Just because you like one genre doesn't mean you have to enjoy every artist or style within that genre. I don't see any problem. I love metal but there are lots of metal bands that I strongly dislike and does nothing for me.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Accessible Jazz vs "Real" Jazz
- Thread starter socialleper
- Start date
So I'm gonna be a little cynical here, but a lot of "inaccessible jazz" doesn't seem like "artistic expression" as much as "how dystonic can this be but still qualify as music". That is not a statement of all "avant-garde" jazz by any means, but I know there is a bit of it in there, consciously or subconsciously.
Most of John McLaughlin's contemporary music leaves me seriously wondering what anyone gets out of it.
Allan Holdsworth's legato and phrasing pulled me in, but sometimes it loses me.
I'm a big George Benson guy, Joe Pass... there's plenty I like. But a lot of "inaccessible jazz" feels just like... being weird for the sake of beingweird rather than to make something good.
There are even artists who have stuff I really like, and also stuff I can't stand (Miles Davis, Coltrane, etc.)
And I'm sure equivalents exist in most genres.
Most of John McLaughlin's contemporary music leaves me seriously wondering what anyone gets out of it.
Allan Holdsworth's legato and phrasing pulled me in, but sometimes it loses me.
I'm a big George Benson guy, Joe Pass... there's plenty I like. But a lot of "inaccessible jazz" feels just like... being weird for the sake of beingweird rather than to make something good.
There are even artists who have stuff I really like, and also stuff I can't stand (Miles Davis, Coltrane, etc.)
And I'm sure equivalents exist in most genres.
There is no mutually agreed definition for jazz. Labels went out the window in the 60's.
I guess you can use the wine analogy. An accessible wine might be a chardonnay. An accesible jazz = "Kind of Blue" by Miles Davis. Its the gateway drug to the genre.
Jazz is like wine. There is good, there is bad. Try all of them with some sort of plan and enjoy. With time, you may even like all of them.
I guess you can use the wine analogy. An accessible wine might be a chardonnay. An accesible jazz = "Kind of Blue" by Miles Davis. Its the gateway drug to the genre.
Jazz is like wine. There is good, there is bad. Try all of them with some sort of plan and enjoy. With time, you may even like all of them.
It's important to remember that what most people think of as jazz music is nearly 100 years old at this point. Jazz has always been cutting edge music that made folks uncomfortable. It's a constantly evolving genre, and there's something to be found for everyone.
While I love fusion to this day, I find most straight ahead jazz aficionados to be virtue signaling snobs. There, I said it. Much of what is classified as jazz sounds as if the musicians are playing their instruments upside down and in a mirror. I would defy them to repeat what they just played. A lack of structure and melodious content that lends itself to cacophony simply isn’t music. I don’t know what it is, but it’s not music. I suspect that much of it was done in protest to saccharine pop and beach music that was prevalent in the particular time frame that I’m associating straight ahead jazz with, but I’d put it right up there with rap and go go in the category of “Unlistenable Under Any Circumstance “.
There is a surprisingly large amount of crossover between metal and jazz. Jazz gets much better venues.
Two upright bass players and Roy Haynes on drums. Wunndefol, wonnderfol.
New classical (usually small ensemble ) and free jazz r speaks to me. I had been exposed as a child to Coltrane's Quartet Love Supreme -- moving forward. My mom loved that stuff as much as she loved the jazz divas. So teenage years instead of rock, I listened to what was new and sure most of the music was weird to my friends.
I definitely like edgier jazz/new music as well as sublime and icy ECM works. I also play with same like minded folks. It's not really wankage, because most guys that can pla out, also play in. That's how our music works.
I definitely like edgier jazz/new music as well as sublime and icy ECM works. I also play with same like minded folks. It's not really wankage, because most guys that can pla out, also play in. That's how our music works.
