>she thinks an album with elements of free jazz can be judged

yeah i never really got why jazz has really elitist fans.

I blame jazzthreadguy and his shitty autistically pretentious "reviews" for the sad state of jazz appreciation on /mu/

File: costanzajpg.jpg (79KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 600x600px

>>73425244
eat shit plebbitor

jazzthreadguy is based

>>73425287
Idk anything about jazzthreadguy but I know that most the people who talk about jazz on this board are cancer and don't know what they're talking about.

Shoutout to BoldFaure for being the cancer we need to genocide

>>73425308
he's the only reason we have any non-cancer desu

>>73425287
only if you're a
1) redditor
2) a drone
3) likes to swallow his cum
>>73425104
I saw a video about this recently. Herbie was talking about how scales and all the technical stuff is just a tool, and what really matters is what sounds good

File: IMG_0146-600x497.jpg (49KB, 600x497px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x497px

>>73425319
I'll reserve judgement

File: Pharoah-Sanders_1.jpg (59KB, 620x620px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 620x620px

>>73425326
yeah, I wasn't joking when I said pretty much every influential jazz artist has said something like this... it wouldn't be my favourite """genre""" if it weren't all about what feels good

>>73425104
people excuse shit music with "muh emotion". coltrane didn't need to give a shit about certain aspects of theory because he practiced for thousands of hours to know what did or didn't sound good. the only people who think theory is restrictive know nothing about it. but you can use theory to explain why certain things work and produce the sounds they do.

File: 091EB217000005DC-3119079-Moisturising_is_as_big_a_part_of_most_women_s_beauty_routine_as_-a-18_1433972838721.jpg (76KB, 634x771px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 634x771px

>>73425464
>people excuse shit music with "muh emotion".

so... you agree that theory is nothing but a tool to reach a certain sound...
you agree that other people like music that you don't think sounds good...

but instead of it just being a difference in taste, it's "shit music"? I notice you didn't give any meaningful definition at all friendo, seems like an impossible task to me though

Maybe you can enlighten us as to what shit music is?

>>73425519
first off, you're obnoxious. i was just trying to explain why people talk about theory so much.
>you agree that theory is nothing but a tool to reach a certain sound
no shit. that's exactly what it is. but you said
>"theory doesn't matter just play what sounds good" and yet every time I go into a thread I see jazzfags complaining about technicalities and """rockists""".
they talk about theory because that explains why certain things sound the way they are.
>but instead of it just being a difference in taste, it's "shit music"?
i think a lot, not all, of music made by "muh emotion" type people is shit is because they are limited in what they can play. normally they either stick to baby's first scales or they jump right into atonality. it takes practice to develop good taste for playing. this practice comes from both playing your instrument and studying theory. you could do exclusively one or the other, but you're just making it hard on yourself
>Maybe you can enlighten us as to what shit music is?
probably whatever you play

>>73425104
>practically every important jazz musician has said something along the lines of "theory doesn't matter just play what sounds good"

Well it's generally agreed that the 5 most important jazz musicians of all time were Armstrong, Ellington, Parker, Davis, and Coltrane. I see your quote from Coltrane but that's only 1 out of 5, unless maybe you can provide quotes of the other four saying something to that effect?

Also have you ever noticed that it's only after the players have spent years mastering the theory and the technique on their instruments that they say these types of things? It's a bit ironic considering that Coltrane was one of the most technically brilliant saxophonists of his time. Is it possible that he's hyperbolizing to make a point?

Also, while emotional input is certainly important for any artist, the emotional impact on the listener is completely subjective, and so mostly pointless to "discuss." Understanding theory is helpful when talking about the objective aspects of the music, which are really the whole basis of any music discussion. Without ever delving into the objective qualities of music, all music discussion basically boils down to "I like X" or "I don't like X" and nothing anybody says would ever change your mind, making music "discussion" (supposedly the whole purpose of this board) pointless.

