Why do I hate jazz ??

[hopkins]

I'm not crapping on new musicians...

We are not going to solve this with broad generalizations from either side. You will often find exceptions to the rule (many of these old timers embraced new trends, and the other way around...). Yes, music evolves, etc...etc... That is hardly the point.

I just find it a little surprising that anyone would call any of this great music "easy listening", which is something I would use for Liberacce and elevator music. If you don't appreciate it, that's fine.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I'm not crapping on new musicians...

We are not going to solve this with broad generalizations from either side. You will often find exceptions to the rule (many of these old timers embraced new trends, and the other way around...). Yes, music evolves, etc...etc... That is hardly the point.

I just find it a little surprising that anyone would call any of this great music "easy listening", which is something I would use for Liberacce and elevator music. If you don't appreciate it, that's fine.

Ben Webster and Billie Holiday are great, but compared to some of the more challenging jazz musos of that era they are just more accessible and relatively easy listening… to say I was demoting them to elevator music is just crap. It’s like Shostakovich as opposed to say Tchaikovsky (both are brilliant) some music within any genre in an era is just more challenging to appreciate if you aren’t really that familiar with the genre… PS I wouldn’t have put Mingus in the hard to appreciate jazz group.

 

[hopkins]

Ben Webster and Billie Holiday are great, but compared to some of the more challenging jazz musos of that era they are just more accessible and relatively easy listening… to say I was demoting them to elevator music is just crap. It’s like Shostakovich as opposed to say Tchaikovsky (both are brilliant)… just that some music within any genre in an era are just more challenging to appreciate if you aren’t really that familiar with the genre… PS I wouldn’t have put Mingus in the hard to appreciate jazz group.

Which jazz musicians of that era (pre-1960s) do you have in mind that would be more "challenging" ? I'm curious to see, and that could clarify my understanding of your comments.
I don't really think of music in terms of "challenging" vs "easy listening" - which is why I may have misinterpreted simply what you meant.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Which jazz musicians of that era (pre-1950s) do you have in mind that would be more "challenging" ? I'm curious to see, and that could clarify my understanding of your comments.
I don't really think of music in terms of "challenging" vs "easy listening" - which is why I may have misinterpreted simply what you meant.

You seriously need me to differentiate what easy listening in jazz is… it’s got zero to do with pre 50’s or 60’s. Most people come to jazz much like they come to classical… through the more sonorous, more accessible and often more commercially successful pieces… most here would know Miles Davis for Kind of Blue but not necessarily then have A Silent Way, or Bitches Brew or Head Hunters in their collections.

PS Kind of Blue is not elevator music.

 

[hopkins]

You seriously need me to differentiate what easy listening in jazz is… it’s got zero to do with pre 60’s. Most people come to jazz much like they come to classical… through the more sonorous, more accessible and often more commercially successful pieces… most here would know Miles Davis for Kind of Blue but not necessarily then have A Silent Way, or Bitches Brew or Head Hunters in their collections.

PS Kind of Blue is not elevator music.

Once again, I did not introduce the term "easy listening" here, you did. It doesn't matter to me what is commercial or not commercial, popular or not popular. I did not say Kind of Blue was elevator music!
This discussion is pointless. Let's stop here

 

[the sound of Tao]

Once again, I did not introduce the term "easy listening" here, you did. It doesn't matter to me what is commercial or not commercial, popular or not popular. I did not say Kind of Blue was elevator music!
This discussion is pointless. Let's stop here

Yes please

 

[godofwealth]

You seriously need me to differentiate what easy listening in jazz is… it’s got zero to do with pre 50’s or 60’s. Most people come to jazz much like they come to classical… through the more sonorous, more accessible and often more commercially successful pieces… most here would know Miles Davis for Kind of Blue but not necessarily then have A Silent Way, or Bitches Brew or Head Hunters in their collections.

PS Kind of Blue is not elevator music.

I would say Dave Brubeck is pretty easy listening, although Take Five has some pretty nontrivial time signatures. Paul Desmond for me is the epitome of easy listening in jazz. On the other hand, Mingus is definitely not easy listening. At first listen you hear what sound like a lot of discordant notes. Repeated listening slowly starts to unravel the greatness of Mingus.

It’s the same with classical music. I’m embarrassed to say almost 40 years ago I started my classical journey listening to Johann Strauss’ waltzes like The Blue Danube. I quickly realized that was elevator music in the classical world. Once I started enjoying Beethoven, Brahms, and Schubert, my tastes evolved. Finally I was ready for the Mingus level in classical, e.g., the string quartets of Shostakovich. When you hear Shostakovich’s quartets, like Mingus, it sounds discordant. Eventually you learn to appreciate the beauty. He was writing for his time and expressing the cynicism and bleakness of the Second World War through his quartets — his 8th quartet is particularly haunting.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I would say Dave Brubeck is pretty easy listening, although Take Five has some pretty nontrivial time signatures. Paul Desmond for me is the epitome of easy listening in jazz. On the other hand, Mingus is definitely not easy listening. At first listen you hear what sound like a lot of discordant notes. Repeated listening slowly starts to unravel the greatness of Mingus.

It’s the same with classical music. I’m embarrassed to say almost 40 years ago I started my classical journey listening to Johann Strauss’ waltzes like The Blue Danube. I quickly realized that was elevator music in the classical world. Once I started enjoying Beethoven, Brahms, and Schubert, my tastes evolved. Finally I was ready for the Mingus level in classical, e.g., the string quartets of Shostakovich. When you hear Shostakovich’s quartets, like Mingus, it sounds discordant. Eventually you learn to appreciate the beauty. He was writing for his time and expressing the cynicism and bleakness of the Second World War through his quartets — his 8th quartet is particularly haunting.

