# Classical music fans who haven't been able to get into Jazz: What's been the reason?



## KendrickThaibs (Aug 28, 2021)

Although I really love certain styles of Jazz, I have to say that it took me a long time to appreciate the genre and find the styles that I like. When I first heard "classical music" and started exploring it, it took me a short time to really get interested in it. I wish the same happened with Jazz.

Those who haven't managed to get into Jazz yet, what are the reasons? What is it that does not convince you yet?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I am not sure and what follows is obviously lopsided and a simplification but describes some of my experiences of almost 30 years trying to get into Jazz (I like some select bits and pieced but mostly easily do without it and never really became a fan.)

It does not go anywhere. Mostly improvisation based music does not have a direction in the way composed music has. If one is not familiar with the style, improvisation often seems aimless "noodling" of fast notes. Like the Red Queen, running but not getting anywhere. 
(I have/had worse problems with Indian/Persian classical that doesn't go anywhere slowly in half hour long pieces within a tuning system that sounds out of tune if one is not familiar with it, not in 5-10 min fast pieces like mid-20th century jazz.)

Also the harmonic schemes and scales are a bit different from most classical music, again adding to a lack of shape and direction. Of course Jazz does have structures and shapes but they are often quite different.
Also, bits that seem gratitious and irritating. When I first heard one of the famous Bill Evans Albums (probably Waltz for Debbie), I quite liked the piano but I found the background? interjections of Bass/drums mostly superfluous and distracting. A friend I had at the time who played jazz piano himself tried but couldn't really explain why one "needed" a trio and the music was better that way than with piano solo. I got used to it but still often don't really like these parts.

I am actually surprised that so many listeners enjoy both Jazz and Classical equally because they seem really different from each other to me in respects directly connected with perception of patterns.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

KendrickThaibs said:


> Although I really love certain styles of Jazz, I have to say that it took me a long time to appreciate the genre and find the styles that I like. When I first heard "classical music" and started exploring it, it took me a short time to really get interested in it. I wish the same happened with Jazz.
> 
> Those who haven't managed to get into Jazz yet, what are the reasons? What is it that does not convince you yet?


I've not tried. Too much else to be trying at the moment. The most I can say about jazz is that I do like Barber and Bilk (showing my age) and some jazz rock (eg Bruford).


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

It is such a massive, important field of music that I feel like it'd take an enormous amount of energy and listening time to do justice, and I only have so many hours in the day. There are quite a few artistic fields lkle this for me.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I like jazz - the kind Shostakovich wrote. About as far away from "real" jazz as possible, and that's good thing. I've never taken to jazz, don't understand the fascination with it, can't stand playing or listening to it. The style ruins some otherwise good music: An American in Paris, for example. My idea of hell would be being stuck at a never ending Monterey Jazz Festival. I do have to say I get satisfaction in that jazz is even less popular than classical.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> It does not go anywhere.


I think this is basically right. Maybe one could say that "development" is sort of antithetical to the form. To me, that is no harder to appreciate that classical forms (I listened to much more jazz initially than classical), but it's definitely different and I think you have to cultivate that way of listening if you're coming from a more rigid classical context.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I have about 50 Jazz CDs (compared with several thousand classical) and there are things I do like. The shorter, more energetic (but not rock-like), the better. Or songs that are basically free covers of 1920s-30s hits and very well and expressively done. But the highly regarded jazz from the 1940s bebop era onwards with ever more and longer improvisations or the freer stuff later on I usually have trouble with. And the pieces I liked never really drew me further into the field. 

I also think there is a bit of a contradiction in listening many times to *recordings* of supposedly somewhat spontaneous improvisatory music making. And as I learned not to treat classical music as "mood setting" (and this proved very rewarding) I feel like a "bad listener" when I cannot listen to jazz in another mode than "mood setting". I alway feel like missing something or most it...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I'm not sure if I'm using the right terms but, I think "compositional jazz" is better than "improvisional jazz" (which seems to meander endlessly imv). This is a video game I used to play as a kid, and I still remember the soundtrack:


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> And as I learned not to treat classical music as "mood setting" (and this proved very rewarding) I feel like a "bad listener" when I cannot listen to jazz in another mode than "mood setting". I alway feel like missing something or most it...


I'm just thinking out loud, but maybe because the "horizontal" dimension of jazz (i.e. development/narrative) is relatively less important, other dimensions become more important. I guess one could think of "mood" as a vertical dimension, in some sense, and I think that means jazz lends itself well to being mood music, but I also think it rewards intentional listening just as much as classical music, but like classical it's easier to dig into it if you understand the structure and concepts.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

KendrickThaibs said:


> Although I really love certain styles of Jazz, I have to say that it took me a long time to appreciate the genre and find the styles that I like. When I first heard "classical music" and started exploring it, it took me a short time to really get interested in it. I wish the same happened with Jazz.
> 
> Those who haven't managed to get into Jazz yet, what are the reasons? What is it that does not convince you yet?


I am the opposite of the person you describe. I came to Classical from Jazz. But if I were approached by a friend who was a Classical music lover and who made a sincere request that I introduce them to some Jazz, here's what I would offer.

Louis Armstrong's Hot Five and Seven recordings, collected in a box set.

Duke Ellington's Blanton/Webster recordings (_Never No Lament_), collected in a boxset.

Miles Davis's first great quintet recordings, collected in a box set, plus _Kind of Blue_, and _Bitches Brew_.

I would begin with these and judging by my friend's reaction, I'd either continue over time to offer other recordings, or not.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

Herbie Hancock's solo at 4:25 is an example of jazz that I do like. It has the free and spontaneous quality, but there is a lot of contrast between the different phrases he comes up with. It moves forward in distinct stages with individualistic melodies that would only make sense in their particular order.






Contrast that with Oscar Peterson's solo here. I find it very fun at first, but as one minute turns into two minutes into three and so on, it starts to feel like he's just playing the same runs over and over again. Not having any linear narrative progression is fine with me, but only if there's lots of contrast in the material. Debussy, Takemitsu, and Hans Werner Henze have meandering music that doesn't feel linear, but there's always a new color or effect emerging from the orchestra, a brand new kind of melody or emotion or dramatic shift. So much of jazz just lacks variety in that way.






Miles's first solo here is more of what I don't like as much. It's fun, but I don't hear much variety nor any interesting melodies. It just sounds like noodling. There's a nice rhythmic drive to it, and I'm sure the drummer and bassist are doing a lot of complex things here, but mostly they just seem to providing a consistent pulse or wave for Miles to ride on. Because the "beat" is so consistent it kind of drops into the background and ceases to be interesting for me.