I'm no expert, would even hesitate to call myself a musician (started writing music about 8 months ago). But during this time, I've gone from knowing literally nothing about music theory, to knowing a decent amount about music theory. Even being such a young artist, I can already see that theory is important. It's a brilliant tool. An impossibly brilliant tool. But a tool still, not a bible.

>Hey man, want to read some French poetry that I wrote?
Yeah, sure. I didn't know you spoke French
>No, I don't need to speak French! It's all about the emotion I put into it!

>>73426006
It would be more like an illiterate person speaking poetry

>Hey check it out man. I just got the best free jazz album ever!
Oh cool, what's it called?
>It doesn't even have a name, it's just an 80 minute recording of four infants screaming and crying. None of that theory or technique bullshit, just pure, unfiltered emotion!
Oh that sounds awful...
>What a pleb! I sure am glad I'm patrician enough to realize that theory and technique just get in the way of the emotion!

>>73426006
are you literally this fucking stupid?

>>73426113
Someone could probably transcribe the screams and use theory to analyze them though.

>>73426120
Are you really going to just call me names instead of refuting my point?

>hey look my poop
o it pleb
>no its emotion
woa love it :)

>>73425104
>Implying free jazz is inherently devoid of technique and compositional ideas

Why do you rockistfags not understand jazz?

>>73426153
this
Pretty sure there's usually some level of composition involved.

>>73426153
Loud and angry = good

PS- anger is the only emotion I find valid

>>73426172
you're right

>>73426097
>>73426134
why aint no one ever reply to me : (

you don't need theory to write good music, but it could help you or give you a starting point to work from. one great example of theory being used to make fantastic music is yesterday by the Beatles. McCartney wrote a great guitar ballad, he knows no theory. George Martin came along and wrote a fantastic string part for it, utilizing his knowledge of theory to do so. Together they created one of the best songs of all time. Had Martin not known enough theory to write the part, they probably would have just used a boring Motown style string section and the some wouldn't be as good.
I know music theory pretty well, but when writing songs I try to avoid thinking about theory. Theory would totally unhelpful writing rock and roll or pop music. On the other hand if I needed to arrange something for four parts it would be basically impossible to do so without knowing the techniques for doing so properly.

>>73425745
/thread

I'd guess that somebody insulted an album that OP likes and then backed up their insult with technical explanations that went way over OP's head and rather than recognizing his own shortcomings for what they are and taking an opportunity to better himself, he decided to make this thread explaining why knowledge is bad to justify his own lack of knowledge.

>>73426281
>McCartney knows no theory
He might not have known the notational aspects or technical theory terminology, but he obviously understood quite a bit of theory at least aurally.

>>73426281
>McCartney wrote a great guitar ballad, he knows no theory.
incorrect bro. his father was a composer. he knew the most out of the beatles. you can really hear it in eleanor rigby.

File: charles-mingus2.jpg (102KB, 500x367px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 500x367px

>>73425708
"I have no argument"

>>73425745
>you have to say it about all 5
>generally agreed

well here's one, nice deflection? You haven't addressed the point at all. I can find you TONNES of these quotes and I will find you as many as I have to. Start making a point any time.

>>73426006
"Jazz is like french"
you're a retard lol

>>73426153
>implying technique and compositonal ideas are the base and not the structure

You guys are this retarded? The disease is worse than I thought

>>73426347

My favourite jazz artists are Coltrane, Sanders, Davis, Mingus, Parker and Evans. Try again PLEB

File: quote-don-t-play-the-saxophone-let-it-play-you-charlie-parker-22-49-10.jpg (52KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 850x400px

>>73426446
3 outta 5, let's see if I can find more shall we

File: quote-anybody-can-play-the-note-is-only-20-percent-the-attitude-of-the-motherfucker-who-plays-miles-davis-51-23-20.jpg (73KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 850x400px

>>73425745
4. This is really not shaping well for you anon

>>73426446
>well here's one, nice deflection? You haven't addressed the point at all. I can find you TONNES of these quotes and I will find you as many as I have to. Start making a point any time.
Well he's not one of the artists I asked for is he?

