# Does anybody else find Jazz extremely boring?



## C95

I listen to experimental electronic music, some folk, classical music and contemporary music. I like the avant-garde stuff in music but for me, it's impossible to enjoy jazz music. I can't get the idea of improvisation and all the jazz culture in general. I enjoy very VERY few jazz songs.


----------



## Pugg

No I don't , I like jazz from time to time.


----------



## hpowders

I always hated jazz until in my 20's when I discovered the brilliance of Miles Davis.

Bitches Brew, Kind of Blue, Jack Johnson, Sketches of Spain, etc.

Magnificent!


----------



## Morton

Nowadays the word Jazz covers a vastly varied range of music, do you mean King Oliver, Cecil Taylor?
Try some Charlie Parker!


----------



## PresenTense

We have VERY SIMILAR taste in music. I wouldn't call myself a Jazz fan but I enjoy a lot of it. I like some free-jazz stuff and more. Funny thing is that I play electric guitar but I don't like jazz guitarists. Guitar in jazz is so boring to me. I don't like the electric guitar anymore tbh. I hope I can change instrument soon.


----------



## Strange Magic

I have many times attempted to see if jazz and I could share a future--Parker, Miles, Mingus, Monk, Art Blakey, MJQ, Coltrane, Dizzy, Maynard Ferguson, Brubeck, Ornette Coleman..... It just never "took", though there were individual pieces I cared for, usually right at the beginning, when the main theme was announced. But once the improv had reached a certain point, it was time for one of us to leave. A ways back, I posted a notion about linear music versus circular music, trying to couple those notions with the idea of goal-oriented music versus process-oriented music. While such notions still are fuzzy inside my head, I realized long ago that my interests lie in "linear, goal-oriented" musics, and that I have little gift for appreciating things like jazz for a long period of time. I find, too, that a lot of Celtic music, for example, falls into that category of process-oriented music, and goes on, to my ears, interminably. Sorry for the longish, boring answer!


----------



## Armanvd

PresenTense said:


> We have VERY SIMILAR taste in music. I wouldn't call myself a Jazz fan but I enjoy a lot of it. I like some free-jazz stuff and more. Funny thing is that I play electric guitar but I don't like jazz guitarists. Guitar in jazz is so boring to me. I don't like the electric guitar anymore tbh. I hope I can change instrument soon.


Try Some Gypsy Jazz For Example These Tracks:
Django Reinhardt - La Mer
Django Reinhardt - Où es-tu mon amour
Angelo Debarre - Swing Chez Toto
=================
Al Di Meola - Mediterranean Sundance (Not Gypsy Jazz)


----------



## Richard8655

Except for Ramsey Lewis (The In Crowd and a few others), not much at all.


----------



## PresenTense

armanvd said:


> Try Some Gypsy Jazz For Example These Tracks:
> Django Reinhardt - La Mer
> Django Reinhardt - Où es-tu mon amour
> Angelo Debarre - Swing Chez Toto
> =================
> Al Di Meola - Mediterranean Sundance (Not Gypsy Jazz)


Thank you very much. I tried listening to Gypsy jazz but I can't seem to enjoy it. I think it is not the music, it's the instrument. I enjoy Jazz but not jazz guitar. I got tired of these 6 strings. I want to learn piano right now.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Strange Magic said:


> I have many times attempted to see if jazz and I could share a future--Parker, Miles, Mingus, Monk, Art Blakey, MJQ, Coletrane, Dizzy, Maynard Ferguson, Brubeck, Ornette Coleman..... It just never "took", though there were individual pieces I cared for, usually right at the beginning, when the main theme was announced. But once the improv had reached a certain point, it was time for one of us to leave. A ways back, I posted a notion about linear music versus circular music, trying to couple those notions with the idea of goal-oriented music versus process-oriented music. While such notions still are fuzzy inside my head, I realized long ago that my interests lie in "linear, goal-oriented" musics, and that I have little gift for appreciating things like jazz for a long period of time. I find, too, that a lot of Celtic music, for example, falls into that category of process-oriented music, and goes on, to my ears, interminably. Sorry for the longish, boring answer!


