr durrr I know so much about music xDDD

>>68672968
>that doesn't matter in music at all

It definitely does. The problem is that jazz performers are eternally oblivious to the necessary-sufficient distinctions. They refuse to learn anything above the basics.

>>68672996
>distinctions
*distinction

In other words, theory is definitely necessary. The problem is that it is only jazz performers who are so vain that they refuse to deign to apply their theory to anything outside their comfort zone.

>>68672996
>hurrr durrrr I can't do any of the simple aural skills freshman musicians can but I know so much about music and harmony and how it should be dictated hurrr durrr I know so much about music xDDD

>that guy who wastes his entire afternoon responding to GG's b8

>>68673058
Relax, this exchange didn't even hit two hours. That's far shorter than most 'concise', 'eloquent', 'punching', 'succinct' jazz masterpieces.

See? They take our money, but in the bargain you get threatened in case you be an individual. They are not gods and their behaviour is hubristic. Fate will punish them.

>>68673085
>hurrr durr I know so much about music despite lacking any musical sensibility or common beginner knowledge hurrr I'm so informed xDDD

>>68672720
i didn't ask if it was your's, i asked if you rubbed your benis against it.
do you have difficulty comprehending basic questions too?

>>68673031
>>68673122
Now anon, your refusal to put theory to any coherent use is sure to be validated by /r/jazz. They will comfort you that it's namedropping (chorddropping) that truly matters in music.

>>68673163
>chorddropping
...modedropping, ...

>>68673163
>hurrr durrr le reddit brooo I know so much about music despite xDDD

>>68673187
>xDDD

Is this some esoteric jazz chord name, anon? I've been seeing it a lot in your posts.

>>68673221
>hurrr durrrr I know so much about music XDDD is a chord symbol x DDD durrr

>>68673229
You're clearly on a roll here. May I suggest you channel this raw unbridled passion into a jazz masterpiece?

>>68673260
>hurrr durrr I know so much about music le reddit man durrr

>>68673319
Ah, but wait! Jazz is a language! Therefore clearly you *are* making one right now.

>>68668893
PRAY I DON'T CATCH YOU FAGGOT

>>68668893
I will inflict harm on you should our roads cross

>>68673331
>hurrr durrr if I repeat it enough times it must be true durrrr hurrrrr I know so much about music xDDD

>>68673382
>'xDDD'
>'I know so much'
>'Reddit'
>'durr hurr'

...I pick out a motif!

>>68673400
>hurr durrr le jazz isn't a language hurr le r/jazz bro I know so much about music hurrr durrr

>>68673429
Bro you're getting BTFO right now tb h

>>68673429
Can't help admiring your indefatigability. An intrepid soloist you are.

>>68673445
It's fine. Let him post. >"jazz is not for everyone" has forty direct results in Google. Let the jazz fan maintain his ego.

>>68668959
>>68669037
>>68669656
>>68670870

Wew lads

>>68673486
>hurrr durrr bro ego xDD I know so much about music despite not knowing anything about music hurrr durrr xDDD

>>68673486
(Fun fact: >"classical is not for everyone" -- six results, three of which are in fact the same quote which is qualified by 'this kind of...'.)

>>68673524
>hurrr durrr I base my talking points on google searches and not on the harmonic content of music because that's too difficult for someone like me! hrrr durrrrr le classical is le best meme born in le wrong generation amirite le Bach le Mozart le list goes on durrrrr

>>68673571
I like this autistic fuck

>>68673654
It's to be expected, although I've long been thinking that liking jazz is related to not autism as much as savantism. Preoccupation with scales et c. is stikingly similar to arithmomania. Apparently, most savants have severely depressed IQs -- that would account for jazz's absence of creativity.

File: IMG_2653.jpg (148KB, 722x1280px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 722x1280px

>>68673654
I'm just learning notes and practicing metric modulations bettering myself as a musician while I reply to this sad sack of shit who has 0 knowledge on anything music related, trying to tell other people what is and what isn't in music. Ridiculousness

>>68673716
>that would account for jazz's absence of creativity

...Not to mention violent behaviour of the 'musicians'.

>>68673716
>hurrr durrr everyone but me has le low iq hurrr durrr le lack of creativity hrrr durrrr

>>68673753
I can only hope that the same area of jazz musicians' brains is responsible for their musical creativity and their wildly inaccurate guesses about other people, because my IQ fits squarely in the nigger range.

>>68673787
>in the nigger range

...Or should I say, the jazz 'musician' range.