Anyway, I see you cleverly avoided answering my REAL point which was in the rest of my post. Feel free to address it.
>>73425745

>>73426446
>"I have no argument"
i explained why theory is used by jazz fans when discussing jazz and why most people who play with "muh emotion" only are dog shit. don't spit your molyneux memes at me. you might like charles mingus, but you're charles dingus.

File: s678117168344851198_p6_i1_w640.jpg (265KB, 1313x640px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1313x640px

aaaand that's 5. I guess anon will admit they were wrong now and that theory really is only secondary to intention/feeling? (Doubt)

>>73426446
>>implying technique and compositonal ideas are the base and not the structure


How do you think "structure" is attained in music? What does structure even mean to you in the context of free jazz.?

>>73426509
the "REAL" point which was "maybe Coltrane doesn't mean what he says"?

Pathetic.

>>73426466
I'll admit I was wrong about quotes from those musicians (although you have to REALLLLY stretch to try to say the Parker and Armstrong ones are the same as what you are saying in the OP) and I still haven't seen one from Ellington

But now you can feel free to address my real point

>jazzfags asked for 5 musicians saying theory doesn't matter
>received 10
>still won't accept the facts

>>73426527
>vague phrases completely negate the use of music theory in jazz

>>73426551
Nope, and now I see you're being intentionally obstinant. You'll get no more replies from me unless you offer an actual refutation.

File: john-coltrane4.jpg (109KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 600x600px

>>73426571
you're grasping for straws my friend. The only thing you said which is even close to a point is "theory is helpful to understand the objective points of the music" which was never in contention?

> Without ever delving into the objective qualities of music, all music discussion basically boils down to "I like X" or "I don't like X" and nothing anybody says would ever change your mind, making music "discussion" (supposedly the whole purpose of this board) pointless.

that's completely true. Nobody said we can't discuss the objective points of the music?? But the objective points of the music in and of themselves don't make the music good or bad, it's the reaction... hence my problem with people who unironically use the word "rockist"? You're missing the entire point of the thread which is anti-elitism not anti-discussing-music


Also on coltrane "hyperbolizing" here's ANOTHER quote from him which proves the contrary.

>>73426599
>implying we want elitists on this board

File: 40f77aa928ecd15541fdc36b54c4dbea.jpg (38KB, 500x418px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x418px

I found one from Ellington too so there's all 5

will anon stop being a prick now? >>73426571

>>73426616
>it's the reaction
But everybody's reaction is different, therefore there is no good or bad music

Maybe you should explain to me what elitism is. It seemed from your OP that you were trying to argue that any mention of theory is elitism

>>73426409
>>73426385
mccartney had no formal musical education and knew very little in the way of theory. He didn't write he string part on Eleanor rigby that was Martin too. I would almost guarantee that he didn't think about the theory of the song either, the chorus is a walk down which is really easy to play by ear and the melody uses a Lydian scale which McCartney didn't know anything about. He wrote that because it worked and sounded good. I mean if I write a 251 because it sounds good am I using theory?

>>73426616
you're whole argument rest on this one point
>But the objective points of the music in and of themselves don't make the music good or bad
the reason someone likes or dislikes a song or whatever is because of the objective qualities of the music and how the fit together.

>>73426677
this, it's specially in noticeable in the guitar or Yesterday which you used as an example.

>>73426677
>I mean if I write a 251 because it sounds good am I using theory?
Yes, it "sounds good" because it's based on theory practices that have been used for hundreds of years and have saturated almost all of the music you have heard in your life. Whether you know what it's called or not, you still recognize it when you hear it.

>>73426675

that's clearly not what I was trying to say, though. My point was discussion of the music in terms of good and bad by pure reference to theory is a waste of time.