In this piece by Bach, the harpsichord is doing far more than just provide a consistent pulse. It's an entire piece undo itself. All the parts are moving and changing in varied ways at every turn, so it feels more spontaneous and exciting even though it's not improvised.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

If a classical listener came to me and asked where to begin with jazz, I'd probably recommend Bill Evans. Relatively structured, lots of textural, rhythmic and harmonic variety, real focus on melody. I read somewhere that he was very influenced by Debussy.

[start at 16:44]


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

Jazz is more structured than you would think, there is an introduction of the theme, an exposition in the form of the extended solos, and a recapitulation where the theme returns. Also, jazz, while invented by Africans brought to the New World, uses instruments developed in Europe for classical music. I won't go on about the complexities of jazz compared to classical as I am not schooled in music theory, but for the past 100 years the two different forms of music have had an influence on each other.

Kreisler commented that jazz goes nowhere. Although I would disagree, I get where that comes from. Sometimes I feel the same way when I'm listening to the piano music of Debussy or Schumann or Messiaen. Or Sun Ra.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I do have a fondness for old style Big Band, with its relatively more structured theme / improv / ritornello / improv / ritornello / coda format. But that's hybrid jazz.

I also once had, and enjoyed, some Keith Jarrett albums. His pianism was extraordinary, but after enough listenings it got old because it didn’t go anywhere in a structured way.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I have a personal distaste for the sound of the saxophone and I don't like incessant drum set rhythms. I have a greater appreciation for solo jazz piano (I like Ellington and Gershwin, but do Joplin and Waller count as jazz? They're great too). I like it as background music for driving (minimal classical in the car for me), but all the jazz I have listened to does not really hold my interest for focused listening. I agree with mbhaub in that I love classical music that is influenced by jazz - Ravel, Milhaud, Arnold, Honegger - because it uses the creative, colorful idiom to IMO inject more variety.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I have a personal distaste for the sound of the saxophone


ironically, I think it's classical music where the instrument really shines:


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

mossyembankment said:


> If a classical listener came to me and asked where to begin with jazz, I'd probably recommend Bill Evans. Relatively structured, lots of textural, rhythmic and harmonic variety, real focus on melody. I read somewhere that he was very influenced by Debussy.
> 
> [start at 16:44]


I don't hate all jazz but largely find many pieces a jumbled incoherent mess of ideas (the old cliché of men playing a different song all at the same time really does apply for me often). Like ACB, previously, it doesn't help that I'm largely allergic to the sound of a saxophone (see also bagpipes). The best I can manage is some jazz-rock (Jean Luc Ponty, etc). The sound of trad jazz makes my teeth grind in the same way that warbling sopranos do in some orchestral and chamber works.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I am not overly fond of Jazz saxophone but maybe because this is how I first encountered the instrument, I find "classical (solo) saxophone" utterly strange and ugly. 
It sounds wrong because neither "classical" nor like jazz/swing should sound. It doesn't help that the handful of somewhat well known classical pieces for (solo) suxophone suck.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Apparently I'm not alone here in disliking the sound of the jazz saxophone. When it was a relatively new instrument it was considered suitable mainly for outdoor marching bands; it never became a regular member of the orchestra, and Wagner said that it sounded like the word _Reckankreuzungsklankewerkzeuge,_ which roughly translates as "nonsense sound factory tools." I do actually enjoy the sax when it's soft and mellow, as it is in some 20th-century classical works and in such uncategorizable work as Paul Winter's soprano sax stuff, but the typical rough, throaty quality cultivated in jazz doesn't do it for me. When it's loud, frantic, honky, unmelodious and dissonant I head for the hills. I have a similar reaction to the ungodly screeching of jazz trumpet, but I've enjoyed some of Miles Davis's cool, haunting playing. I like quiet, mellow jazz most, especially piano music with warm, rich harmonies and "Evans-escent" moods.

That jazz tends to be relatively unstructured compared to classical music doesn't bother me, but it does limit the amount of time I can listen to it without getting restless.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Kreisler jr said:


> I am not overly fond of Jazz saxophone but maybe because this is how I first encountered the instrument, I find "classical saxophone" utterly strange and ugly.
> It sounds wrong because neither "classical" nor like jazz/swing should sound. It doesn't help that the handful of somewhat well known classical pieces for suxophone suck.


Do you like the solo in the first movement of Rachmaninoff's _Symphonic Dances? _I think the sax was an inspired choice.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Not too familiar with that one. I don't remember disliking it as was the case for concertante pieces by Glasunov, Debussy or what else there is. It's also o.k. for a brief solo in Bolero.
And I don't dislike Jazz saxophone. 
But I also find that the jazz of the era I seem to like best as far as the music goes (roughly 1940s-early 60s Bebop and Cool) has a fairly restricted sound palette, dominated by (alto) sax and (often muted) trumpet/cornet. 
It's all well for some pieces and I don't dislike it. But it's not something I find very enticing as far as the sound goes. 
And while I like some of the more "symphonic" attempts with more mixed and subtle colors (e.g. Gil Evans/Davis Porgy and Bess or some of Ellingtons large band things) they are losing out on aspects (spontaneity, interaction in a small group) that make "real" jazz attractive.
As somebody else said, it's always a consideration of listening time. I dabbled with getting into jazz since only a few years after I got into classical as a teenager, so almost 30 years, and it has "clicked" only occasionally, so I am not forcing this anymore.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner said that it sounded like the word _Reckankreuzungsklankewerkzeuge,_ which roughly translates as "nonsense sound factory tools."


Pretty much the Wagnerian way of saying





Reckankreuzungsklankewerkzeuge!
Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious!
If you say it loud enough, you'll always sound precocious!
Reckankreuzungsklankewerkzeuge!
Ho joto, joto joto, ho joto ho!
Ho joto, joto joto, ho joto ho!
Ho joto, joto joto, ho joto ho!
Ho joto, joto joto, ho joto ho!


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I was big into jazz during my college years and some time beyond; so about age 18-35. I came to jazz as a teenager through classical music. I found an LP in the classical section of my local record store that looked interesting: _Meeting at the Summit: Benny Goodman plays the Jazz-Inspired Classics with Leonard Bernstein, Aaron Copland, Morton Gould, and Igor Stravinsky_.









This album included Bernstein's wonderful _Prelude, Fugue and Riffs_; Copland's contemplative and breezy _Clarinet Concerto_; Morton Gould's ambitious _Derivations for Clarinet and Band_; and Stravinsky's sultry _Ebony Concerto_. I loved that record, and at the time I thought it _was_ jazz; so I went right back to the record store, and this time went straight to the _jazz_ section; and came back with a budget Italian knock-off label featuring the music of Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington and Ray Charles.