>>68673787
I never once doubted that you were retarded.

>hurrrr durrr I can't even discern sarcasm from wild guesses of iq let alone know anything about music hurrr durrrr

>>68673822
>'i-it was totally sarcasm!'

Where did I hear that before?

Oh right, 'i-it was totally structured!', by a jazz performer.

>>68673889
>hurrr I have the iq of a nigger hurrr durrr I know so much about le music guise please believe me durrr hirrr

>>68673916
>please believe me

How about you prove that a jazz musician's choice of tone is determied by what he's heard rather than random if you're so big on proof. Protip (or rather contip, as jazz is a con): you can't.

>>68673916
>>68673973
And no, citing random wiki articles is not a proof.

>>68673973
>hurrr durrrr I can't transcribe solos and changes it's so dense for my pathetic ears hurrr durrr please do it for me durrr hurrr what's a grand staff? Hurrr durrrr

>>68673973
(Before someone complains that the same accusation can be places against scored music: true. But scored music at least sounds good. For a music that literally sounds like furniture thrown down a garchute chute, structuredness is literally all it has going for it. So it better have it.)

>>68674028
>I can't transcribe solos and changes

>'it is possible to transcribe random noise'
>'therefore it's not random noise'

>hurr what's logic??

>>68674032
>hurrr durrr subjective things like "good sound" are objective hurrr durrr I know so much about music guise please believe me hurrr durrrr le scored music amirite bach mozart le list goes on xDDD

>>68674046
>hurrr durrr pitches within the range of an instrument are just le random noises hrrr dyrrr I can't transcribe anything but that's because a everything I hear is just random noise hurrrr durrrr please spoon feeed me scores Bach Mozart le list goes on guise hurrr

>>68668893
ffffffFFUUCCCCK

>>68674032
>that literally sounds like furniture thrown down a garchute chute

(I was actually not convinced of this analogy, but I looked it up and I was suprised how accurate it was. Check it out: https://youtu.be/h4ABGRdeGfo?t=50 . Pure fucking jazz.)

>>68674073
dude, you are, like, really serious about this kinda thing, aren't you?

>>68674124
>hurrr durrr gonna reply to myself because i can't transcribe anything hurrr durrr le chute man with the nigger iq hurrr durrrr xDDDDD

>>68674167
Serious about music? Of course I've only been doing it for two decades.

>>68674182
hey man, good for you

File: IMG_2654.png (120KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 640x1136px

>>68674230
Anytime I run into GG's shitposting, the only (You)'s he'll be getting are full of hurrs, durrs, and his confession of having a below average IQ

>>68674282
>his confession of having a below average IQ

Hey, I said that it is in black people's/jazz performers' range. It's you who from that inferred that it is below average.

>>68674370
>hurrr drrr blacks have an average of below 80iq points
>hurrr durrr I'm in the nigger range of iq
>I-I NEVER SAID IT WAS BELOW AVERAGE HURRR DURRR JAZZ MUSICIANS HURRR DURRRRR

The fact that so many books still name the jazz as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" music genre ever only tells you how far jazz musicians still are from becoming a serious art. Rock critics have long recognized that the greatest rock musicians of all times are the Beatles and structure, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial structure over classical musicians who were highly unstructured and arbitrary in courts around Europe. Jazz musicians are still blinded by arbitrary noises mistaken for intention. Jazz abritraried more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Structure critics grow up listening to a lot of structured music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of structured music of the past. Jazz fans are often totally ignorant of the structure of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that jazz did anything worthy structure arbitrary eschews practitioners conjecture linguistics jazz is lesser refuse to be dazzled retrospective justification chorddropping preoccupation with scales jazz is a spectrum.

File: image.gif (485KB, 500x290px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 500x290px

>>68668893

Free Jazz is rockist bullshit.

>>68674529
>hurrr durrr jazz is spectrum hurrr durrr

From yesterday.

>(Again, this is to be expected -- jazz performers' IQs, being in the 80's, must weigh severely on their working memories. You can hardly expect someone like that to have a consistent mental image of a three-minute pop song to develop.)

>GGs nigger IQ talking points
HURRRR DURRRRRR

>>68674282
>>68674529
>jazz fans reduced to drowning out meaningful conversation with indiscriminate flooding

Just as in jazz music. No joking here -- it might be a real personality trait. As soon as something is developed, either in writing or during a performance, refuse to give it consideration, but rather wash it away with one's own noise. Tugging the blanket.

my understanding is it's a conversation between the performers

which i'd buy, that's fair

which begs the question, do you really have to be there for it, at the performance, watching the guys & part of it, or is a recording comparable?