You have summed up well some of the reasons I dont go out of my way to listen to jazz. The stints of improvisation that individual soloists do when they take their turns just doesnt interest me - I have no objection to it - if Im in a jazz club I will enjoy it on a basic level as I would a bit of pop or rock and if I'm in good company that's fine. 
But I dont like improvisatory music anyway - even classical.


----------



## Manxfeeder

It must be the way our individual brains are wired. Personally, I love jazz, but I find most rock music boring. I guess that's what makes us unique.


----------



## PresenTense

Manxfeeder said:


> It must be the way our individual brains are wired. Personally, I love jazz, but I find most rock music boring. I guess that's what makes us unique.


I got tired of rock n roll music too. I've been into classical, some jazz and electronic music/art pop. The only rock I still listen to comes from Radiohead and some other "art"/experimental rock bands.


----------



## yetti66

Having read several threads it now occurs to me that perspective and approach may have a lot to do with one's appreciation of jazz or classical. I had a fairly good exposure to classical music as a child but I later became an avid jazz fan/ collector in my 20's... which then led me to listening/ collecting classical music: my ear for Coltrane developed before my ear for Mahler. Clearly there are many classical music fans that don't enjoy jazz however I know more jazz fans that don't like classical. Improvisation appears to be a derogatory term in some classical music discussions, but Parker, Coltrane (etc..) are not just improvisers and each of them mastered both their instruments and art to the same extent that Chopin mastered the piano. Appreciation is relative - DaVinci or Degas?


----------



## arnerich




----------



## Magnum Miserium

yetti66 said:


> Appreciation is relative - DaVinci or Degas?


More like: Corot or Cassandre?


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

I especially struggle to enjoy uptempo jazz solos. I like to perceive different kinds of motion flowing into each other, and I like for the momentum to build and release in contrasts that are more obvious than what you usually hear in jazz. For instance it thrills me to hear a machine-gun like flurry of notes woven through a more rigid, block-like melody, or to hear the one transition into the other, but often times bebop is _just_ a relentless flurry, which bores me for its lack of contrasting motions, and on top of that it just seems to feint momentum shifts over and over again without ever committing to any one side of the spectrum, depriving it of any narrative.






I like this in a few specific parts like :37 and :49 to :53, because in those moments the solo will skip like a rock over a single note, or squeeze and then oscillate in a way that builds up pressure, but the parts that sound more strictly "bebop" just bore me because it's the same thing leading into the same thing again and again. I listened to damn near every Charlie Parker album on Spotify and I only found a handful of moments like this in them that appealed to me. I get the virtuosity and quality of the music, but for some reason I can't hack into it. So much of the phrasing in jazz solos, however much they're supposed to be about being free and doing whatever you want, sounds locked into the same couple of patterns.

And the same emotions in a way. I really love Cannonball Adderley's solo (the first one) on Milestones:






I like the melancholy tone of this track for one, as it can be hard to escape that traditional sprightly bebop sound, but I like how he employs pauses and doesn't doodippitybopdoobop every phrase into the next, but takes the melody through distinct, perceivable steps. As opposed to something like this: 




It just sounds like a fly buzzing at the same pace the entire time. Nothing seems to change into another thing so it sounds like nothing is happening even though I'm sure a lot is happening that I don't hear because the technical aspects of Jazz are just way over my head.


