How do you know if jazz is wank or not?

It's all wank innit it's just a matter of looking for albums with tasteful amounts of wank

if by wank you mean improvisation jazz is 99% wank

>>71053288
Professional tip:
Wank is just a word that people with short attention spans who don't know how to critique music objectively use.

>>71053440
correct

>>71053389
>jazz is 99% improvisation
/mu/ is getting more retarded by the day

>>71053523
>I don't understand the concept of jazz music
>I haven't been to a jazz concert ever
Although jazz is considered highly difficult to define, at least in part because it contains so many varied subgenres,improvisationis consistently regarded as being one of its key elements.
The approach to improvisation has developed enormously over the history of the music. In early New Orleans andDixielandjazz, performers took turns playing the melody, while others improvisedcountermelodies. By theswingera,big bandswere coming to rely more on arranged music:arrangementswere eitherwrittenor learned by ear and memorized, while individual soloists would improvise within these arrangements. Later, in bebop the focus shifted back toward small groups and minimal arrangements; the melody would be stated briefly at the start and end of a piece, but the core of the performance would be the series of improvisations.

>>71053582
Yes, improvisation is hugely important, but it most certainly is not 99% improv. Maybe on the most free of free jazz albums, but even most of those use certain ideas around which is improvised. In all, jazz doesn't even come close to being 99% improv

For me, it's when someone is playing technical stuff that doesn't serve a purpose beyond trying to be impressive.

Trane is an interesting example, because his technical stuff always served a purpose, and he was creating new sounds/approaches with it. Giant Steps is a great example, because Trane's tetrachord approach was a breakthrough when it came out. But now Giant Steps' changes are well-understood and ubiquitous, and when it's played nowadays, it's usually a dick-waving contest.

>>71053616
I'm not sure who I'm replying to, but I think that the guy who claimed that /mu/ is getting more retarded by the day understood what you just said perfectly well, but what's this board without obvious shitposting?

>>71053582
Spoken like a jazz critic, not a jazz musician.

But this is probably a pasta, oh well.

>>71053665
How can you tell objectively what the artist's purpose is? I could claim any music with more than three chords and anything outside the major/pentatonic scale is wank and be justified by your system.

If you asked them I don't think many artists would tell you the only purpose of their music is to be impressive.

File: Untitled.png (3MB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1600x900px

>>71053358
>It's all wank innit
>tasteful amounts of wank

>>71053758
All good points. I wasn't intending to make any kind of "objective" claims though, which is why I started my post explicitly with "for me." Maybe that college kid who whipped out some stock double time lick in the middle of a ballad was doing something I simply don't understand. Or maybe he's just a young buck showing off. There's no definite answer, but I'll trust my intuition and go with the latter.

>If you asked them I don't think many artists would tell you the only purpose of their music is to be impressive.
I mostly agree, but it's also interesting talking to older musicians who look back on their past work and consider some of it to be wanky.

>>71054027
>older musicians who look back on their past work and consider some of it to be wanky.
examples?

>>71053733
Please refer to:
>>71053677
Want some more examples of shitposting?
>>71053769

>>71054118
Not the guy who you replied to, and not really jazz-related, but most of the Genesis-members consider Selling England to be wanky

>>71054118
I was talking about older musicians I know personally, so I don't know what good that will do you. Maybe go to jams and talk to people? I don't think it's an uncommon sentiment

>>71054315
I know plenty of older musicians who talk about how they've gained the ability to say "more with less" when it comes to improv, but I've never heard any who use words like "wank" or talk about it in similar terms.

I've also met plenty of older musicians who say things like that when clearly they've lost the technical ability to play how they did when they were younger, even if they wanted to, which always makes me somewhat suspicious about the whole thing.

>>71054401
I think the "more with less" and "wank" are similar concepts on different ends of connotation. And I think "wank" is a newer word, maybe borrowed from metal guitar shredding, where I first heard it. And "more with less" is subtle, while "wank" is just an explicit insult.

>I've also met plenty of older musicians who say things like that when clearly they've lost the technical ability to play how they did when they were younger, even if they wanted to, which always makes me somewhat suspicious about the whole thing.
Are you the same poster that replied to me earlier? If so, you were bashing me for making assumptions about "purpose," but you're doing exactly the same here. Strange double standard going on.

I have to get to work, so I won't be able to reply after this, but I appreciate the conversation.

>>71053582
>>71053389
lmao

>>71054591
>If so, you were bashing me for making assumptions about "purpose," but you're doing exactly the same here. Strange double standard going on.
I don't think it's the same thing. Assuming a musician's musical intent is different than assessing the physical limitations on his technical abilities.

A few years ago I saw McCoy Tyner play live. He sticks to a very simplistic style of playing now. Of course nobody but him can say exactly why that is, but it's very obvious when you watch him play now that he's simply not physically capable of the style of playing he favored in the 60's and 70's.

Why is Kenny G so loathed?

Is he a bad musician? Does he not have a competent understanding of theory and harmony? Is his technique weak and limited?

I've never listened to his material so I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious.

File: 6zR1x.jpg (56KB, 639x522px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 639x522px

>>71054951
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVILQIdagP8

>>71054951
He's not a bad musician technically, though not as good as a lot of jazz greats.

I think his distinctive tone is what puts most people off.

>>71055017
Davis always looks like he's playing blackface in this picture. It's true that black people get blacker among whites. Whites are split, some get blacker and some like Kenny here get whiter.

File: 412486013ccec4074dfd18180084359c[1].jpg (33KB, 540x539px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 540x539px

>>71055017
>Hands down, best instrumental song of all time. I hope they play this at my wedding if I ever get married

>You wouldn't believe this but i'm here for same purpose :) This is a very joyfull wedding song :( I want to dance with the girl on my dreams for several days with this song