>But everybody's reaction is different, therefore there is no good or bad music

Bad conclusion. Everybody's reaction is different, therefore good and bad are subjective. That doesn't mean they don't exist, you can still have reasons for the things you enjoy. For example I find Coltrane's tenor work great in range and passion, varying in tempo, extremely innovative. Take the use of Sanders' tenor work on 'Meditations'. It's hypnotic and almost psychedelic. This is what makes it 'good' for me, I don't care about how many notes he's playing, I care what it makes me feel

>>73426720
<not an argument>

wtf I love jazz now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_AwRUOZsdE

Theory and sounding good are just as important as each other

Tosin can use theory and gauge how to blend different genres but use his ears to actually know how to make it sound good and play nice. Dude combines jazz,metal,classical,electronic,classic rock seamlessly.
Just listen to his interview

>>73426721
But what if I say it's not hypnotic or psychedelic in the slightest? What makes your opinion any more valid than mine?

>>73426677
he knew a theory. i wasn't referring to the string part. i was referring to his use of the plagal cadence and other things to relate the music to the "sermon" part of the song. this documentry goes into more detail about paul and theory. worth a watch if you're a beatles fan
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQS91wVdvYc
>I mean if I write a 251 because it sounds good am I using theory?
yea

>>73426691
You can't quantify the reasons music is good. Music is art, songs convey emotions and the human experience. Saying a song is good because it uses music theory is ridiculous, why are all blues songs structurally the exact same, yet they are unique and not all worthy of the same merit?

>>73426721
Lets just cut to the chase here:

What is the "elitism" that you're opposing here? Can you give me an example or something?

File: download.jpg (8KB, 284x177px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 284x177px

>>73426838
In a word: "rockist"

I can keep going, btw

>>73426786
this

>>73426786
the reason that certain things sound the way they are is entirely quantifiable.
> why are all blues songs structurally the exact same, yet they are unique and not all worthy of the same merit?
because there is more aspects to the song other than the chord progression

>>73426780
I seriously doubt McCartney knee what a plagal cadence was. He probably went to church as a kid and heard a lot of "aaa-men"s in songs, maybe that gave him the idea. I dispute the fact that music sounds good because of theory. What about rap? I ain't no joke by Eric b and rakim involves zero music theory, this is not debatable. What about songs like pepper by the butthole surfers which are literally one chord the entire song, yet are great songs? What about classical composers like bartok who threw theory out the window? Bartok went around the Hungarian countryside making recordings of folk music, and a lot of songs he wrote were based off of the stuff he heard. Some of the stuff he wrote is impossible to quantify in terms of theory, and I really mean impossible, I mean listen to this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VEsMk3DAzWM

>>73426858
So your only point is that "rockist" is a stupid, meaningless term?

I guess we agree then after all.

I can't help but wonder though if you might be mistaking apathy for elitism though? I hope you're not expecting anybody to care about your (by your own admission) completely objective opinion of music? After all, why would they care about your emotional reaction to music when (by your own admission) all that matters to them is their own emotional reaction to the music? ESPECIALLY if you can only talk about the music in completely subjective terms as well. People who are capable of discussing the objective aspects of the music are no doubt going to be more interested in that than in listening to you talk about your feelings, so you shouldn't mistake that apathy for elitism.

>>73426978
>I hope you're not expecting anybody to care about your (by your own admission) completely objective opinion of music?
That should say *subjective opinion

>>73426978
I don't expect them to care. You're still misrepresenting me. I think that you can still have discussion and have reasons for enjoying music. Subjective != no reason for enjoying it. Subjective = the reasons I have for enjoying it are specific for me. And yes those reasons will have a basis in theory. I'm arguing against the use of theory to justify enjoyment, whereas it should be using enjoyment to justify theory

>>73426951
music theory doesn't make a song good or bad. it explains why something sounds like it does. musicians without musical knowledge spent longer trying to create these sounds than if they knew theory.

>>73426875
Really? Please explain to me why I got you by James brown is such a great song. You're gonna tell me that it's catchy, that brown is a good singer, that his band is tight, that they groove well but none of these things are objective, none of them are quantifiable. What is groove? Sure, it's when musicians play together locked in the same rhythm except it's so much more than that. It isn't quantifiable, and the only way to truly understand is to get out and dance or jam out with your buddies.