>>68674714
>hurrr durrr I want to have meaningful discourse now guise I promise! All the generalizations I make based on absolutely nothing compiled with my nigger IQ and a lack of basic aural skills and transcribing skills I now want to have meaningful discussions hurrrr durrrrr

Retards ladies and gentlemen.

>>68674739
The recordings are a single performance, a moment in time, captured on tape. That's all it is. You learn the language from listening to recordings and watching the masters work.

>>68674739
>do you really have to be there for it, at the performance, watching the guys & part of it

That's what jazz performers are going to swear by. Jazz is at the same time 'intellectual to the core and designed to the utmost degree for meticulous theoretical analysis' and 'all about soul and spirit and getting lost in the transcendental present moment'. Somehow.

>>68671405
>>68671244
>>68671369
GG is a great troll desu

every one of the threads he derails have like 100+ posts

>>68674815
>'intellectual to the core and designed to the utmost degree for meticulous theoretical analysis' and 'all about soul and spirit and getting lost in the transcendental present moment'

(Fun fact: in no other genre have I seen a ratio of self-important tell-don't-show superlatives to specific modest show-don't-tell music-theoretic terms as high as in jazz.)

>>68674815
Translation

>hurrr durrr my nigger brain can't wrap my head around spirituality, how it influences the person making the music, the historical context, or what being in the moment means as a musician or how you achieve a state like that hurrr durrr it's so out of my realm of understanding it must not really be a thing hurrr durrrr my IQ is only 80 and have only touched a guitar 5 times in my life hurrr durrrrrr

>>68668893
Better skip town, punk.

this whole thread is like an argument between a couple college freshmen.

>>68674821
>derails

>implying 100 % of jazz threads here is not just declarations of 'A is jazz masterpiece, B is a jazz meisterwerk, C is a jazz magnum opus'

>>68674797
>>68674815
>>68674864
>>68674898

dude i just wanted to know if jazz should be live

is this why nobody talks about jazz in public anymore

>>68674931
there have been jazz threads with interesting, thought provoking discussion when there aren't retards trying to convince everyone that people who like jazz are all just lying to themselves

>>68674963
..? The records are single performances (live takes) of tunes. There's no click track, there's no multi tracking (generally speaking), and layers and layers of fluff. What you hear is what you would have heard and seen had you seen them perform that day. Jazz is an improvisatory art, no one plays the same solo in the same chorus like other genres, the feel and flow of the music will shift from night to night, and you can see that clearly with miles second great quintet performing across Europe on YouTube during the late 1960s. They play the same tunes, but every night is a little different. Of course it's live, it's a living breathing thing, just like a human is.

>>68674971
>people who like jazz are all just lying to themselves

What? I love jazz. I adore jazz. I just realize that it is the popcorn of music and understand what it does to my taste.

>>68675041
>improvisatory art

'It's improvised, therefore it should get lenient treatment.'

No. It doesn't work like that. If you referred to jazz as improvisation -- if on the wiki article on jazz there were no mention of the word 'music' --, I would have judged it as such, and possibly favourably. But you can't eat the cake and have it. You don't get to call what you're doing music and at the same time demand preferential treatment 'because it's improvised' so to cover up your fuckups. If you equate yourselves with true musicians in name, 'we're musicians too, not just improvisers', you disclaim your right to suspend criticism also, to insist that jazz belongs to a category unto itself. If it's music, then it's comparable to the best composed works of them all, and it should be stated directly that in said comparison it is shit.

>>68675150
>hurrrr durrrrr I lobe jazz guise now for real xDDD hurrr durrrr

>>68675150
>I just realize that it is the popcorn of music and understand what it does to my taste.
wow what an absolutely crazy metaphor that's so cool

>>68674963
yes, hearing it live and in person is best.

recordings are just historical documents

Jazz is a subgenre of rock.

>>68675193
That's not how I'd put it. The categorical relation of jazz to music is that jazz is the catch-all term for productions which fail to exhibit any characteristic of a genre that demands some particular form. In other words, if a performance fails all of a number of categorical checks regarding its membership to any other genre, then it is jazz because nothing else fits. Jazz is the rubbish bin of music.

>>68675193
>came literally 40 years before rock music even began to start
>somehow is a derivative genre

>>68675150
>You don't get to call what you're doing music and at the same time demand preferential treatment 'because it's improvised' so to cover up your fuckups.

