Jazz

[Bourbon Guy]

Let's crank this a little. The discussion of Jazz and my, and possibly some others', limited understanding of the genres included in it, got lost in the "Unpopular Music Opinions" thread.

I don't want to hear about rap or crunk or big band or anything else. My first impression, long held, was that I don't like Jazz. Howsomever, someone here turned me on to a different wavelength. It's not yet satisfied.

So, let's just continue that conversation here, with a limited scope. Jazz.

I still don't like this:

[video=youtube;SmhP1RgbrrY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmhP1RgbrrY[/video]

Get me there.

 

[Derek WC]

Oh boy, that isn't real jazz, this is!

[video=youtube;Nytpozqk1mY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nytpozqk1mY[/video]

 

[Bourbon Guy]

Oh boy, that isn't real jazz, this is!

[video=youtube;Nytpozqk1mY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nytpozqk1mY[/video]

That's the conversation I was having. Still sounds like musical doodling to me. Just goofing around. Backgrond music to some cartoon.
So why is it to be taken seriously?

I'm not kidding. And I'm not trying to be insulting. I don't get it.

 

[Yeps]

So why is it to be taken seriously?

Why should music have to be serious? I like a lot of music that I don't take seriously, it just makes me feel good.

My contribution to the search for jazz you might like.
[video=youtube;BwNrmYRiX_o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwNrmYRiX_o[/video]

[video=youtube;7GgXqIf9h4s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GgXqIf9h4s[/video]

[video=youtube;APS_3Q3mGlQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APS_3Q3mGlQ[/video]

 

[Bourbon Guy]

Why should music have to be serious? I like a lot of music that I don't take seriously, it just makes me feel good.

My contribution to the search for jazz you might like.
[video=youtube;BwNrmYRiX_o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwNrmYRiX_o[/video]

[video=youtube;7GgXqIf9h4s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GgXqIf9h4s[/video]

[video=youtube;APS_3Q3mGlQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APS_3Q3mGlQ[/video]

Thanks, Bud. Now we're getting somewhere.

Brubeck I hear. No, I hear that.

The Miles Davis evokes the 50's existentialist negativism that I just totally reject, so that's my issue.

And Annie Ross? Well, reminds me of Playboy After Dark, or whatever that was, but it's still fun.

So, this is all jazz? Seems like three extremes. But thank you. I will play with all three of these.

I'm still not sure how to define the category.

 

[rmrdaddy]

I'd like to think that I'm an avid jazz fancier. That being said, sure, there are some styles that do nothing for me. Example, I travel with Miles Davis from the 40's up to the mid-sixties. The new band at that time, and their frenetic (to me) stylings leave me cold. Yet in the 80's, I pick up Miles again, as his playing although streamlined, seems to become more poignant. The Miles at Montreaux concert with Quincy Jones is almost difficult to listen to, Miles hardly plays and Wallace Roney, his then protege, does yeoman's work on Miles Classics. This is Miles at his most vulnerable, the man who was a cutting edge Jazz legend, pushing the envelope for years, nearly unable to handle the work he pioneered.

My .02 - this seems like a doomed experiment from the start. There seems to be a forgone conclusion from the start that you are not going to like "Jazz"(part of the problem is the need for labels, Big Band and Jazz, as an offshoot, were "pop music" for decades). With those tinted spectacles on, it's unlikely that you are going to take an objective view to anything. You've had Iconic Jazz Classics tossed at you and you have found them wanting.

I liken the appreciation for jazz to the Tao, the harder one strives to capture it's essence, the more elusive it becomes. Water will always slip out of one's fingers...so you may want to consider "wu wei"(action through inaction) as a method to understanding.

 

[Derek WC]

Perhaps this will tickle your fancy?
('29)
[video=youtube;tqqBunpTsAY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqqBunpTsAY[/video]
(early '30's)
[video=youtube;6VTQxti5k9k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VTQxti5k9k[/video]

By the by, music of the 20's isn't supposed to be taken seriously - how could a flapper dance to something serious, and not lighthearted? Like these songs though, you can see that some did have a serious tone.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Just a reminder that I'm the one who decides what threads are appropriate and inappropriate here. And I see nothing wrong with this one, as long as the discussion remains civil. So discuss.

 

[Chas]

For me, as a listener, musicologist and musician Jazz is an improvisational art form that is firmly rooted in the blues. Jazz is one of the few styles of music that demand that the members of the ensemble be both an individual and part a conscious part of a wider whole. It's purely subjective to each individual what styles or forms of jazz appeal or not. For myself it's cohesion and emotional content; I like to know what's going on. Nothing bores me quicker than listening to musicians noodle - meaning that they are throwing out patterns, which, it seems to me, is what the majority of University Jazz programs do, meaning that they are busy pumping out graduates who know lots of theory and lots of patterns but not how to make music that has emotionality.