>>73427021
Then use music theory to explain why I ain't no joke or 153 work as songs. These are both highly regarded by many people.

>>73427038

Jazzfag elitists are still trying to catch up with what actual jazz musicians and philosophers have known for years: that life is a reality to be experienced, not a problem to be solved

>>73427012
>I'm arguing against the use of theory to justify enjoyment, whereas it should be using enjoyment to justify theory
I don't entirely agree with that though. Theory and ear training can really change the way you listen to music and let you notice (and comment on) details of the music that you wouldn't recognize without the theory and aural knowledge.

To be clear though: the music isn't good because of "theory." Understanding theory can change the way you perceive music.

Also an important point is that these elitists ignore that the reception of the music is highly influential on the sounds themselves. I reference the works of concrete musicians like Oosterlynck whose life's work revolved around trying to understand art through the ear of the beholder, not just his own vision

>>73427038
>>73427074
are you the same person? because it'd be easier for me to just deconstruct one song.

>>73427093
the key word being *can*, this is something that you can just as easily learn from simply listening to more jazz

>>73427135
True. But then how can you discuss it with other people?

>>73427132
anon, I don't think you are understanding their points. Knowing what a groove is technically does not mean you can appreciate a groove. Music is a human art like all art, and therefore the reality of the music is more important than what's on paper

>>73427148
In the same way as before, by discussing theory and how it leads to a certain sound that you enjoy. Or alternatively, you can just talk about the sound that you enjoy. I'm not trying to STOP you from talking about theory. I'm trying to stop you from BELITTLING people who just want to enjoy it and have a nice discussion about how it makes them feel

theory is a tool. people can write amazing melodies and progressions and also improvise some amazing stuff without theory, but if you know theory it can make things go a lot faster and a lot easier.

keep in mind- even though the important jazz musicians you're talking about all have said that feel matters the most, they came to that conclusion after decades of getting a very deep and complex understanding of music, their instrument, and yes, most of the time, music theory. It's probably easy for somebody to say 'damn the rules, feeling is what counts' when they have some of the deepest understanding of the rules to begin with in the business to the point where they can blow over Donna Lee in their sleep.

music theory is a big part of building your fundamentals, and when fundamentals truly become fundamentals to somebody it's easy for them to discard them or find them limiting. But their advanced understanding is still informed by that work they put into the theory, the rules, the craft hours a day for years.

>>73427132
yes, please explain in total objectivity with music theory why those pieces work as music. I would, in particular, love to hear why 153 works theoretically given that it's completely divorced from any concepts of music theory, it can't even be put in a key signature.

>>73427149
i know what they're saying. but they are saying that certain things about music aren't quantifiable. i am saying that you can describe these aspects through the theory that OP fears

>>73427199
haha can i pick a song i'm more familiar with?

>>73427230
OP isn't fearing theory, dunce, they're saying that theory doesn't dictate enjoyment, it's the other way around. stop reading Hegel, start reading better philosophers.

You can't explain *everything* about it in terms of theory. Theory makes use of imperfect, man-made methods

>>73427178
It's 4chan. You're going to be belittled no matter what you post.

I still can't help but wonder though, what is the point in discussing only how music makes you feel? Can you even really call it "discussing"?

>>73425104
Proof that jazzfags have the right to be elitist is shown by this thread being the best discussion on /mu/ right now.

>>73427340
>what is the point in discussing only how music makes you feel?

come on dude you gotta know this is a stupid thing to say. What's the point in discussing anything if it's not ultimately about how you feel? Everything boils down to aestheticism

File: 385.jpg (21KB, 317x267px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 317x267px

>>73427374
what about the kpop general? :^))))

>>73427277
Please do

>>73427288
> practically every important jazz musician has said something along the lines of "theory doesn't matter just play what sounds good" and yet every time I go into a thread I see jazzfags complaining about technicalities and """rockists""".
he clearly has an issue with people trying to use theory to explain the qualities of music and why certain things work the way they do.