I like Jazz quite a bit but can only go so far when it comes to "outside" Jazz. I have an avant garde offering by Eric Dolphy called "Out to Lunch" that I've seen listed on several top ten Jazz albums. I pull it out about once a year to see if my ear has become "educated" enough to dig it. It's still not happening for me as I don't like to have to work too hard to dig on something. I like the mid fifties to late sixties "Hard Bop" the best ... particularly many of the releases from the Blue Note catalog.
A great album. You don't have to be "educated", and there is nothing to "get", really. You either enjoy it or don't, simple as that.
Why, though? I mean, why try to appreciate something you don't enjoy? Art (music) is like ice cream: you like what you like, and you needn't make any excuses. My daughter's favorite ice cream flavor is strawberry. Mine is chocolate. I feel no need/desire to "appreciate" strawberry ice cream -- why should I?
So, just like what you like, and make no excuses. You don't owe anyone anything when it comes to the art you enjoy/dislike.
That said, Speak No Evil by Wayne Shorter is the greatest jazz album of all time.
Wow! Glad you’re not the judgmental type…
Nothing personal, but as for “I would defy them to repeat what they just played”: this line alone tells me more about how to value your opinion on jazz than anything else…
You can argue about taste, but it doesn’t help if you don’t really know much about the subject in the first place.
But it’s all good, there’s tons of music to like or dislike or, at least, appreciate and perhaps learn from.
A paper by George J. Stigler and Gary S. Becker titled "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum" (American Economic Review, March 1977) was quite revolutionary in the field of economics. Both economists received the Nobel Prize in economics (at different times though) and their focus on this particular paper and the other supporting literature was "by exposing yourself to [something like] classical music you build up a consumption capital that enables you to derive more pleasure from listening to classical music in the present." (quotation from Jon Elster's "More than Enough" in Accounting for Tastes by Gary S. Becker)
That whole literature is based on acquired tastes and how we can shape our tastes by putting some effort in appreciating something. I was not born into jazz music, but rather, my first serious exposure to music was some classical music, the Beatles, Simon & Garfunkel, some rock'n roll, as well as Turkish music that was around me in Turkey.
When I was a kid, I could not understand why a jazz singer would scat; it was quite meaningless to me. I remember fighting one of my brother's friends (who was 7 years older than me) what a loss of time and effort that whole scatting thing was (most probably by Ella - shame on me). As a guitar player, though, I started looking for more challenging material to practice and play during high school years, and that took me first to fusion of the 70's and then to the whole body of jazz work. Some of the stuff was quite challenging in understanding (here, "understanding" is yet to be defined) at the beginning, but over time I became more appreciative of different genres and styles within jazz. As Stigler and Becker's work suggests, "in matters of taste, there can be no disputes." But, if you would like, you can put some time and effort in anything and over time you can start appreciating it. Do you have to? No, it is all a personal thing and all good...
My suggestion to the OP (of course, if they are willing to) would be to listen to jazz while reading a jazz history book on the side. There are a few decent jazz history books out there, including, but not limited to:
- Ted Gioia "The History of Jazz."
- Gary Giddins "Visions of Jazz: The First Century."
- Joachim-Ernst Berendt and Günther Huesmann "The Jazz Book: From Ragtime to the 21st Century."
I find the last one by Berendt and Huesmann quite good in the sense that it has a stricter separation of jazz genres on a decade-by-decade basis. Therefore, it is easier to follow and categorize different styles of jazz.
Ted Gioia has two more books titled "How to Listen to Jazz" and "The Jazz Standards." I would strongly recommend these two as well to those who are interested in getting into jazz music.
Also, I believe that among all the commercial music forms, one of which was considered jazz back in the day, jazz has brought lots of improvements to the way we play music today regardless of the genre. When Dave Brubeck recorded "Blue Rondo a la Turk," a tune in 9/8, people could not solo on it (including Brubeck's alto sax player Paul Desmond), but rather switched to a 4/4 feel which they felt much more at home. I wish I were alive back in 1959 when the album was released and I would have loved to see the reactions from the listeners and other musicians who take a 9/8 meter as given today... So, I think most innovations in instrument playing, composition and improvisation in general starts from jazz (of course, at the very heart of it, it originates from classical music) and spreads over to other genres. Today, we hear odd-metered stuff in rock music, pop music, and quite some other forms of music...
