How do non jazz musicians enjoy jazz music?

its mood music. Different jazz pieces/albums can fit my mood.

You either enjoy it or you don't. Stop trying to find a way to enjoy it if you just plain don't like it.

it just sounds good man
although I have no idea what the fuck is going on

I like how it sounds.

That should be how anyone enjoys music.

I think it's more about knowing music theory in general. Once I learned about chord progressions, how to play piano, and whatnot, it really allowed me to appreciate jazz, even though I don't play Jazz personally.

>>74637823
Op here, I completely agree. I just find it interesting that what made albums like a Love Supreme so great is how they expanded on bop vocabulary and worked off of it, yet although most listeners wouldn't completely understand that, many still really enjoy the album.

>>74637948
Im not a huge fan of a love supreme but love giant steps. I know fuck all about jazz ot music theory.

>>74637977
That's interesting because Giant Steps is so great because it really pushed the harmonic boundaries of jazz improvisation at the time (with the use of three different key centers in tunes specifically the title track).

I guess it goes to show that jazz is more impactful as an emotion, sound or mood more than how informationally dense it is.

>>74637712
Remember that music appeals to subconscious psychoacoustic phenomena that everybody is affected by. They might not understand what's happening, but they still feel the satisfaction/whatever other feelings that come with listening to a piece music. Of course someone with no knowledge of music theory might prefer pop music because it's very simple and resolves so nicely and easily, which appeals to our brains as humans, but someone who has studied music, or even just listens to a lot of music will come to recognize these simple progressions and look for something that can evoke emotions other than "satisfaction", like jazz for example. It's like a painting. I don't know shit about the composition of a painting or color theory or anything, but I can still look at a painting and enjoy it because it looks nice, even though I wouldn't understand why or how or why this particular painting is significant.

>>74638048
Thanks for the response, man! That's an awesome way of putting it, I never really thought to compare it to visual art

At the end of the day, it really all just boils down to tension and release, which everybody is capable of understanding, regardless of theoretical knowledge or experience playing jazz.

As you learn more about jazz (playing it is obviously the most efficient way of learning) you are really just learning the different ways that the musicians create tension and release and the specific names for these techniques.

>>74637712
I play jazz and I really don't enjoy straight bop. You can appreciate jazz for a LOT more than musician reasons, particularly the more experimental or third stream albums

I didn't get any analysis yesterday so I'll just try here:

so I've been listening to different recordings of Oleo and been wondering whether there's some logic to the key changes that are all over Grant Green's version from 1962:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deqVKkrRtRY [Embed]

for those not in the know, Oleo uses the common "Rhythm changes" chords (i.e. chords based on Gershwin's I Got Rhythm), but Green's version changes keys several times even during the initial head instead of sticking to the usual

during the solos, the way the keys change in Green's version reminds me a lot of Giant Steps - is it basically using that same pattern to cycle through keys during the solos? the head sounds different though, is there some other method to that or is it just random ass modulation for the hell of it?

here's a straight-up, easy to follow version from Miles' Bag's Groove for reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IY29EZb1pI [Embed]

>>74639897
honestly he probably did it as an exercise or something practicing and liked how it sounded.

Interesting you bring it up OP. I'm a bit of a jazz pleb but I've been into badbadnotgood lately (not strictly pure jazz though)
Watching Fantano's review of BBNG3 he said he was disappointed that it lacked the improv of some of their earlier tracks. I really enjoyed the album and found it curious he gave a shit whether it was improv or not. It just sounds really good to me.
So those are my 2 cents.

File: 1492235676167.gif (3MB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x358px

this thread is sooo fucking cancerous, just listen to the fucking jazz. people dont fucking hear music theory when they listen to this shit, it matters whether its improvised because the concept of improvisation in music leads to a lot of excitement and spentenaity, imrpovisation reflects the way we go about our lives, you dont fucking maticulously plan ever word you say or every decision you make, it mirrors the human condition in a way that pre composed music just can't. composition can mirror human emotion but not the fundemental principal that we use to interact in the world. also if you fucking listen to a love supreme and your main take away from it is that trane fucking expanded bebop language then jesus christ you probably need to go outside more or get laid.

>>74640604
unironically this.

>>74640306
I'm sure ultimately he did it because modulating ii-V-I through several keys like in Tune Up and Giant Steps was a hip thing to be doing around that time, but I was just curious whether there's some some interesting pattern to it

also to answer OP's question, I don't think you need to be a jazz musician to appreciate jazz, but you do need to be somewhat familiar with where the music is coming from - bop was originally based on the popular music of the time and the harmonies and forms were familiar to both musicians and audiences of the time, but to modern audiences those basic building blocks that bop tradition builds on are not familiar so it's not that easy to understand what's going on and everything "sounds the same"

later albums broke that mold in one way or another, either being innovative concepts that don't need you to be familiar with music that came before or borrowed ideas from popular music of the 60's or later that are still relatively familiar to current audiences unlike the showtunes and pop hits of the 20's and 30's that formed the basis of bop tradition

Depends on the kind of jazz, and as stated, the mood. So you have the earliest era, generically. Modern interpretation is the Squirrel Nut Zippers or some shit like that...squibbity dee da doo dance hall numbers, akin to the 1930's...Then you have the reaching out/player era. Be-bop and all that. Kind of like, in the skate world "how high can you ollie"...it was mostly about technical precision. Reinterpreting old classics like EVH and being worshiped accordingly...

Then Miles went electric...Art became the highest factor...my dearest jazz critic's review of my interpretation of another classic was being directly rebelled against. Go fuck yourself--I make music; deal with it. Other giants were doing the same thing: Coltrane with OM, Sanders with Karma, so on. The freedom from being bound by history...to wear suits and play conventional music...to let me just be myself.

That is the true spirit of jazz, really...total freedom. It had to start somewhere. Skippity bop do be bop...Then this was born
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t88stnbP0g

Or these things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAMx_nkKqDg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW5ektszKD4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaU7ns07uY8

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

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

So if you wanna hippy to the von-dippity; you stay in in the 30-60's era. If not, you evolve and learn to improvise.
Why would you stay put? A job at Universal Studios? Otherwise, why not push boundaries? Logic seems logical...