----------



## PresenTense

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> I especially struggle to enjoy uptempo jazz solos. I like to perceive different kinds of motion flowing into each other, and I like for the momentum to build and release in contrasts that are more obvious than what you usually hear in jazz. For instance it thrills me to hear a machine-gun like flurry of notes woven through a more rigid, block-like melody, or to hear the one transition into the other, but often times bebop is _just_ a relentless flurry, which bores me for its lack of contrasting motions, and on top of that it just seems to feint momentum shifts over and over again without ever committing to any one side of the spectrum, depriving it of any narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like this in a few specific parts like :37 and :49 to :53, because in those moments the solo will skip like a rock over a single note, or squeeze and then oscillate in a way that builds up pressure, but the parts that sound more strictly "bebop" just bore me because it's the same thing leading into the same thing again and again. I listened to damn near every Charlie Parker album on Spotify and I only found a handful of moments like this in them that appealed to me. I get the virtuosity and quality of the music, but for some reason I can't hack into it. So much of the phrasing in jazz solos, however much they're supposed to be about being free and doing whatever you want, sounds locked into the same couple of patterns.
> 
> And the same emotions in a way. I really love Cannonball Adderley's solo (the first one) on Milestones:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the melancholy tone of this track for one, as it can be hard to escape that traditional sprightly bebop sound, but I like how he employs pauses and doesn't doodippitybopdoobop every phrase into the next, but takes the melody through distinct, perceivable steps. As opposed to something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just sounds like a fly buzzing at the same pace the entire time. Nothing seems to change into another thing so it sounds like nothing is happening even though I'm sure a lot is happening that I don't hear because the technical aspects of Jazz are just way over my head.


****, dude. I enjoyed those songs A LOT!


----------



## MarkW

I like traditional and Big Band, but progressive jazz leaves me cold. Much of rock has always been boring (and way too loud in concert), and contemporary pop, and hip-hop is way too boring to me.


----------



## Varick

armanvd said:


> =================
> Al Di Meola - Mediterranean Sundance (Not Gypsy Jazz)


The best rendition of this is still Friday Night in San Francisco with John McLaughlin in the mix.

V


----------



## sloth

C95 said:


> I listen to experimental electronic music, some folk, classical music and contemporary music. I like the avant-garde stuff in music but for me, it's impossible to enjoy jazz music. I can't get the idea of improvisation and all the jazz culture in general. I enjoy very VERY few jazz songs.


I used to listen to a lot of jazz (coltrane, miles davis, ornette coleman, free jazz, be-bop...). then at one point I stopped listening to it. I couldn't find a reason. I just listened to 2-3 tracks of albums I used to like and then suddenly I felt bored. It has sometimes happened with some classical composer, but it was something temporary. with jazz I keep having that strange feeling: great musicians, great albums for sure... only I don't want to hear them anymore :lol:

otherwise I listen to almost every kind of music (electronica, contemporary, post punk, experimental).


----------



## Razumovskymas

I only like gipsy jazz


----------



## fluteman

yetti66 said:


> Improvisation appears to be a derogatory term in some classical music discussions


Hard to see why. Mozart and Beethoven improvised freely. In fact that's a big reason why we are left without written cadenzas, or even the entire piano part, in some of their music.
Many classical musicians are skilled improvisers, even today. Of course, improvisation is not necessarily jazz improvisation.


----------



## starthrower

There's all different kinds of jazz, just like there's classical music from the Renaissance to Xenakis. So to say it's boring, you have to be more specific. Are we talking Louie Armstrong, the Swing Era, Bebop, Hard Bop, Free Jazz, Post Bop, Jazz/Rock Fusion, Brazilian Jazz, Afro Cuban, Euro jazz which could be the London scene, or Norway, or Copenhagen? There's lots of stuff.

And there's different schools of tenor and alto sax, piano, guitar, drums, etc. Elvin Jones doesn't play like Paul Motian, and Monk doesn't play like Oscar Peterson, and Grant Green doesn't play like Joe Pass, and Johnny Hodges doesn't play like Charlie Parker.


----------



## starthrower

The uninitiated might get turned off by endless bop soloing, but one of the great things about jazz is all of the beautiful ballads. Here's a few famous ones.
















And there's hundreds more.