After that, I was pretty much hooked, and began a jazz journey that took me into all the various sub-genres including big band, bebop, free jazz, fusion, cool, east coast, west coast, Latin jazz etc. (the David Brubeck Trio of the early 1950s even experimented with 12-Tone jazz!); and Jazz became an obsession and the only genre that ever came close to being a rival to my favorite genre which was always classical. I was intrigued because I found a bunch of jazz artists who seemed as imaginative, innovative, and prolific, as the likes of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Wagner, Stravinsky and Schoenberg; but they were _American_ and mostly _African-American_; sort of a testimony that America had it's own sophisticated genre in it's music heritage. This, of course, was a few years before the good people at NAXOS would release the wonderful _American Classics_ series which demonstrated the rich and varied tradition of America's classical composers that went beyond Ives, Copland and Barber; which was as far more-or-less than CBS or RCA was willing to take in promoting American classical music!

But I consider myself lucky that I came to jazz in the mid-1980s so that I came along just in time so that I could catch a handful of some of those great old jazz masters in concert. These would include Frank Sinatra, Lionel Hampton, Dizzy Gillespie, Ernestine Anderson, the Modern Jazz Quartet, Ray Charles, Clark Terry, Sun Ra, Chick Corea, Grover Washington, David Brubeck, and Tony Bennett. They were elderly but still worth the effort.

The last time I saw Tony Bennett in concert was about five years ago, and he was talking about a recording he made with David Brubeck of the song, _That Old Black Magic_, back in the 1960s and he said that he and Brubeck "Both forgot about that recording."

I then turned to my wife and said, "I _have_ that recording"; and I felt a sense of accomplishment that my knowledge of jazz and the music of Tony Bennett and David Brubeck had become _more_ in depth than the artists themselves!

Of the jazz artists I would really like to have seen in concert who were either too elderly to perform or were already dead by the time I came to know them are Charles Mingus, Roland Kirk, Gene Krupa, Buddy Rich, and Ella Fitzgerald. Mingus and Kirk had a really hard, bop sound, very intense and angry when they weren't being comical. Mingus was really interesting not only as an incredible bassist, but also in the way that he allowed his sidemen to have so much freedom in their improvisations while also maintaining a musical vision that was always pure Mingus. Krupa and Rich are the twin towers of jazz drummers; and both are more-or-less of the "big band" sub-genre, which isn't always to my liking (Harry James, for example, just becomes to schmaltzy for me, sometimes). Even so, Gene Krupa's sense of swing and shading and underlining the music was, to me, just beautiful; and I was interested to know that Krupa liked classical composers such as Rimsky-Korsakov, Debussy and Ravel, who were masters of orchestration, color, and mood. In many ways, Buddy Rich was a much better drummer than Krupa, in that he could do anything, play faster than anyone, and never miss a beat; but Krupa was the more natural-sounding drummer and the more innovative one. Then there is Lady Ella Fitzgerald who I think had the greatest voice among female jazz vocalist, not because she had the best phrasing, range, or technique; but because her voice had such a beautiful sincerity. I really wanted to see Ella in concert while she was declining. She was dying from diabetes type 2, and walking on prosthetic legs, and she was giving concerts in the Los Angeles area where she was living; and she would perform the whole concert and sing while sitting on a stool. She lived for the music and wanted everyone who was ever a fan to see her sing one last time. I was living 3,000 miles away on the east coast and busy raising a family by then so there was no way I could get there.

Charles Mingus and Roland Kirk:








Gene Krupa and Buddy Rich:








Ella Fitzgerald:








As I indicated earlier, it was sometime around the age of 35 or so that my interest in jazz started to wane. By then a lot of great old jazz masters were dying out, and it didn't seem as though the younger generations were turning out dynamic jazz personalities along the order of Armstrong, Ellington, Miles Davis, Gil Evans, David Brubeck, Cecil Taylor, Sun Ra, Dizzy Gillespie, Sarah Vaughan, Ella Fitzgerald, Charles Mingus, Buddy Rich, etc. The playing of the college-trained younger generation was superior technically, but there was rarely a personality that was distinct in a way that the old masters were. Amy Winehouse, who was Blues/Jazz was an exception, but her life was tragically cut short and that was no surprise to me, given her problems with drug addictions, anorexia, and other mental health problems.

Nowadays my listening experience is just about 90% classical, but my jazz collection of about 500 records and CDs remains and I sometimes turn to it and always find it to be a rich and rewarding experience where I even find new things to like that I didn't notice before in those recordings.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> I am not overly fond of Jazz saxophone but maybe because this is how I first encountered the instrument, I find "classical (solo) saxophone" utterly strange and ugly.
> It sounds wrong because neither "classical" nor like jazz/swing should sound. It doesn't help that the handful of somewhat well known classical pieces for (solo) suxophone suck.





Woodduck said:


> Apparently I'm not alone here in disliking the sound of the jazz saxophone. When it was a relatively new instrument it was considered suitable mainly for outdoor marching bands; it never became a regular member of the orchestra, and Wagner said that it sounded like the word _Reckankreuzungsklankewerkzeuge,_ which roughly translates as "nonsense sound factory tools." I do actually enjoy the sax when it's soft and mellow, as it is in some 20th-century classical works and in such uncategorizable work as Paul Winter's soprano sax stuff, but the typical rough, throaty quality cultivated in jazz doesn't do it for me. When it's loud, frantic, honky, unmelodious and dissonant I head for the hills. I have a similar reaction to the ungodly screeching of jazz trumpet, but I've enjoyed some of Miles Davis's cool, haunting playing. I like quiet, mellow jazz most, especially piano music with warm, rich harmonies and "Evans-escent" moods.
> 
> That jazz tends to be relatively unstructured compared to classical music doesn't bother me, but it does limit the amount of time I can listen to it without getting restless.


The sax is the quintessential Jazz instrument. If you don't like the "sound" of it (which is an odd statement, since there isn't one sound), you don't really "get" Jazz.

Jazz is all about individual expressions, and developing an individual sound on the instrument is a primary component of that. The saxophone is marvelously flexible for this purpose and good Jazz players are immediately identifiable just by their sound on the instrument.

The same is true for all of the instruments, but the sax is probably the best for creating a personal sound.

John Coltrane, Lester Young, Sonny Rollins, Wayne Shorter, Ben Webster, all had unique sounds on the sax, all tenor players (although Coltrane and Shorter also doubled on soprano, which they also sounded differently on). I simply love it. (But I am a Jazz fan, former professional Jazz bassist, so it was at one time the center of my life.)