Rock, jazz, punk, chamber… I figure every genre of music tends to have its more hard core music makers and then more accessible variants and of course many musos do some of both… for jazz hard bop and fusion typically poses more of a challenge for many unfamiliar with jazz. A great tune is a great tune. Amazing structure is amazing structure. I don’t think the relative accessibility of a piece of music then relates at all to the quality of of the music. The whole elevator music thing is something of a misdirect… Strauss was pretty handy for dance music in its day. I grew up with a jazz pianist for an uncle so Charles Mingus probably just feels a bit more immediately familiar to me than it might to many I guess. I try not to overthink this and just allow what resonates best for me with music and follow and unfold with this as I have grown with music and gone through time. I still listen to many types of music. I feel it’s a dynamic process and no sign at all of it ending for me.

 

[Kingrex]

Art Pepper, Dave Brubeck, Ella Fitzgerald, Ray Charles (Frank and Dean), Duke Ellington. Those are the accessible musicians that brought me to jazz.

I need structure and a beat. I don't get into the fractured Mingus type stuff. Or 3 people playing different songs at the same time and everyone saying it's brilliance.

 

[facten]

I need structure and a beat. I don't get into the fractured Mingus type stuff. Or 3 people playing different songs at the same time and everyone saying it's brilliance.

I like you prefer jazz with structure and beat. The nice thing about jazz is there are enough sub-genre's of it to satisfy everyone's tastes; and each has it's own very talented artists.

 

[Kingrex]

I like you prefer jazz with structure and beat.

Probably because its how I always experienced music. The first music ever was.probably African tribal rhythm. Pre humans beating on a log while others danced and smacked the earth with a stick. I made that one up

 

[Joe Whip]

There is some truth to Hopkins assertions about the Jazz scene back in the day, there were tons of clubs in NYC and Philly where you could hear great music on a nightly basis. Young and new musicians were encouraged late at night and sit in, interact with the more established guys and find their style, their voice. As much as I enjoy listening at home to my jazz collection, nothing for me at least, beats being in a small club listening to masterful musicians playing the music they love with a crowd that appreciates the sounds and artistry,

 

[hopkins]

There is some truth to Hopkins assertions about the Jazz scene back in the day, there were tons of clubs in NYC and Philly where you could hear great music on a nightly basis. Young and new musicians were encouraged late at night and sit in, interact with the more established guys and find their style, their voice. As much as I enjoy listening at home to my jazz collection, nothing for me at least, beats being in a small club listening to masterful musicians playing the music they love with a crowd that appreciates the sounds and artistry,

Here is a nice book about jazz clubs in the 40s and 50s

 

[Joe Whip]

The after hours performances at the clubs in Harlem in the 40’s and 50’s are legendary And sad at the same time.

 

[hopkins]

The after hours performances at the clubs in Harlem in the 40’s and 50’s are legendary And sad at the same time.

Sad because we have so few recordings?

 

[Yeti]

Slightly at random.
Is Soft Machine Third jazz? I like that and would rather hear Slightly All The Time than anything on Kind of Blue.
How about Ravel’s piano concerto, the one for two hands? That slips a few blue notes in here and there. Hate it for that?
Where does Acoustic Ladyland fit? I took a Jazz hater to see them live and he loved it.
The boundaries can get a little hazy at times, both in term of definition and personally.
I do find the endless jazz at hifi shows palls after a surprisingly short time but then I’ll hear something I like amongst it all, often from Scandinavia.

EST were good live (and free) in the Paris Parc Florale, 3 1/2 hours and around half of that was encore.

 

[hopkins]

Slightly at random.
Is Soft Machine Third jazz? I like that and would rather hear Slightly All The Time than anything on Kind of Blue.
How about Ravel’s piano concerto, the one for two hands? That slips a few blue notes in here and there. Hate it for that?
Where does Acoustic Ladyland fit? I took a Jazz hater to see them live and he loved it.
The boundaries can get a little hazy at times, both in term of definition and personally.
I do find the endless jazz at hifi shows palls after a surprisingly short time but then I’ll hear something I like amongst it all, often from Scandinavia.

EST were good live (and free) in the Paris Parc Florale, 3 1/2 hours and around half of that was encore.

There's jazz for all tastes, and there are many ways to approach that music, much like any other, I guess.

Being somewhat of a late convert to jazz, I felt there was some kind of pressure to appreciate some of the artists that have acquired a god-like dimension today, and some of them just simply did not click with me. So you wonder why? Am I missing something? But at the end of the day, we should just start with what speaks to us, and little by little our appreciation can broaden as we make connections between what initially seemed so different. Reading about the music, I found, helped me appreciate some artists. Some authors/critics are able to communicate their enthusiasm without getting too much into the technical aspects of the music. Perhaps what I am saying sounds basic, but that's my story.

Here's a humorous example of what jazz is to many:

 

[hopkins]

My mother was a typical child of the early 1940s, listening to a lot of big band and vocalists (like Sinatra) so I grew up hearing a lot of that music at home, without really paying attention to it (being into other "genres"). But I guess it left a mark. On the other hand, I don't regularly listen to stuff I really was crazy for in my twenties. I've got a soft spot for it, and sometimes I'll go on a binge, but it's not what I listen to on a daily basis. Nothing out of the ordinary here, as others have also explained how their tastes have changed over time.

 

[hopkins]

which brings up the topic of whether we share our musical tastes with our partners... Perhaps there's already a thread on that subject. Anyway, mine can't stand a lot of the "jazz" I listen to - anything with a strong blues feel to it she is fine with, however - but nobody's perfect

 

[Joe Whip]

Sad because we have so few recordings?

No because the way the musicians were treated.