----------



## tdc

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> I especially struggle to enjoy uptempo jazz solos. I like to perceive different kinds of motion flowing into each other, and I like for the momentum to build and release in contrasts that are more obvious than what you usually hear in jazz. For instance it thrills me to hear a machine-gun like flurry of notes woven through a more rigid, block-like melody, or to hear the one transition into the other, but often times bebop is _just_ a relentless flurry, which bores me for its *lack of contrasting motions, and on top of that it just seems to feint momentum shifts over and over again without ever committing to any one side of the spectrum, depriving it of any narrative.
> *
> I like this in a few specific parts like :37 and :49 to :53, because in those moments the solo will skip like a rock over a single note, or squeeze and then oscillate in a way that builds up pressure, but the parts that sound more strictly "bebop" just bore me because it's the same thing leading into the same thing again and again. I listened to damn near every Charlie Parker album on Spotify and I only found a handful of moments like this in them that appealed to me. I get the virtuosity and quality of the music, but for some reason I can't hack into it. So much of the phrasing *in jazz solos, however much they're supposed to be about being free and doing whatever you want, sounds locked into the same * couple of patterns.
> 
> And the same emotions in a way. I really love Cannonball Adderley's solo (the first one) on Milestones:
> 
> I like the melancholy tone of this track for one, as it can be hard to escape that traditional sprightly bebop sound, but I like how he employs pauses and doesn't doodippitybopdoobop every phrase into the next, but takes the melody through distinct, perceivable steps. As opposed to something like this
> 
> It just sounds like a fly buzzing at the same pace the entire time. Nothing seems to change into another thing so it sounds like nothing is happening even though I'm sure a lot is happening that I don't hear because the technical aspects of Jazz are just way over my head.


Some great points, regardless of whether some of it is over your head you seem to have an intuitive grasp of music and have described nicely a lot of the things going on in jazz that I find hard to enjoy as well.

This said I do appreciate the musical talent required to play jazz and enjoy some songs - usually shorter songs that are more about being songs than being platforms for musicians to solo. That is why I like Duke Ellington.


----------



## starthrower




----------



## starthrower

I probably have a couple thousand jazz albums. This one is in my top ten. A very special group featuring four legendary musicians that are true free spirits. It's all about making beautiful music.


----------



## jegreenwood

Jazz is second to classical for me, but I've been listening more recently. In particular, I've been trying to come to grips with the music Miles made in the late 60's (starting with the second quintet). And I just added "On the Corner" to my library.

For the most part my focus has been on 1955-65, but I'll listen to Duke Ellington from any era. And the Hot 5's and 7's . . .

I check out the Village Vanguard from time to time, but not as much as I should.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese




----------



## DaveM

Why is it that almost all the private-eye detectives in movies or tv series tend to hang out in jazz bars and/or put on jazz records at home? Latest example: the Bosch series on Amazon Prime.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> Why is it that almost all the private-eye detectives in movies or tv series tend to hang out in jazz bars and/or put on jazz records at home? Latest example: the Bosch series on Amazon Prime.


...and the serial killers listen to Mozart. What warped stereotype does that represent? Or is Hollywood just pandering to the intellectual vacuity of "real" Americans who demonize the "coastal elites" and elect people like...


----------



## fluteman

Some great music there, starthrower. I'm glad I was able to get to a Brubeck concert, he was wonderful. Sorry not to have been able to do the same with Cannonball, Bill Evans, Monk or Coltrane.


----------



## Richard8655

I wouldn't describe jazz as boring as it can be as complex and intricate as classical. It just needs to strike your emotions as can classical. For me, it just doesn't quite do it. There may be some truth to how we're wired, or at least what we heard in our youth when most lifetime impressions occur.


----------



## norman bates

PresenTense said:


> We have VERY SIMILAR taste in music. I wouldn't call myself a Jazz fan but I enjoy a lot of it. I like some free-jazz stuff and more. Funny thing is that I play electric guitar but I don't like jazz guitarists. Guitar in jazz is so boring to me. I don't like the electric guitar anymore tbh. I hope I can change instrument soon.


can I ask you why? Just curious.
Even in jazz, few instruments if any can have so many different ways to be played. 
My pet peeve is the lack of major composers in jazz guitar (I mean, guys to put on the level of Ellington/Strayhorn/Monk/Shorter), but lately I'm appreciating jazz guitarists much more than in the past.