While I appreciate Classical use of the saxophone, for me, Jazz is where it has been used with the greatest imagination and musicianship.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

As someone who love jazz, and especially bebop and the musics it developed into, I shouldn't be in this thread. Of course, classical (including the much that is contemporary) is my main taste but even then I feel that the last century saw few geniuses of the calibre of Coltrane. I could name many others from the genre but he stands above nearly everyone.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Fats Waller most certainly counts as jazz. He's one of the early greats, and one of the first jazz organists. I don't spend a lot of time listening to early jazz but Waller is one of the exceptions.

As far as jazz improv sounding like it's "going nowhere" or just noodling, it really depends on the musicians you have listened to. Coltrane can be tough going for classical listeners due to the fact that the solos can sound very busy and restless. Better to listen to someone like Miles who doesn't play so many notes. Or older musicians including Ben Webster or Johnny Hodges.

For those who don't like saxophone I'd recommend the Gary Burton / Chick Corea vibes and piano duets. There are some terrific live concerts on YouTube. Also, the Bill Evans trio. Try the Waltz For Debby album. The Corea/Burton Burghausen 2011 show is a favorite of mine.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> The sax is the quintessential Jazz instrument. If you don't like the "sound" of it (which is an odd statement, since there isn't one sound), you don't really "get" Jazz.


Well, I did qualify my statement in several ways. I said that I can enjoy the sax when it's "mellow," when it isn't "rough," "honky" and "throaty." There's nothing odder about generally disliking the sax than generally disliking anything else with exceptions. As for not "getting" jazz, one can "get" something without being fond of it. Of course we may define "get" however we wish, but if our definition of "getting" something has to imply enthusiastic devotion to every form of it, other people's levels of "getting" will never satisfy us, and we'll even have to contend that a high percentage of people on this forum don't "get" classical music.

I, like most Americans, and probably a majority of people in other countries, have lived with the constant presence of jazz since birth, and the "feel" of jazz is not foreign to me. But jazz is extremely varied, and even jazz enthusiasts argue about what should be included in the category and who is a "real" jazz singer or player. Even if the sax is the most typical jazz instrument - which might mean simply that it isn't a major presence in any other kind of music - jazz is certainly not defined by the sound of it; there are jazz pianists, jazz violinists, jazz singers, etc., and they are all just as much jazz musicians as "horn" players. I have enjoyed the work of many of these people. But I don't spend much time with them, since other music interests me more.

Some people use threads like this to dismiss things they don't like or understand. I don't do that. Nothing in my post was a put-down of a genre of music for which I have great respect, and which I enjoy to a limited extent.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

For a long time (and maybe still now) I wanted to like Jazz more than I did. I thought I should like at least some of it more than I actually did, basically because I liked at least some classical pieces close to Jazz, e.g. I got that Goodman disc with Stravinsky, Bernstein, Gould etc. mentioned above when I was 19 and liked it a lot. 
But eventually it was a bit similar to some books. I thought from what I read about his stories that I should really love Joseph Conrad; I read a few of his books and stories but never became a great fan (I started "Heart of Darkness" twice and never finished...).
So I got more relaxed about it and stopped trying. I might again some time, but who knows.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Well, I did qualify my statement in several ways. I said that I can enjoy the sax when it's "mellow," when it isn't "rough," "honky" and "throaty." There's nothing odder about generally disliking the sax than generally disliking anything else with exceptions. As for not "getting" jazz, one can "get" something without being fond of it. Of course we may define "get" however we wish, but if our definition of "getting" something has to imply enthusiastic devotion to every form of it, other people's levels of "getting" will never satisfy us, and we'll even have to contend that a high percentage of people on this forum don't "get" classical music.
> 
> I, like most Americans, and probably a majority of people in other countries, have lived with the constant presence of jazz since birth, and the "feel" of jazz is not foreign to me. But jazz is extremely varied, and even jazz enthusiasts argue about what should be included in the category and who is a "real" jazz singer or player. Even if the sax is the most typical jazz instrument - which might mean simply that it isn't a major presence in any other kind of music - jazz is certainly not defined by the sound of it; there are jazz pianists, jazz violinists, jazz singers, etc., and they are all just as much jazz musicians as "horn" players. I have enjoyed the work of many of these people. But I don't spend much time with them, since other music interests me more.
> 
> Some people use threads like this to dismiss things they don't like or understand. I don't do that. Nothing in my post was a put-down of a genre of music for which I have great respect, and which I enjoy to a limited extent.


This post is much more measured than the one I responded to, and in matters of taste there is no debate.

You may already have heard *Johnny Hodges*, or *Ben Webster*, but these are two Jazz saxophonists whose style would seem to be more pleasing to you. Also, you might check out the album _Ballads_ by *John Coltrane* or his record with *Johnny Hartman*, both showcasing a more mellow and softer sound than one usually associates with Coltrane.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Kreisler jr said:


> ...
> I also think there is a bit of a contradiction in listening many times to *recordings* of supposedly somewhat spontaneous improvisatory music making. And as I learned not to treat classical music as "mood setting" (and this proved very rewarding) I feel like a "bad listener" when I cannot listen to jazz in another mode than "mood setting". I alway feel like missing something or most it...





Woodduck said:


> Apparently I'm not alone here in disliking the sound of the jazz saxophone. When it was a relatively new instrument it was considered suitable mainly for outdoor marching bands; it never became a regular member of the orchestra, and Wagner said that it sounded like the word _Reckankreuzungsklankewerkzeuge,_ which roughly translates as "nonsense sound factory tools." I do actually enjoy the sax when it's soft and mellow, as it is in some 20th-century classical works and in such uncategorizable work as Paul Winter's soprano sax stuff, but the typical rough, throaty quality cultivated in jazz doesn't do it for me. When it's loud, frantic, honky, unmelodious and dissonant I head for the hills. I have a similar reaction to the ungodly screeching of jazz trumpet....





Enthusiast said:


> As someone who love jazz, and especially bebop and the musics it developed into, I shouldn't be in this thread. Of course, classical (including the much that is contemporary) is my main taste but even then I feel that the last century saw few geniuses of the calibre of Coltrane. I could name many others from the genre but he stands above nearly everyone.


I stand with the jazz aficianados. (I know, I know... you "classical" folks prefer the term "aficianadi". That's okay. I can live with that.)

These gripings about the saxophone sound rather bewilder me. I love jazz sax, in all ranges and styles. In a given listening session I can bop from Houston Person to Roscoe Mitchell and incorporate a wide range of saxers in between (Charlie Parker, Coltrane, Ricky Ford, Stan Getz, Nathan Davis, Archie Shepp, Joe Henderson, Don Dietrich, Jim Sauter...) without ever having a down moment.

Same with those trumpeters....