>>73427387
>come on dude you gotta know this is a stupid thing to say.
No I'm genuinely curious. Why bother posting about your feelings when nobody will care about them because all that matters is their own feelings? You can't possibly change each other's minds right? Either you feel the same way or you feel differently, what more is there to "discuss"?
>What's the point in discussing anything if it's not ultimately about how you feel?
Well, by talking about the objective aspects of music I can increase my knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of music.

>>73427464
no they haven't, they've said they're complaining about people using theory to *dismiss* feeling. Don't put words in peoples' mouths

>>73425104
>practically every important jazz musician has said something along the lines of "theory doesn't matter just play what sounds good"
practically every important jazz musician, at least bebop and after, has also had a very thorough and deep understanding of music theory. probably easy to say 'fuck the rules' when you know them by heart, and have taken in the good and bad of a comprehensive understanding of theory.

>>73427472
Because what another person feels about an album can make me see new things about an album I hadn't seen before and change my perspective *just like theory can*. The answer to "why discuss feelings" is the same as "why discuss theory". I don't see what's hard to understand about this...

>Well, by talking about the objective aspects of music I can increase my knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of music.

there you go! same reason. If you *agree with me* that the theory is about producing a certain sound and feeling, then you must agree with me that by discussing feeling we can come to similar achievements as discussing theory, sometimes in a slower way and sometimes in a faster way

>>73427543
I still don't get it honestly, how can what someone else feels change the way you listen to an album?

>>73427449
i'll try and do good vibrations by the beach boys. give me a minute.
>>73427506
he posted a quote that literally says theory doesn't matter and is agreeing with it. he has an issue

>>73427606
One's approach to something fundamentally changes how one perceives it. That's how we get different opinions on albums in the first place. If an album doesn't click with me, and then I go back to it after someone describes how they feel about it, I'll have a different mode of listening which allows me to appreciate the album in a different light. Theory is often about erasing difference in perception, but that difference can be fun

>>73427618
whether that's true or not (I disagree, and many people understood OP) they even elaborated later on that what I said was what they meant sooooo please don't be pedantic

theory is important to learning how to recreate stuff. usually understanding how something works is pretty important to being creative and replicating a process...

it doesn't explain why something sounds good. usually it would be along the lines of 'hmm that sounds pretty interesting, I'm going to break this down to the notes and chord progressions so I can learn how to play over this faster or write a similar sounding song'. It also makes writing, transcribing, and improvising way easier. imagine arranging for a decently sized jazz group without understanding notes rhythms chords somewhat complex jazz harmonies....

overall theory is descriptive, it is a way of saying what's musically going on. you don't use it to say 'this is good' or 'this sounds it good', you use it to speed up a process and work more efficiently. not understanding theory and aiming to replicate a certain feel or sound in a more complicated environment (ie a jazz band or improvising) is like doing math in your head instead of knowing the shortcuts. do able, but you're taking a brute force method when with a little studying you could skip a lot of bullshit

>>73427685
OP here
I agree with u ^w^

>>73427644
>If an album doesn't click with me, and then I go back to it after someone describes how they feel about it, I'll have a different mode of listening which allows me to appreciate the album in a different light.
So basically you just try to replicate someone else's emotional reaction to music and see if it works for you? And then that changes how you feel about the music?

But then how could you ever really feel confident that you like or dislike music? Couldn't you just assume with any music that you think you dislike that you're just not listening to it in the right way?

>>73427913
yes, because there is no 'right' way to listen to music

File: IMG_3834.jpg (74KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 850x400px

>>73427931
But then that means there is no bad music. But Duke Ellington said that there is good music and bad music. And as we all know, every single quote by great jazz musicians is unquestionably true and should be taken absolutely literally.

>>73425104
The fuck is up with all these faggots whining about theory?

