I don't get this album. I've listened to it twice from

>>69790982
Try focusing on just two players at a time and see how they interact with each other.

>>69791041
This

I focused solely on the drumming, and then the piano began to fill in the spaces. It all fit together pretty soon after.

>>69790982
>Am I just retarded
possibly but not necessarily

>and will never get it?
I'd be surprised if you really did get it if you've never listened to jazz before. Basically they're all improvising together using only melodic ideas and some tonal centers as a reference point, so there's not really a lot for your ear to latch onto if you're not used to listening to the way the players in jazz interact with each other. Hard bop or maybe even bebop is a good place to start if you want to understand where this is coming from.

>>69791204
>muh improv XD

jazz is shit. Thank god it's dead

>>69790982
it sucks

kind of blue is much better

>>69790982
You won't get it unless you're a devout christian

>>69791148
Focusing on the drums at least on the first song, it seems to be the most straightforward of course, but I kind of see the coordination between the piano and sax.

What am I trying to look for in regards to just the piano and drums?

>>69790982
You'll understand it better if you learn music theory and how to transcribe the solos by ear and figure out the chords they're playing over.

It takes years, but it's like learning a new language.

>>69790982
kys plzzzzzz

>>69791296
found the pleb

>>69791327
listen keep it mind that these are some high (very high) quality professionals who have been playing together for years. Look out for how they complement each other. The kinds of ideas are they are passing around, how they handle their own mistakes and others's etc., if you can spot them

Music theory would help but that's marginal. There's plenty for the average jazz fan to hear. That said a bit of jazz knowledge will do you a lot of good.

File: dubu disgust.png (454KB, 530x591px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 530x591px

>>69791296
>he actually believes this

>>69791508
So is this album some sort of freestyle recording in a sense they just grouped up in the studio and winged the entire thing?

Or is there a pre-meditated structure/theme to the entire album?

Because just right now (and of course I'm no jazz expert, and I feel like I've possibly jumped into the deep end of the pool), I'm kind of lost and can't come to any sort of conclusion or over arching "idea". Or is just album just known for its "perfection" in its pure musicality (if that makes sense idk)?

>>69791508
Also I've played double bass for 7 years (middle + high school) and piano for 5. I don't anymore, but I do have some understanding of musical theory.

Nothing formal in jazz or improvisation though of course.

>>69791591
There is structure. Coltrane wrote most of the chord changes. He planned to play the "a love supreme" motif in multiple keys during the first track. The second track has a melody that he returns to between the improv sections. The improv sections are the same structure as the melody section, more or less. The chords are either the same or similar. The melody section is called the "head" in jazz. The third track is similar to the second in that its structure consists of a head and solo sections. The fourth track is Coltrane sounding out the syllables of a poem he wrote. Read into it.

Also, learn jazz, learn music theory, play jazz, play classical. It's fucking annoying how so many anons think jazz is easy when their lack of knowledge shows. Don't listen to these hipsters. Just play that shit and enjoy music for the sake of music, not its fucking reputation.

>>69791591
there is a theme and structure, yes, according to some. And they are still probably improvising a ton because this is jazz.

Listen to it like it's jazz. There's no sense in me trying to smack you around with what I think the album is about. I'm a huge Elvin Jones fan and Coltrane's solo's shred, that's enough for me to get a good kick out of it.

>>69791787
I mean I played in an orchestra for years. Of course nothing requiring amazing skills as it was just in school, but I fail to see how knowing/playing/listening to classical music (I listen to mostly romantic) would be of any benefit with appreciating this.

>>69792061
And I'm not trying to be a smart ass or against you. After reading what you've said, then maybe I have jumped too deep too early.

>>69792061
>I fail to see how knowing/playing/listening to classical music
It won't really, but playing jazz actually would. But that's a huge endeavor.

The trick is to listen actively, as though you're part of the music. Since you played bass, focus on listening to the bassist and how he plays with the drums. Imagine you are the bassist and what you would play in reaction to what the drums or the rest of the band are doing. If you have musical experience then rhythmically this should be pretty intuitive, even though it won't be harmonically.

That's how you listen actively, which is really the only way to really appreciate jazz fully.

>>69790982
It's two things:
A) Music for music nerds
B) A worship album

If you're not interested in technical shit like Countdown and Giant Steps, or meditative stuff like A Love Surpreme or After the Rain, then this album probably isn't for you.

>>69791296
I bet even Miles Davis didn't think this.

What have this board come to? I was listening to this album at 13 or so, before being exposed to any experimental music whatsoever. THAT challenges you?

>>69792259

i heard miles davis enjoyed killing white people

>>69791508
It's interesting you bring up "mistakes."

It's weird how someone can handle a mistake and turn it into something good or it can ruin the whole gig. I guess handling them well is one of the beautiful moments of improvised/live music

>>69791591
If you haven't seen the video of andre previn interviewing oscar peterson, I recommend it.

Jazz is weird. I can't speak about it well, but these guys can

>>69791296
It is great, but KoB is better.