Styles of jazz that are experimental and cerebral are what they are - musicians searching for something, which is a personal journey and not necessarily for mass consumption. Bop was basically a reaction and rejection of the musical form of it's day - meaning big band swing. I totally understand it; I get bop, as I can understand as a musician what it is like to be tired of something or feel constricted by a doctrine or way of doing things. All art forms evolve, that's the nature of all things. When it fails to deliver to the person creating it an emotional experience then it is no longer art; it becomes an empty repetitive motion.

The jazz grads also have a woeful lack of knowledge about the history of the music. I have lost count of how many times I have encountered bachelor of music grads who have no knowledge of the masters. Then they hear a Ben Webster ballad and they're all at sea. They don't get it.

Music is an art form. It's partly a subjective experience- like with any art. Like paintings, for instance. I love the French Impressionists; much more so than say, Rembrandt. If someone offered me a half dozen Rembrandts or one Cezanne I would take the Cezanne. Unless of course, I could sell the Rembrandts and buy more impressionist works, but that is a hypothetical idea/analogy. The impressionists leave some people confused. It certainly upset some art critics when it first appeared. Hitler hated the impressionists, for example. He called them "degenerates".

Most of the 1920's stuff leaves me cold, the same way bop baffles some of the hot jazz enthusiasts. There are certain musicians of the 1920's that were clearly improvisers- Armstrong, Bechet, Beiderbecke, Rollini, Trumbauer, Teagarden, Purvis, Ellington, Miley etc. They certainly stood out in an era where most of the records are cutesy-pie-sy or novelty tunes to my ears.

Addressing the original post - I'm not a fan of that particular piece. I'm aware of Monk, his significance and his contributions to the music, but he loses me on that particular offering.

 

[hatophile]

Why not approach Jazz as you would Rock'n'Roll, as both have an ancestry with blues?

Rock has many different styles, ranging from the early Buddy Holly /Jerry Lee type to the Heavy Metal and Punk of the 80's. Most of us have our favorite styles and others we can't stand. I like most Jazz, but I'm not a fan of the watered down syrupy versions heard on some radio stations as "smooth jazz". By the same token, I like Bop OK, but only in small doses.

It takes listening to many different artists and stlyes, I think to really develop your tastes in any musical genre.

 

[Rundquist]

Wow. Thelonious Monk playing Blue Monk is as classic as it gets, in all seriousness. Some people will never “get” jazz. Others can only appreciate some incarnations. And yet others may develop an ear for it with a little persistence and exposure.

The thing is though, if you don’t have the ear for it, it all pretty much sounds like noise. When I was a teenager, I didn’t really get bebop. It was too fast. It made no sense to me. The chord changes were too fast. The modal jazz of the late 50’s and 60’s made a little more sense to me. But even then the chords were perhaps too complex for my ear. I had grown up on earlier forms of jazz. I could understand it. It was simple.

I sort of challenged myself then and there to understand this music. I just had a sense that there would be a reward for the time put in, and there was. In fact it really didn’t take long for me to understand it. The first thing that happened was that I was able to comprehend the chord changes in the music. I could hear the next one coming, or I could appreciate when one came in from an odd angle. The next thing that happened was that I was able to comprehend and appreciate complex harmony. I was even able to appreciate dissonant harmony.

Some jazz tunes have dissonance built into them. Some cuts had soloists that pushed the boundaries of the song structure by using dissonant notes and chords. That’s what Monk is doing in the clip above. But unless you have ears for it, unless you have an appreciation for it, dissonance can sound like out of tune noise to some people. Some people will never develop an ear for it. That’s just how it is. It’s no big deal.

Ironically, one of the first modern jazz records that I bought was a J.J Johnson and Kai Winding record that had them doing Blue Monk on it. It’s a serious composition and it is a bonafied classic. It may not be for everyone though.

[video=youtube;XtedSBSPtHc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtedSBSPtHc[/video]



If I was trying to expose a novice to jazz, I would start with something like this. Snowboy’s “El Campeon Del Mambo” is exciting and although it is packed full of jazz elements (it is jazz), it is still easy to comprehend.


[video=youtube;CUYnYIfiMS0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUYnYIfiMS0[/video]

 

[Chas]

It's like classical music. I used to have a roomie that loved Mahler. I never got into Mahler, he seemed a little overly dramatic for my tastes. Again, subjective analysis.

 

[davidraphael]

You don't 'understand' jazz, you feel it. Like any music form, it either touches your or it doesn't.
Maybe it's like food. You either like it or you don't - you can't understand what enjoying curried lemon squid is like, you just enjoy it or you don't. It's not an intellectual thing. Nor can you have lessons that will enable you to enjoy curried lemon squid.

I think it helps if you have an early introduction. I was around jazz from the day I was born so, to me, the phrasing and moods are very understandable. It's like hearing a familiar language. Immediately recognisable. No effort is required to 'get it'.
That said, I know a guy in his 40s who had never listened to jazz, but when I introduced him to it, it just clicked with him and he went on a jazz binge he never came from!