Contrane saying you don't need theory and some random nigger on 4chan saying theory is unneeded is different. For starters Contrane knows what the fuck he's doing and he knows his craft like a back of his hand while you're just some insecure dumbass needing something to complain about.

>>73428027
No, it doesn't. We've been over this. Subjective != good/bad don't exist

>>73428069
Then how do you define good and bad music? You said it's about how it makes you feel, and you also said that how it makes you feel is subject to change at any time based on how you listen to it.

>>73425104
lets hear you blow over some Trane then bitchass.

>>73427618
I'm going to bed, email it to me at [email protected], I want to hear your explanation

>>73428098
By not being a spineless faggot who needs other people form his opinions for him and not getting insecure over shits like theory

>>73428098
I don't define them, that would put me in the realm of trying to be objective about subjective things.

>how it makes you feel is subject to change at any time based on how you listen to it.
correct

>it's about how it makes you feel
also correct

what's the problem? =)

>>73428111
Fuck I mean [email protected]

>>73428131
So by that logic you can argue that bad music doesn't exist. It's actually good music that you're not listening to in the right way.

>>73428213
and you have an issue with this because...

>>73428297
Because Duke Ellington said there are two kinds of music: good and bad. And if he could be wrong about that then maybe all those other jazz quotes could be wrong too!

>>73428297
Also because it contradicts what you said here >>73428069

>>73428350
no, it doesn't. it doesn't have to be the case that 'bad' music is good music you're not listening to in the right way. That's a matter of perspective. I.E., it's subjective.

It COULD be that good/bad doesn't exist, OR it COULD be that good/bad exist but in a subjective way

>>73428329
sure maybe, but you'd have to make an argument for that instead of just posting a quote. I posted the rest because I was asked for them / I backed them up with explanation. Your turn?

And there's no reason to disagree with Ellington either

>>73428389
Or it COULD be that nobody cares about your feelings and the only reason that you care about anyone else's feelings is that you have no passion or soul of your own so you need someone else to tell you what to like

File: 894b5cf0d1b000427bb237c090c4cfd6_image-601370-neon-genesis-evangelion-know-your-meme-neon-genesis-evangelion-meme_1280-960.jpg (188KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1280x960px

>>73428475
much like the rest of your opinions, this is irrelevant

>>73428521
Stop being elitist

well a lot of music theory information wasn't necessarily widely available/accessible during the time of the jazz legends. iirc, wes montgomery never really studied music theory or anything. however, if you transcribe any of his solos, you'd find that they're following the structure of a scale corresponding to the chord being played (i.e. playing D dorian mode over a Dm7).

so yeah, learning theory and all that isn't entirely "necessary" but it totally makes things easier if you're looking for a quick way to find the notes that "sound good." you don't really find "what sounds good" without practice and memory and that ultimately makes it easier to improvise on the spot. if you can quickly identify and distinguish between a diminished and some augmented sus chord, you can probably find "what sounds good" by having the knowledge of scales and arpeggios.

moreover, it can be a lot easier to communicate to other people what to play with theory. like if you could just tell someone to play a ii V I in the key of C instead of spelling out the chords and explaining the fingering.

ultimately, i completely agree with you and i would never think that someone is a lesser musician for focusing on too much theory. additionally, by focusing on too much theory, a musician can really limit themselves from "the feel" that jazz is famous for having. however, i wouldn't be too quick to think someone who clings to theory is "ignorant" of jazz.

tldr: theory can be helpful. at the end of the day, who cares. we're all gonna die. let's shed and jam.

>Theory doesn't matter in a genre that requires all the musicians involved to have an extensive knowledge of theory xD
Coltrane was clearly hyperbolizing to make a point of the cathartic emotional expression involved in jazz. However, this cathartic emotional expression can only be achieved in your playing if you have the extensive knowledge of theory neccesary to play over the complex chord progressions involved. These players can so beautifully express themselves emotionally because they understand everything that is being played. To sum up jazz as just playing whatever you want for feels is really stupid and it shows how limited your understanding of the genre is.