----------



## jegreenwood

DaveM said:


> Why is it that almost all the private-eye detectives in movies or tv series tend to hang out in jazz bars and/or put on jazz records at home? Latest example: the Bosch series on Amazon Prime.


Reading one of the novels today. And playing some Frank Morgan, because that's what Harry is listening to.


----------



## jegreenwood

Woodduck said:


> ...and the serial killers listen to Mozart. What warped stereotype does that represent? Or is Hollywood just pandering to the intellectual vacuity of "real" Americans who demonize the "coastal elites" and elect people like...


Nope. Bach. Note - for anyone who is unfamiliar with this film, this clip gets very violent. Moderators - you can remove it if deemed inappropriate.


----------



## Gordontrek

Not in the least. I LOVE jazz. My favorite genre apart from classical. I'm not into the Miles Davis type of free jazz, but I love the old standards of Fats Waller, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, as well as the ragtime guys like Jelly Roll Morton and Art Tatum (what a remarkable pianist). 
Gershwin is also one of my favorite composers. I could listen to his piano works all day long.


----------



## norman bates

Gordontrek said:


> Not in the least. I LOVE jazz. My favorite genre apart from classical. I'm not into the Miles Davis type of free jazz


Miles Davis hated free jazz...


----------



## Casebearer

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> I especially struggle to enjoy uptempo jazz solos. I like to perceive different kinds of motion flowing into each other, and I like for the momentum to build and release in contrasts that are more obvious than what you usually hear in jazz. For instance it thrills me to hear a machine-gun like flurry of notes woven through a more rigid, block-like melody, or to hear the one transition into the other, but often times bebop is _just_ a relentless flurry, which bores me for its lack of contrasting motions, and on top of that it just seems to feint momentum shifts over and over again without ever committing to any one side of the spectrum, depriving it of any narrative.
> 
> I get the virtuosity and quality of the music, but for some reason I can't hack into it. So much of the phrasing in jazz solos, however much they're supposed to be about being free and doing whatever you want, sounds locked into the same couple of patterns.
> 
> And the same emotions in a way. I really love Cannonball Adderley's solo (the first one) on Milestones:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the melancholy tone of this track for one, as it can be hard to escape that traditional sprightly bebop sound, but I like how he employs pauses and doesn't doodippitybopdoobop every phrase into the next, but takes the melody through distinct, perceivable steps. As opposed to something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just sounds like a fly buzzing at the same pace the entire time. Nothing seems to change into another thing so it sounds like nothing is happening even though I'm sure a lot is happening that I don't hear because the technical aspects of Jazz are just way over my head.


You have put in a YT-link to a Coltrane-song as an example of bebop music that goes on and on with nothing happening and no narrative.

Coltrane just isn't about those kind of bebop songs in general. His music is much more versatile. He's made several albums with ballads, he's made albums with prolonged compositions (very narrative) and everything in between. The typical image of a bebop piece with alternative endless soloing by the band members without the piece itself developing hardly applies to Coltrane in my opinion.

He often starts off with a well known and well structured ballad or traditional and then takes it stellar in steps. If ever music can help you transcend here and now it's his in my opinion. It takes you onto a journey into the spiritual realm if you let yourself be transported on this stairway to heaven. I know many people don't like it but I liked it immediately. Since Coltrane to me there's a new standard of what great music is. Although that leaves plenty of room for different kinds of music to enjoy in my case.

I have to admit though that he took it too far even for my taste in his last two years.

I like it when he's starting off with a recognizable tune and then gradually deconstructs it, although deconstructing sounds to negative because he's building up something different in the process:






I also love his own long compositions, especially between 1957 and 1965 like First Meditations and a Love Supreme. Have you listened to those? Masterpieces of music that'll be classic for centuries to come.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

Casebearer said:


> ...