I worship at the shrines of Miles Davis and Bill Evans and Thelonious Monk with the same relish I pay to those of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. Though I refuse to compare the jazzmen directly to the classical guys. Apples and oranges. And somedays you prefer the apple while on others you crave the orange. Or another fruit.

Nothing wrong there.

To find error in "*recordings* of supposedly somewhat spontaneous improvisatory music making" seems difficult to grasp. Any recording is just that: a sonic "photograph" of a moment in time and place which one may enjoy or not enjoy. Any single recording of Beethoven's Ninth is not _the_ recording of the Ninth or especially not "_the_ Ninth". Just as interpretations of a composed "classical" piece will vary from player to player, from playing to playing (even by the same artist!), jazz improvisation will vary. Which is a reason for collecting jazz records featuring favorite "tunes". Or going out to a jazz club to hear some the live vibe.

I will consider myself fortunate to be able to equally enjoy "classical" and jazz, and many other types of music and art as well. I can only feel somewhat downhearted that others cannot share in such varied splendors with equal appreciation. Let us enjoy the world in its wide range of colors rather than limit ourselves to a couple or a handful of hues.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

No, a recording of a particular performance of Beethoven's 9th is not identical with the piece. But there is score, there is a bit of leeway in performing that score but it is not a mostly improvised piece. 
Some session of improvisation that was turned into a famous recording is different from a recording of a performance of a score, I think. The recording is now the "piece" as there is no score and the recording made it permanent. But turning an improvisation into something permanent seems a bit strange, against the "spirit" of improvised music. (Whereas it seems less against the spirit of notated music to fix a particular performance.) But it's a minor point. As Jazz seems to have done well on records since a century, this kind of reception does not seem a problem.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> But it's a minor point.


Yeah, I think this is overthinking it a bit. There is a difference, but Miles Davis and Thelonious Monk are dead - seeing them live isn't an option. We can't appreciate their talent unless we listen to a recording of a particular performance, even if they may have played it completely differently on another occasion.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> No, a recording of a particular performance of Beethoven's 9th is not identical with the piece. But there is score, there is a bit of leeway in performing that score but it is not a mostly improvised piece.
> Some session of improvisation that was turned into a famous recording is different from a recording of a performance of a score, I think. The recording is now the "piece" as there is no score and the recording made it permanent. But turning an improvisation into something permanent seems a bit strange, against the "spirit" of improvised music. (Whereas it seems less against the spirit of notated music to fix a particular performance.) But it's a minor point. As Jazz seems to have done well on records since a century, this kind of reception does not seem a problem.


I have always thought that Jazz recordings are a snapshot of one performance, and that Jazz is ideally a live art form. However, over time, good Jazz bands were able to create a different kind of music specifically for the studio. The Miles Davis 65-68 quintet, e.g., wrote originals mainly which they performed "once" for the records. Only a few of these songs were included in their live sets, which continued to feature standards.

Even a live recording is still just one performance. The best way to appreciate Jazz is to have heard the same band repeatedly, which is outside the experience of most people.

So Jazz has developed into a recorded as well as a live art form. But I still think that Jazz is best heard live, and repeatedly, since good Jazz musicians create new versions of the same material on a nightly basis.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

In response to the premise of this thread I would say - Who Cares? As someone who loves many genres and derives equal satisfaction from listening to them all I have zero interest in converting those who are content with listening to the genre that gives them all they need. You either hear something or you don’t. You either “get it” or you don’t. I reiterate - Who cares what the reason is for them not getting into jazz or whatever genre they haven’t gotten in to.

I can’t abide a lot of baroque or serialism but don’t bother trying to convert me. I’m happy to listen to what turns me on and it’s my loss if I don’t hear the joys of baroque or serialism that others do. I don’t feel that I’m missing out at all and nor should anyone else.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"I really hate jazz" https://www.talkclassical.com/70967-i-really-hate-jazz.html#post2067462


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> "I really hate jazz" https://www.talkclassical.com/70967-i-really-hate-jazz.html#post2067462


Yeah, that was a weird and pretty pointless thread.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Barbebleu said:


> In response to the premise of this thread I would say - Who Cares? As someone who loves many genres and derives equal satisfaction from listening to them all I have zero interest in converting those who are content with listening to the genre that gives them all they need. You either hear something or you don't. You either "get it" or you don't. I reiterate - Who cares what the reason is for them not getting into jazz or whatever genre they haven't gotten in to.
> 
> I can't abide a lot of baroque or serialism but don't bother trying to convert me. I'm happy to listen to what turns me on and it's my loss if I don't hear the joys of baroque or serialism that others do. I don't feel that I'm missing out at all and nor should anyone else.


I agree, I have no interest in trying to "convert" someone into liking any kind of music. I responded to the thread within the context of a friend who loved Classical music sincerely asked for some Jazz recommendations. Under that circumstance I wouldn't aim for Jazz that had elements somewhat similar to those found in Classical music; I'd offer him what I thought were the best examples of Jazz I knew of, from a variety of periods.

Which is what I did, if you saw my first post.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Also, you might check out the album _Ballads_ by *John Coltrane* or his record with *Johnny Hartman*, both showcasing a more mellow and softer sound than one usually associates with Coltrane.


Gorgeous stuff. Where's my fireplace and my glass of sherry?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Barbebleu said:


> In response to the premise of this thread I would say - Who Cares? As someone who loves many genres and derives equal satisfaction from listening to them all I have zero interest in converting those who are content with listening to the genre that gives them all they need. You either hear something or you don't. You either "get it" or you don't. I reiterate - Who cares what the reason is for them not getting into jazz or whatever genre they haven't gotten in to.
> 
> I can't abide a lot of baroque or serialism but don't bother trying to convert me. I'm happy to listen to what turns me on and it's my loss if I don't hear the joys of baroque or serialism that others do. I don't feel that I'm missing out at all and nor should anyone else.


Hey, you know you really ought to check out the music of Ornette Co... oh wait, never mind!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I agree, I have no interest in trying to "convert" someone into liking any kind of music. I responded to the thread within the context of a friend who loved Classical music sincerely asked for some Jazz recommendations. Under that circumstance I wouldn't aim for Jazz that had elements somewhat similar to those found in Classical music; I'd offer him what I thought were the best examples of Jazz I knew of, from a variety of periods.
> 
> Which is what I did, if you saw my first post.