Incidentally, I think Mahler is too dramatic, too. Not as bad as Wagner, but there you go. Give me Beethoven any day of the week.

 

[motorpsycho67]

So, this is all jazz? Seems like three extremes.

I'm still not sure how to define the category.

Much like most other genres, there are subgenres in jazz.

As for 'getting you there', you're really going to have to do that yourself. There are quite a few good books out there on understanding and appreciating jazz. Or, you can just dig in and start listening and figure out what, if any of it, strikes your fancy.

Don't feel obligated to like something just because you think you should. Plenty of people don't like jazz at all..... and there's nothing wrong with that. I didn't truly start to appreciate and enjoy jazz until I was in my 30s, even though I've heard it all my life (my father is/was a jazz musician). You go through changes as you age, and musical tastes are no exception for most people.

 

[motorpsycho67]

You don't 'understand' jazz, you feel it.

This, however, I'll have to completely disagree with.

You don't have to understand jazz to enjoy it (the way a musician does, for instance), but it does help.

 

[Rundquist]

This, however, I'll have to completely disagree with.

You don't have to understand jazz to enjoy it (the way a musician does, for instance), but it does help.

I do think that some people have the ability to both understand and feel jazz from the get go. For me as a teenager though, jazz was music that intrigued me, but I'd be lying if I said that I fully understood it at that age. On top of that there was some awful jazz going down in the 80’s.

That’s the other problem with jazz. There’s a lot of bad jazz out there, as with any form of music I guess. That can make for something not worth exploring for many.

 

[earl]

Count me in as a jazz lover, though primarily traditional style jazz of the 50's-early 60's. Some 40's Miles Davis is fine. But, generally earlier than that doesn't appeal to me. Bop can be mighty fine. "smooth" jazz to me is what we used to refer to as "elevator music.." Earl

 

[Puzzicato]

As for 'getting you there', you're really going to have to do that yourself. There are quite a few good books out there on understanding and appreciating jazz. Or, you can just dig in and start listening and figure out what, if any of it, strikes your fancy.

I don't "get" a lot of jazz - but something I have found useful is sitting at my computer with wikipedia and spotify. I look up a name on wiki - say Django Reinhardt - and look him up on spotify, listen a bit, see what takes my fancy, then have a look at the wiki entry and see which other artists are referred to (Louis Armstrong, John Etheridge, George Cole etc) and then look them up on spotify. I've found a lot of artists that I do like, individual tracks that I don't like, and discovered quite a lot about music.

 

[Trombone]

Might I make a suggestion as to expanding ones own perception by experimenting. I too first only judged early jazz as being superior, me being a immature middleschooler, but as I attempted to listen to more modern stuff, I began to get a feeling for music that generally is more complex (but not always - Dizzy Gillespie's Manteca 1947)

[video=youtube;cNSKKQu06zM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNSKKQu06zM[/video]
Pointing back to Rundquist's example of Afro-Cuban jazz, this song much like many in Cuban music, is mostly rhythmical (and this example is something that I use to introduce people to jazz because today most kids want "bummpin rhythm") and based off one chord, their just jamm'in. I feel that it takes time to grow into "getting" other music, but you must give effort to allow it to grow. The best way I've found to get into more modern forms of jazz is listening to what I like to call "Transition Jazz", that is jazz that crosses borders with more than one subgenre. Dizzy Gillespie's big band from the 40s is a great example of this, where Diz is mixing his (and others like Charlie Parker) ideas into something that is more recognizable (much like kids my age getting into jazz because they heard it in games like Fallout, ext.). If someone finds themselves not liking modern jazz with Miles Davis and Charlie Parker, then I suggest they listen to some of the lesser know bands of the 30s and 40s such as Jay McShann, Andy Kirk... because these bands featured musicians who would go on to play modern jazz. Lester Young's style is one that was felt by nearly every sax player of the 30s and 40s. Listen to this recording of Dizzy Gillespie's The Champ featuring Diz, JJ Johnson on trombone, and for the first time on record...a young John Coltrane. You can clearly hear Young's influence in Coltrane's playing.
[video=youtube;Ize5rd16zaU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ize5rd16zaU[/video]

I don't want to sound pushy, but to ask anyone who says that they don't particularly like a form of jazz or music in general to go out and give a better listen to those and make judgment (not that anyone has judged on this thread) fairly, I hope I have giving you and everybody some food for thought on expanding our horizons.
(excuse all the Dizzy Gillespie references, I've got a new love of his playing, AND THIS FROM A TROMBONE PLAYER!)

My 2 dollars worth...

 

[Trombone]

may I add that I am an avid lover of Hot Jazz of the 20s (Bix Beiderbecke, Jack Teagarden...) all the way to today's players like Marsalis with very few exceptions.