I didn't mean to pick on or pigeonhole Coltrane; I've listened to extensive amounts of his music and I do like that most of it doesn't fall into those repetitive bebop patterns I'm talking about, and for that reason it's always puzzled me that I don't like his music more than I do.

What I notice is that I will like any given 10 seconds of Coltrane, but that in the bigger picture the mountings and releases of tension happen almost too frequently, and that the "story" tends to move from one state of suspense to another slightly different state to another slightly different state and so on, and then to a short respite, and then to another series of suspenseful squeezes that emotionally and rhythmically aren't all that different from the one we just heard.

Sometimes I like the way Jazz noodles around the nooks and crannies of a single or similar moods for long periods, but I'm much more partial to the more overt color changes in other genres of music. It isn't unlike the troubles I have with 12-tone music. In chunks I find Schoenberg exhilarating, but over time my impression is that the emotion keeps restarting, or that it's stuck vibrating in a climax that never ends. In moments there will be a shift, and I'll like those few moments, but not the entire piece.

Ex 



 (I don't believe this is 12-tone music, but my struggles with this piece of classical music (the first movement of Schuman's tenth) are similar to my struggles with Coltrane and jazz in general).

As for ballads, whoever's playing them, it's the same deal. I feel like I'm hearing the same 10 or 15 ideas, none of which even remotely as interesting as the initial, composed theme, recycling themselves.


----------



## Strange Magic

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> What I notice is that I will like any given 10 seconds of Coltrane, but that in the bigger picture the mountings and releases of tension happen almost too frequently, and that the "story" tends to move from one state of suspense to another slightly different state to another slightly different state and so on, and then to a short respite, and then to another series of suspenseful squeezes that emotionally and rhythmically aren't all that different from the one we just heard.


Excellent description of my problem also. _My Favorite Things_ started so well--I was very pleased; maybe this time it would be different, I thought, back in the day--but after several hearings I found myself in the same state as Clairvoyance. People are just wired differently. Other artists in other genres can play even more similar/dissimilar music, almost a drone, and put me into a pleasant dreamy trance state--the long version of the Eisley Brothers' _That Lady_ would be an example. But most jazz for me falls between two stools--it neither holds my interest nor "entrances" me. But it's not jazz's fault; I am just not a good audience for it, to properly appreciate its virtues.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Strange Magic said:


> Excellent description of my problem also. _My Favorite Things_ started so well--I was very pleased; maybe this time it would be different, I thought, back in the day--but after several hearings I found myself in the same state as Clairvoyance. People are just wired differently. Other artists in other genres can play even more similar/dissimilar music, almost a drone, and put me into a pleasant dreamy trance state--the long version of the Eisley Brothers' _That Lady_ would be an example. But most jazz for me falls between two stools--it neither holds my interest nor "entrances" me. But it's not jazz's fault; I am just not a good audience for it, to properly appreciate its virtues.


That sums up my thoughts as well. I wonder if jazz is not meant more for playing than actual listening.


----------



## Guest

I think jazz is the bees knees. Especially the older classic jazz from 1950-1969. I very much "get" the improvisational part of it and enjoy it. This kind of music is a second favorite of mine behind classical.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

I'd like to learn the names of those very very few Jazz pieces the OP and others do like. Better that than just crap on it I guess.

Some things I don't quite love but that have always kept me hopeful:

Ahmad Jamal's jerky, tinkly style, while a bit gimmicky at times, has always appealed to me.













A track by Jaco Pistorius with some piano playing I like for similar reasons. I've actually never heard the rest of the album.





The only Dizzy Gillespie solo I've grown to like so far (it sounds like it might be composed, actually?)





The two Art Tatum recordings I sort of like, used to enjoy a bit more.









Bill Evans Conversations With Myself - I'm usually indifferent to Bill Evans, but his experiments with overdubbing in the Conversations albums has always intrigued me. I've never fallen completely in love with them, but if I were to devote serious listening to Jazz again they'd be my starting point.