I've been down that road too. I've had non-classical friends asking for suggestions for classical music that they might like. Given my taste in classical I wouldn't even know where to start. My intro was Bach but I'm not sure that's a great intro for a neophyte. Mahler? Doubtful. Shostakovich? Even more doubtful. It's a minefield buried in a swamp recommending things. I try to steer clear now. :lol:


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

It's interesting that we using the term "convert" in regard to music genres; and I do think that music can become a near-religious experience. In this regard, many religions, most notably Christianity, adheres to the tenet of "Winning souls for the Lord"; "Proclaiming the good news". Along this line, "gospel" is Greek for "good news". From my own point of view, I too would be reluctant to push my taste in classical music or jazz on someone else. Even so, if someone approached me and wanted to know something about classical music or jazz, I would be happy to "Proclaim the good news"!

As for where to start, I'm a big believer in not underestimating people's capacity to understand and enjoy all varieties of classical composers and jazz musicians; even the ones we may deem "difficult". To make a comparison to the world of art: If you were meeting a friend in New York City, who was interested in art but didn't know very much about the world's great artists, would it be imprudent to take your friend to the the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) to see works by Jackson Pollack and Andy Warhol on one day, and then hop over to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MMA) the next day to check out Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Picasso, etc? Along this line, why should we assume that one can only graduate to the likes of works of Arnold Schoenberg or Cecil Taylor when they are "ready" for it. I was still relatively new to classical music when I came across Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ and I loved it right away. My first full-blown 12-tone work was Schoenberg's awesome and powerful, _Survivor from Warsaw_; which is eight minutes that is so intense that it seems much longer, and right away I got it as a work that at once touched upon suffering, as well as faith (albeit, the narration and context makes _Survivor_ somewhat easier to get something by Schoenberg that is more ambiguous).

If the person is willing to challenge themselves and "Use his ears like a man", or "Use her ears like a woman" (to paraphrase Charles Ives), then you've succeeded in sharing your knowledge and love of music with someone else; and this, of course, would be very rewarding for both of you. If the person is not willing to put in the effort or give the music an even chance, then at least you tried, and then they can go back to their Pachelbel's _Canon_, light classics, pops music, Classical radio Baroque/brunch bill-of-fare; smooth jazz, etc; and there's nothing wrong with that, either. But the person really doesn't need you to appreciate and enjoy any of that; or do they?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Jazz post-1950 or so just doesn't appeal to me that much. Most of it just reminds me of James Wong Howe night cityscapes with wet streets. Maybe too much _Sweet Smell of Success_ when I was younger. Match me, Sidney.

I love "Dixieland" or whatever you want to call it though.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

dissident said:


> I love "Dixieland" or whatever you want to call it though.


There doesn't seem to be enough appreciation for Dixieland in jazz circles. Okay, maybe I mean that I didn't listen to much Dixieland when I was in jazz circles. I recently got a Bix Beiderbecke box set, and I've been blown away both by hearing him and Frankie Trumbauer. And it's a reminder to me that the jazz genre covers a lot of territory.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Manxfeeder said:


> There doesn't seem to be enough appreciation for Dixieland in jazz circles. Okay, maybe I mean that I didn't listen to much Dixieland when I was in jazz circles. I recently got a Bix Beiderbecke box set, and I've been blown away both by hearing him and Frankie Trumbauer.


First of all "Dixieland" is a antiquated term which was never popular with most Jazz musicians. New Orleans Jazz, Early Jazz, Traditional Jazz, are all better terms. And there is quite a bit of respect given to Early Jazz musicians such as Louis Armstrong, Sidney Bechet, Pops Foster, Bunk Johnson, Freddie Keppard, Lorenzo Tio , Johnny Dodds, Edmund Hall, George Lewis, and many others by Jazz musicians I've known.

Wynton Marsalis has devoted a lot of energy promoting the origins of Jazz with concerts, teaching, writing, and recordings. He has done a lot as far as making sure these musicians are given their due credit and encouraging appreciation for their mastery of the music.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

starthrower said:


> Fats Waller most certainly counts as jazz. He's one of the early greats, and one of the first jazz organists. I don't spend a lot of time listening to early jazz but Waller is one of the exceptions.
> 
> As far as jazz improv sounding like it's "going nowhere" or just noodling, it really depends on the musicians you have listened to. Coltrane can be tough going for classical listeners due to the fact that the solos can sound very busy and restless. Better to listen to someone like Miles who doesn't play so many notes. Or older musicians including Ben Webster or Johnny Hodges.
> 
> For those who don't like saxophone I'd recommend the Gary Burton / Chick Corea vibes and piano duets. There are some terrific live concerts on YouTube. Also, the Bill Evans trio. Try the Waltz For Debby album. The Corea/Burton Burghausen 2011 show is a favorite of mine.


I'd add the Modern Jazz Quartet.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> First of all "Dixieland" is a antiquated term which was never popular with most Jazz musicians. New Orleans Jazz, Early Jazz, Traditional Jazz, are all better terms. And there is quite a bit of respect given to Early Jazz musicians such as Louis Armstrong, Sidney Bechet, Pops Foster, Bunk Johnson, Freddie Keppard, Lorenzo Tio , Johnny Dodds, Edmund Hall, George Lewis, and many others by Jazz musicians I've known.


Yeah, that's why I added the statement that I didn't appreciate it that much when I was into jazz. I listened to what I had to to get through the jazz history course, but back then, it didn't click with me.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

KendrickThaibs said:


> Although I really love certain styles of Jazz, I have to say that it took me a long time to appreciate the genre and find the styles that I like. When I first heard "classical music" and started exploring it, it took me a short time to really get interested in it. I wish the same happened with Jazz.
> 
> Those who haven't managed to get into Jazz yet, what are the reasons? What is it that does not convince you yet?


Even though all of my training and formal education is in (European) classical music, I've always loved jazz, right from earliest childhood. And I love it all, from the very earliest New Orleans dixieland bands (edit: OK, sorry to hear "dixieland" is a derogatory term) to what's happening now. As with classical music, only a few are true greats of the art. Actually, a surprisingly large number of them are named Art. Art Tatum, Art Blakey, Art Shaw, Art Farmer. I'll bet you jazz experts can think of more without using google.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Reading through some of these posts, it always saddens me that some classical listeners have to degrade jazz or put it down somehow just because it doesn’t fit their own criteria of what “good music” should be. Like SanAntone, I came to classical later, but jazz was really the genre that blew me away first and I spent at least 14-15 years listening to nothing but jazz. That’s how much I loved it. I gained an enormous appreciation for it and I don’t listen to it as much as I used to, but, for me, musicians like Miles Davis, Thelonious Monk, Bill Evans, Duke Ellington, John Coltrane, Art Blakey et. al. are all on the same plateau of greatness as any of the classical composers that I love.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fluteman said:


> Even though all of my training and formal education is in (European) classical music, I've always loved jazz, right from earliest childhood. And I love it all, from the very earliest New Orleans dixieland bands (edit: OK, sorry to hear "dixieland" is a derogatory term) to what's happening now. As with classical music, only a few are true greats of the art. Actually, a surprisingly large number of them are named Art. Art Tatum, Art Blakey, Art Shaw, Art Farmer. I'll bet you jazz experts can think of more without using google.