LMAO

HURRRR DURRRRR GGs NIGGER BRAIN WORKING AT FULLSPEED
ALL MUSIC MUST BE SCORED
ALL MUST HAVE EVERY NOTE HIT CORRECTLY
ALL MUSIC MUST BE ROBOTIC
AESTHETICS? WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT MY NIGGER BRAIN CANT COMPREHEND HURRRR DURRRR

>>68675241
Do you even know what jazz means you fucking idiot? Judging from the stupid shit you post, it's definitely a no.

Jesus what an embarrassing thread

>>68675283
>Do you even know what jazz means you fucking idiot?


>You can't define jazz, it's so diverse.
>You can't define jazz. For those who understand jazz no explination is necessary. For those who don't understand jazz no explination is possible.
>You can't define jazz in words. You know jazz when you hear it.
>You can't define jazz, but you know it when you hear it. You can't define it, but you know it when you feel it.

Oh wait, those people are not TRUE jazz experts. How ever convenient.

>>68675337
Yeah, exactly what I thought. You're so quick to type but have nothing of substance to share and can't even answer a simple question. Anyone who's taken a basic music history class knows what jazz is, where it originated from and how the term came to be and what it means.

Hurrr durrr GGs a retard after all.

>>68675383
Aha, so it's the old 'jazz has an exceedingly specific definition when it is desirable to claim that someone is factually ignorant, but it magically becomes undefinable -- or defined as "limitless creativity" -- when someone points out that some respected piece of music cannot be jazz because it doesn't follow the aforementioned exceedingly specific theoretical definition, so for the jazz fan to be able to opportunistically ad hoc include said piece within the scope of jazz music after all'. Nothing new.

>>68675450
Ahh yes the "I'm so retarded and have an IQ of below 80 and can't possibly understand what jazz means

HURRRR DURRRRRR

>>68675501
>HURRRR DURRRRRR

Do I hear trumpet?

>>68675521
>his ears are so bad he hears a trumpet when he reads
>he's not even hearing a trumpet he just thinks it's a fucking trumpet cause he can't tell the difference between wind brass and percussion instruments

HURRRR DURRRR IM GG I ONLY HAVE AN IQ OF 80 HURRRR DURRRR

>>68668893
You fuck

>>68668893
Its beat down!
Time!

>>68670967
>Jazz sucks

Jazz utilizes modes and harmonic structure in a way almost completely( and surely absent up till the inception of jazz) absent in other styles of music It manages to combine discord and melody, structure AND a lack of structure. Well one, if you want to talk about Jazz being structureless, that really only applies to free jazz. For example the song "Giant Steps" is completely and utterly structured. It's a progression of variants on a 2-5-1 chord progression in changing keys. You clearly don't understand music theory to condemn all of jazz as structureless.

>>68675937
sage
>>68671244

>>68675937
>the song "Giant Steps" is completely and utterly structured

>compose something and still fail at even SEEMING composed

Wow.


I don't seem to be able to communicate the problem with you to you. Jazz is not 'difficult'. It is not 'challenging'. It is simply either (1) random playing or (rarely, 2) semirandom playing partially obeying a certain preconceived rule while remaining oblivious to its effect on the whole. Cry FAUX ANALOGY FAUX ANALOGY as you will, but jazz performers are like children laying bricks around in circles rather than building anything with them. Then the child walks up to his/her parent and describes how the sqrt modulo of every nth brick of every circle... is such that... . Yes? So? Good for you, but must you really dismiss anyone who's been putting such rules to a coherent result? I understand that you refuse to acknowledge that which exceeds your musical capacity, but please stop exhibiting sour grapes for a moment and acknowledge your limitations. It's okay to not be able write anything. It's okay to only master the building blocks before you hit your ability ceiling. Really.

File: 1448571960219.jpg (27KB, 508x524px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 508x524px

>oh hey cool, a jazz threa-
Oh
trolls and troll responders
that's cool, I didn't want to discuss it anyway.

>>68668893
Do you want to suffer a brain clot?

>>68676140
In other words, insofar as it (rarely) happens, jazz 'composition' is just 'hey I figured out the elementary arithmetics that if I play this way, then the result of f(tone) = y such that...' and blasting that for the remainder of the three-hour piece. This is not creativity.

>>68676305
...Because creativity can only be spoken of at the point of *adaptation* of choice of such ways to the idea for the piece.

