Every so often when I listen to jazzradio.com I hear a song that is complete poo

  • Thread starter Thread starter mshilarious
  • Start date Start date
cephus said:
All jazz sucks. It's completely indulgent. The purpose is not to connect to the listener. the object is to go out there and pay shit that only you get.

I prefer nearly all music genres to jazz except for classical. Classical sucks too. Except the kind they play in sci fi movies like thus spake therathustra or "mars".

I will also go on record as hating nearly all ballads except the ballad of jed clampett.
Click to expand...

+1 the only thing worse than jazz and clasical is southern gospel, you know the kind with that honky tonk twang:rolleyes:
 
cephus said:
All jazz sucks. It's completely indulgent. The purpose is not to connect to the listener. the object is to go out there and pay shit that only you get.

I prefer nearly all music genres to jazz except for classical. Classical sucks too. Except the kind they play in sci fi movies like thus spake therathustra or "mars".

I will also go on record as hating nearly all ballads except the ballad of jed clampett.
Click to expand...

Well . . . y'know . . . kinda . . . whatever. By your standards, there is a lot of jazz that is intended to connect to the listener, just not so much since 1960. Although you could argue smooth jazz is intended to connect to the listener, and its sales figures would bear that out. Of course it sucks . . .

With any form of music one must confront the existential question of musicianship. Any musician who places himself on stage (girls obviously excluded, they have better things to do with their time than worrying about this crap), they inherently must have a certain measure of fundamental arrogance: I am going to play, and you are going to respond to what I play. You may participate to the extent that I allow given the form of music I choose and the societal conventions conveyed by that choice. Beyond that, your only choice is not to listen.

So when we construct an artifice of music, it would be something like: "music is an art expressed in an auditority medium that has greater than ordinary aesthetic and/or social importance." Note the emphasis on and/or: must it have either, both, or primarily one or the other? Can a song with brilliant lyrics trump a rancid performance? Can those lyrics be social/political, or must they concern themselves with ideals of truth, beauty, and love? Must the music itself be concerned with such ideals, or should it merely suit the social topic?

Are lyrics required at all? At some level, every instrumental piece, at least that doesn't come with a backstory, can only aspire to build an artifice of the aesthetic.

Or tear it down. Thus we come to Cage and his contemporaries. Cage would have liked nothing better than to open a giant window in a concert hall and expose the audience to the sound of traffic outside. He prized the random, the changing, and was not impressed with composition, as all any composition could express was the intended cleverness of the composer.

And thus your reaction against more modern forms of jazz. But the criticism of Cage is that the composer cannot abdicate his responsibility to select the sound his audience is to hear. In that, we endorse the specialization of society: a layperson should no more select the individual sounds they hear beyond selecting a composer; as they would not wander into a pharmacy and select a random drug to cure their illness--they would instead select a doctor.

And therein lies the basic struggle within all music--what do we leave to the composer, and what must we keep control for the audience? A devotee of free jazz has made a different choice in that respect than a fans of the blues.
 
mshilarious said:
Well . . . y'know . . . kinda . . . whatever. By your standards, there is a lot of jazz that is intended to connect to the listener, just not so much since 1960. Although you could argue smooth jazz is intended to connect to the listener, and its sales figures would bear that out. Of course it sucks . . .

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Click to expand...

Thanks mate another nailed on insomnia cure just when I needed one.:D
 
mshilarious said:
Are lyrics required at all? At some level, every instrumental piece, at least that doesn't come with a backstory, can only aspire to build an artifice of the aesthetic.

Or tear it down. Thus we come to Cage and his contemporaries. Cage would have liked nothing better than to open a giant window in a concert hall and expose the audience to the sound of traffic outside. He prized the random, the changing, and was not impressed with composition, as all any composition could express was the intended cleverness of the composer.

And thus your reaction against more modern forms of jazz. But the criticism of Cage is that the composer cannot abdicate his responsibility to select the sound his audience is to hear. In that, we endorse the specialization of society: a layperson should no more select the individual sounds they hear beyond selecting a composer; as they would not wander into a pharmacy and select a random drug to cure their illness--they would instead select a doctor.

And therein lies the basic struggle within all music--what do we leave to the composer, and what must we keep control for the audience? A devotee of free jazz has made a different choice in that respect than a fans of the blues.
Click to expand...



Theres a lot to be said about this argument. I kinda skimmed it down to the part I found most appropriate as an audience member..........

Which is sorta what happens to me , personally, with Jazz in general. I understand it. But there is a point where I need to hear something of a melodic character that lets me know the composer was , in fact, thinking of me and my human trials and tribulations and is willing to put music to these in support of them. The playing of odd scales against odd times in relationship to nothing other than the Scotch or somethin somethin, feels a little indulgent, BUT is certainly the perogative of the composer to indulge themselves in this to their own satisfaction.

When I listen to guitar oriented jazz, its not more than a minute or two before I'm really paying much more attention to the rhythm section and the recording techniques than I am to the featured player. I'd rather hear a Sax Player whacking away at odd little bursts of musical prowess or even a trombone. My favorite jazz idiom is piano trio mainly because there always seems to be a melodic release somewhere in the pieces. Or jazz violin.....Big Band Jazz.....

But, if the guitar isnt being Django'd or something organically based......I'm not too keen on it either.

And I love guitars..Gotta bunch of em here and always could use a few more......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top