I didn't say "derogatory" I said "antiquated" - I mean some groups used it in their name, but it has usually been associated with all white groups, and musicians like Pete Fountain and Al Hirt. It is not a preferred term, IMO, since it has also been used in a touristic marketing fashion. But it can't be denied as a term in use at the time, e.g. The Original Dixieland Jass Band, a white band, and as far as I can tell the only group to use it. Wikipedia has this, "the term "Dixieland" was applied to early jazz by traditional jazz revivalists, starting in the 1940s and 1950s" and one of the first revival bands was the Dukes of Dixieland.

And this note also from Wikipedia has more of the sense that I've picked up, "While the term Dixieland is still in wide use, the term's appropriateness is a hotly debated topic in some circles. For some it is the preferred label (especially bands on the USA's West coast and those influenced by the 1940s revival bands), while others would rather use terms like Classic jazz or Traditional jazz. Some of the latter consider Dixieland a derogatory term implying superficial hokum played without passion or deep understanding of the music and because "Dixie" is a reference to pre-Civil War Southern States. *Many black musicians have traditionally rejected the term *as a style distinctive from traditional jazz, characterized by the staccatic playing in all-white groups such as The Original Dixieland Jazz Band in contrast to the slower, syncopated back-beat style of playing characterized by musicians like King Oliver or Kid Ory."

In any event, as long as we know what we mean, it probably doesn't matter.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

jegreenwood said:


> I'd add the Modern Jazz Quartet.


The 1974 Last Concert is a great introduction to the band and its repertoire.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_k3cjWi6poIFEuohiG4Mo7b8RAc2W3SvWA


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I didn't say "derogatory" I said "antiquated" ....
> 
> In any event, as long as we know what we mean, it probably doesn't matter.


Well, I'm antiquated too. But I must confess, I've been told, or read, most of what you said in that post before, but I'm too thick headed to discuss jazz with that level of sophistication.

I do remember hearing the very first commercial jazz recording, from 1916, I believe. Jazz had obviously been developing for quite some time by then, because the sound was very close to what one might hear today and associate with the D" word", though not exactly the same, interestingly enough. I wish there were even earlier recordings. I seem to remember Eubie Blake's first record was from 1915, but it wouldn't really count as jazz. Too bad -- classical music was getting recorded before 1900.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fluteman said:


> Well, I'm antiquated too. But I must confess, I've been told, or read, most of what you said in that post before, but I'm too thick headed to discuss jazz with that level of sophistication.
> 
> I do remember hearing the very first commercial jazz recording, from 1916, I believe. Jazz had obviously been developing for quite some time by then, because the sound was very close to what one might hear today and associate with the D" word", though not exactly the same, interestingly enough. I wish there were even earlier recordings. I seem to remember Eubie Blake's first record was from 1915, but it wouldn't really count as jazz. Too bad -- classical music was getting recorded before 1900.


If the legend surrounding Buddy Bolden has any truth to it, then Jazz was played prior to 1900, and we have some oral testimony to that effect. However, some of these guys were known to exaggerate their experiences, pushing their birthdates back so that their claims to have played with Bolden would be somewhat credible. But it is most likely that the style was a take off from Ragtime played by brass bands, that morphed into the Early Jazz we know from recordings.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I see no connection between classical and jazz unless it is with modern classical which I don't listen to much other than some Mahler. I got into jazz a little back about 40 years ago but never really got that into it other than one band for a while (had 5 or 6 of their albums though).


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> If the legend surrounding Buddy Bolden has any truth to it, then Jazz was played prior to 1900, and we have some oral testimony to that effect. However, some of these guys were known to exaggerate their experiences, pushing their birthdates back so that their claims to have played with Bolden would be somewhat credible. But it is most likely that the style was a take off from Ragtime played by brass bands, that morphed into the Early Jazz we know from recordings.


One thing that fascinated me about the first jazz recording -- the all-white "Original Dixieland Jass Band" -- not hard to see why some wouldn't want to award them the honor of first anything in jazz -- was how far removed it was from ragtime (closer to blues, actually), through the relationship is still significant, and how close it was to what one might still hear today, though not identical. Also, that this genre of music obviously was long and well-established by 1917.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I am a fan of most types of music that has most or all of the following attributes: very high level of musicianship, complexity, broad and deep emotional content, avoids verse>chorus>bridge song structure, sophistication.**

Jazz definitely fits within the above parameters* that interest me in music. 

Within jazz, I tend to like modern, progressive forms and subgenres. Most of my listening is: chamber jazz (Oregon, Keith Jarret, Jeff Gauthier, Michal Formanek, Jan Garbarek, Eberhard Weber, etc) , fusion (Mahavishnu Orchestra, Return to Forever, Brand X, Alex Machecek, Forgas Band Phenomena, Jean Luc Ponty, Zao, etc), M-BASE (Steve Coleman, Johnathan Finlayson, David Gilmore (not the Ping Floyd guy), Ravi Coltrane, etc), 

The above tend to be, to varying degrees: structured, rhythmically complex, harmonically sophisticated, and tend not to follow the typical, head>solo>head>solo structure of most jazz. 

I also listen to some earlier (late 50's to early 60's) post bop (Coltrane, Miles, Mingus, Evans, Monk, Dolphy, Shorter, etc).

And sometimes, I will listen to some avant-garde jazz. I have to be in a very specific mood, but when I am in that mood, nothing else will substitute. 

* it's not as if I consciously chose those parameters. I am just drawn to them. Mainstream rock, pop, country, blues, hip hop, etc, bore me. 

** Jazz, classical and prog all fit these parameters.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fluteman said:


> Well, I'm antiquated too. But I must confess, I've been told, or read, most of what you said in that post before, but I'm too thick headed to discuss jazz with that level of sophistication.
> ...


I wouldn't feel too bad about it. That doesn't stop some people from taking about classical works they know next to nothing about.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I like some jazz pieces and I think the level of musical skill involved is huge, so I respect jazz.

I don't particularly like it, though. What's the reason? Probably my temperament. My first love is dance and folk song - my second love is baroque - so maybe I just like things orderly & predictable. 