>>68676326
>IQ OF 80 THINKS ANYTHING HE SAYS IS WORTH OF VALUE. HURRRR DURRRRRRR

>>68676305
>compose something and still fail at SEEMING composed

That's why it's challenging numbnuts. You need to understand music theory to decipher the cleverness of the composition. Which from what I can tell, you do not.

>random playing lele

No, it is "I know that over a 7 chord I can play a mixolydian scale, the arpeggio of the chord, the arpeggio where the tonic is the root of a 7#5B9 chord, the scale of the relative minor, the arpeggio of the relative minor, etc etc. Let's see how I can combine this in a way that is harmonically pleasing while maintaining the degree of complexity demanded by the underlying chordal structure of the piece."

> It's okay to not be able write anything. It's okay to only master the building blocks before you hit your ability ceiling. Really.

Man >>68671244 really wasn't kidding, you are a moron or a troll that is able to reach levels of pseudo-intelelctualness I didn't think were possible. You're entire premise relies on objective, metaphysical conceptions of music and creativity and you parade your lack of musical awareness around as if it's something to be proud of, and then use that to make half assed critiques of Jazz. I'll give you a hint: Adorno did it better and even then, his critiques were completely devoid of substance and divorced from reality.

>>68676393
I hope this faggot starts using a trip like all the other worthless posters so I can filter his insipid nonsense.

I Kind of messed GG to be honest. This guy is hilarious and is basically putting on a clinic about how to troll.

>>68676458
Simply reference GGs sub 80 (in his words nigger) IQ and add in a couple of hurrr and durrs. It's all that he deserves to read.

>>68676174
feels bad man, we never get good jazz threads here

>>68676545
Sure we do, but the only reason they are good is because the idiots who post in these threads don't post in them

>>68676513
Oh please, he gave up when bullshit without substance is throw right back at him. I've been the only one until recently replying to him and made him stop till someone else gave him a (you)

>>68676619
Alright, well now I know for the future. Kek, did he actually admit he has sub 80 IQ? What a fucking stupid nigger.

>>68676730
>>68674282

>>68673787
Yup

>>68676458
>"I know that over a 7 chord I can play a mixolydian scale"
Okay.

>"the arpeggio of the chord, the arpeggio where the tonic is the root of a 7#5B9 chord"
Okay.

>"the scale of the relative minor, the arpeggio of the relative minor"
Okay.

>"Let's see how I can combine this in a way that is harmonically pleasing while maintaining the [...]"
Horseshit.

This is the point at which you convince yourself of the 'pleasing' bit. And, in fact, the 'combine' bit. Because a single simple dictate such as you gave, which jazz lacks most of the time to begin with, still leaves vast amounts of room for arbitrariness, playing whatever one wants. Which is only needed, too, considering that the jazz musician's memory and imagination doesn't span much farther than a couple of seconds in the past and in the future, respectively. So yes, a jazz musician is almost necessarily bound to 'play in the present'.

In other words, jazz 'musicians' impose simplistic, pointless rules on their own playing only so to fashion themselves an excuse why they can't come up with a plausible melody ('I was busy adhering to...'). It's the same as improvisation, really: 'I was busy improvising'. The lengths to which people will go to rationalize their ineptitude.

>>68668893
*unzips dick*

>>68676458
>>68677082
Oh, and >inb4 I inserted an intentional error in those for you to catch...

This is not relevant.

>>68676513
>This guy is hilarious and is basically putting on a clinic about how to troll.

The only troll/bait in this thread is jazz fans' 'it's good'.

>>68675241
Is this GG?

>>68677401
I'm Anonymous.

>>68677416
You're a faggot

>>68668893
*cracks knuckles*

Heh. You kids never learn.

>>68678682
you're all faggots

>>68673368
Only correct answer itt

>>68668893
wtf I hate you now

>>68668857
buy a trumpet and play it without learning how to play it

>>68668893
Oi I'll tell you what yer a cheeky cunt arent ya mate. Do you really think you're funny.

>>68668899
Navy seal 300 confirmed kills copypasta

>>68668857
motherfucker couldn't handle the bants

>>68668857

What the fuck is free jazz, is there unfree jazz? Isn't jazz basically free for improvisation at this point? Or do you want to ignore harmonic rules and underlying chord progressions?

File: feels.png (225KB, 2400x2400px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 2400x2400px

>>68671244
Why does fucking jazz have to have a repeat shitposter? I just want to talk about jazz, man. Why can't some other genre get him instead?