Cheers,
Alper
That whole literature is based on acquired tastes and how we can shape our tastes by putting some effort in appreciating something. I was not born into jazz music, but rather, my first serious exposure to music was some classical music, the Beatles, Simon & Garfunkel, some rock'n roll, as well as Turkish music that was around me in Turkey.
When I was a kid, I could not understand why a jazz singer would scat; it was quite meaningless to me. I remember fighting one of my brother's friends (who was 7 years older than me) what a loss of time and effort that whole scatting thing was (most probably by Ella - shame on me). As a guitar player, though, I started looking for more challenging material to practice and play during high school years, and that took me first to fusion of the 70's and then to the whole body of jazz work. Some of the stuff was quite challenging in understanding (here, "understanding" is yet to be defined) at the beginning, but over time I became more appreciative of different genres and styles within jazz. As Stigler and Becker's work suggests, "in matters of taste, there can be no disputes." But, if you would like, you can put some time and effort in anything and over time you can start appreciating it. Do you have to? No, it is all a personal thing and all good...
My suggestion to the OP (of course, if they are willing to) would be to listen to jazz while reading a jazz history book on the side. There are a few decent jazz history books out there, including, but not limited to:
- Ted Gioia "The History of Jazz."
- Gary Giddins "Visions of Jazz: The First Century."
- Joachim-Ernst Berendt and Günther Huesmann "The Jazz Book: From Ragtime to the 21st Century."
I find the last one by Berendt and Huesmann quite good in the sense that it has a stricter separation of jazz genres on a decade-by-decade basis. Therefore, it is easier to follow and categorize different styles of jazz.
Ted Gioia has two more books titled "How to Listen to Jazz" and "The Jazz Standards." I would strongly recommend these two as well to those who are interested in getting into jazz music.
Also, I believe that among all the commercial music forms, one of which was considered jazz back in the day, jazz has brought lots of improvements to the way we play music today regardless of the genre. When Dave Brubeck recorded "Blue Rondo a la Turk," a tune in 9/8, people could not solo on it (including Brubeck's alto sax player Paul Desmond), but rather switched to a 4/4 feel which they felt much more at home. I wish I were alive back in 1959 when the album was released and I would have loved to see the reactions from the listeners and other musicians who take a 9/8 meter as given today... So, I think most innovations in instrument playing, composition and improvisation in general starts from jazz (of course, at the very heart of it, it originates from classical music) and spreads over to other genres. Today, we hear odd-metered stuff in rock music, pop music, and quite some other forms of music...
Cheers,
Alper
Last edited:
Agreed! Brubeck was a behemoth amongst players/composers. I read an interview of his drummer who said "Dave Brubeck could not only play fluidly in 12/4, he could SWING in 12/4!".
I've participated in this whole thread and have come to the conclusion that although I'm a major jazzhead, jazz obviously isn't for everyone. I play country and western for MONEY. I'd never listen to country for pleasure, it doesn't please me. But I'm a professional musician and I live in the south, therefore I must play a fair amount of of country in order to get club dates (roadhouse dates lol!).
It's probably a lost cause to try and MAKE people get jazz. Some people...the closest they're ever going to get to jazz is Breezin by George Benson or Breathless by Kenny G.
I have so many favorites in jazz...like The Sidewinder by Lee Morgan...ESP by Miles...Red Clay by Freddie Hubbard...the first two Return To Forever records with Stanley on upright and Flora Purim screeching like a banshee.
Jazz speaks to me. Tells me stories. I can't really play it, I delve into souljazz pretty deep but... obviously I'm not that level of player that I dreamed of being. So I guess we get to love jazz while others don't get to.