There's no duty to 'get into' any sort of music that doesn't immediately appeal, so I won't beat myself up about my deficient temperament.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

starthrower said:


> The 1974 Last Concert is a great introduction to the band and its repertoire.
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_k3cjWi6poIFEuohiG4Mo7b8RAc2W3SvWA


I heard MJQ live twice in the 1980s when they'd reunited. The concerts were at the 92nd St. Y, whose music program was then under the direction of Omus Hirshbein. Omus was a classical music guy, and this program was virtually all classical music - except MJQ.* Omus loved MJQ - I assume he was behind the album they made with the New York Chamber Symphony, which was the Y's "house band." According to Omus, MJQ loved the Y's 900 seat concert hall because it was the largest venue they could play without mics. I got to meet them backstage after one performance. True gentleman (at least for the 5 minutes I was with them ).

* For those who know the Y, the popular (in two senses of the word) Lyrics and Lyricists series was part of a separate program, not under his ambit.


----------



## Symphonic (Apr 27, 2015)

With Jazz, there's a time and place.

And most times, it's not the right time or place.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Symphonic said:


> Same reason as with some styles of 'classical' music i.e. 20th/21st century expressionism/contemporary genre.
> 
> That is:
> 
> ...


Not very good, since Jazz does have order and is not "anything goes."

The only reason a Classical music fan does not get into Jazz is because of personal taste.


----------



## Symphonic (Apr 27, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Not very good, since Jazz does have order and is not "anything goes."
> 
> The only reason a Classical music fan does not get into Jazz is because of personal taste.


As per the last line, I edited my original answer before I saw your reply.

*However, * your reply immediately lost its credibility and my attention as soon as you said "The only reason". Because there is no sole reason.

Secondly, your entire comment does not really say anything. You said : "because of personal taste"...however, that is already obvious and applicable to many things. Many discussions can be put down to 'personal taste'. So that is a weak answer.

Lastly, 'anything goes' is certainly a valid way to describe some elements of Jazz music. For some, that is a positive thing. For others, it is a negative thing. This also applies to the 'lack of order' - which again, in the context of comparison with classical music, is a fact - not to be debated.

And very lastly, I did not say Jazz does not have order. I said it has a lack of order - which again is a fact. There is a difference.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I figured it was probably a mistake to respond to your post.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

yes, "because of personal taste" is a vacuous answer to the question that is true but does not explain anything, for instance how personal tastes are shaped by environments or developed by individuals 

Why don't get more *popular music fans* into jazz?

Jazz was after all a large part of popular music for about half a century (even dominating it for several decades, I'd say) until the 1950s or even early 1960s. [Supposedly people changed their "personal tastes" pretty quickly turning away from jazz or, if younger, not getting interested in the first place.] I always found it a bit surprising that Jazz fans and musicians have apparently taken the decline? from broad popular appeal to niche smaller than classical gracefully (or just don't care) whereas classical fans are bitching about the niche character of classical when it was never that popular in the first place.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

It's not a vacuous answer at all. Perhaps those who are unhappy with it might explain their reasons why someone might not get into jazz, reasons that do not derive from or impact on matters of personal taste.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Some Jazz can be nice to listen to and I have been impressed with pieces now and then - hifi shops or shows often have a jaz piece playing. But it never made me feel anything or sufficiently seduced my ears to make me want to really explore it.

I adore a lot of other genres - the best of 70s pop and rock, russian folk singing! for example - so it's not like I am just stuck on classical music.

I must have a little prejudice though - as I saw an article a few years ago headlined - Why Is Jazz Dying? It made me smile.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

In which way adds "because of personal taste" anything to the knowledge of a person asking the question "Why do some people who like x not also like y?" 
Why do some people who like "Lord of the Rings" not like "Lord of the Flies"? Personal taste. Why do some people who like Bach not like Vivaldi? Personal taste... Why do some people who like soccer not like baseball? Personal taste. 
It is not even trying to answer the question.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> In which way adds "because of personal taste" anything to the knowledge of a person asking the question "Why do some people who like x not also like y?"
> Why do some people who like "Lord of the Rings" not like "Lord of the Flies"? Personal taste. Why do some people who like Bach not like Vivaldi? Personal taste... Why do some people who like soccer not like baseball? Personal taste.
> It is not even trying to answer the question.


It's not a detailed answer, true. It's a summary answer. But it's not vacuous.


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

PlaySalieri said:


> I must have a little prejudice though - as I saw an article a few years ago headlined - Why Is Jazz Dying? It made me smile.


Ok, so that's interesting. Why would the idea that Jazz is dying make you smile? Life would be better without it? More room for other things you like? They were wasting perfectly good instruments? It was causing too much confusion among the listening masses? It's bad for business? What?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

gregorx said:


> Ok, so that's interesting. Why would the idea that Jazz is dying make you smile? Life would be better without it? More room for other things you like? They were wasting perfectly good instruments? It was causing too much confusion among the listening masses? It's bad for business? What?


Probably because I think jazz as music is a bit silly and the thought of it finally dying the death it deserves is a satisfying prospect.


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

PlaySalieri said:


> Probably because I think jazz as music is a bit silly and the thought of it finally dying the death it deserves is a satisfying prospect.


Ok, so your contribution here is to throw bombs. Well played.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

KendrickThaibs said:


> Although I really love certain styles of Jazz, I have to say that it took me a long time to appreciate the genre and find the styles that I like. When I first heard "classical music" and started exploring it, it took me a short time to really get interested in it. I wish the same happened with Jazz.
> 
> Those who haven't managed to get into Jazz yet, what are the reasons? What is it that does not convince you yet?


Music is more than just the sounds that emanate from it. Music is a part of tribal bonding, our societal identification. As such, we are natural drawn to sounds that are identified with what group we want to identify with. It also often forms a landscape to our life. It becomes mixed with the emotions we felt as it played. Our subconscious associates feelings of pleasure and happiness with sounds. (obviously this can work in reverse too)

This can make it hard to appreciate music outside our tribe.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

PlaySalieri said:


> Probably because I think jazz as music is a bit silly and the thought of it finally dying the death it deserves is a satisfying prospect.


a fair comment from a personnel perspective but valueless otherwise


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

gregorx said:


> Ok, so your contribution here is to throw bombs. Well played.


Dont take it to heart.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

eljr said:


> a fair comment from a personnel perspective *but valueless otherwise*


Which is why I did not elaborate on why the death of jazz makes me smile in my original post.

but he asked.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

PlaySalieri said:


> Which is why I did not elaborate on why the death of jazz makes me smile in my original post.
> 
> but he asked.


I thought it a fair comment as it was contained.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

mossyembankment said:


> Yeah, I think this is overthinking it a bit. There is a difference, but Miles Davis and Thelonious Monk are dead - seeing them live isn't an option. We can't appreciate their talent unless we listen to a recording of a particular performance, even if they may have played it completely differently on another occasion.


Who is the actor in your avatar? Seems so familiar.


----------