I'm somewhat partial to Bitches Brew, more for the unique sound texture created by the electronic keyboard's involvement than anything. That one was a slow burn and, again, I really really like it but don't quite love it. I'm actually enjoying Miles Davis's track Round Midnight more than I ever have before as I type this.

Thelonious Monk - my only two real favorites, though I do enjoy the entire Solo Monk album.









Like Strange Magic I've actually devoted quite a bit of repeated, serious listening to a wide array of Jazz only to come out with this handful of favorites. It is frustrating. Over time I've gravitated towards R&B/Soul/Funk because I get to enjoy the jazzy melodies in them for more than 15 seconds at the start and end.


----------



## starthrower

These two have an amazing rapport. Contrapuntal jazz.


----------



## Barbebleu

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> That sums up my thoughts as well. I wonder if jazz is not meant more for playing than actual listening.


I think that thought could be levelled at any type of music that you don't get. Chacun à son goût!


----------



## Johne1

Jazz is as diverse as Classical. Louis Armstrong didn't like Bebop and he was America's Jazz Ambassador. Which Jazz music are you referring to?

If I listened to Renaissance and then stated I didn't like Classical music, how valid would that make my opinion?


----------



## Strange Magic

Johne1 said:


> Jazz is as diverse as Classical. Louis Armstrong didn't like Bebop and he was America's Jazz Ambassador. Which Jazz music are you referring to?
> 
> If I listened to Renaissance and then stated I didn't like Classical music, how valid would that make my opinion?


You're right about the diversity of Jazz. Here's Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jazz_genres

I'll have to closely examine the list and separate sheep from goats.


----------



## isorhythm

Since OP says he likes experimental/avant garde music in other genres, I would think that would be a good place to start with jazz.

I'd check out Ornette Coleman, Pharaoh Sanders, Sonny Sharrock, Sun Ra, late Coltrane, Cecil Taylor and maybe Andrew Hill.

If you like any of that start working backwards through their influences.


----------



## Simon Moon

C95 said:


> I listen to experimental electronic music, some folk, classical music and contemporary music. I like the avant-garde stuff in music but for me, it's impossible to enjoy jazz music. I can't get the idea of improvisation and all the jazz culture in general. I enjoy very VERY few jazz songs.


I had the same experience with classical music, until I discovered 20th century and contemporary music. I thought I'd never be able to get into it.

There are so many styles of jazz, that you may be missing something that floats your boat.

There's bebop, free jazz, avant garde, post bop, chamber jazz, fusion, cool jazz, M-Base, third stream, etc, etc.

Some of these have quite a bit of improv, some are more composed with room for players to improvise. Some are quiet and contemplative, some are intense. In other words, the variety is huge under the jazz umbrella.

Maybe you should sample a bit of third stream. It is a synthesis of jazz and classical. It is not jazz with a few classical music quotes inserted, it is not jazz played by classical players (or vis versa). George Russell, Gunther Schuller, Charles Tolliver, David Amram are a few of the most well known examples.

Or try almost anything on the ECM label. Most of their artists tend toward what has been described as "chamber jazz". From wiki; "Chamber jazz is a genre of jazz involving small, acoustic-based ensembles where group interplay is important. It is influenced aesthetically by musical neoclassicism and is often influenced by classical forms of Western music as well as non-Western music or culture."

You won't hear much of the standard, head - solo - head - solo, format that most jazz is based on. Even while one musician is soloing, the other musicians are not just playing chords behind him/her, they are still playing intricate lines that interplay with each other and the soloist.

Here's a few examples:


----------



## EarthBoundRules

I haven't heard enough jazz to say for sure. From what I've heard, it's like classical: I like some of it, while other pieces bore me. Once I've listened to more classical (which I'm still relatively new to), I'd love to explore jazz in more detail.


----------



## JAS

I at least generally like some older jazz, although I would not necessarily seek it out, but as we get into progressive jazz it loses me. I would not say that I find it boring, although sometimes a very slim melodic line seems to be stretched out so much that it ceases to exist. For me, I just don't "get" it. Often, it sounds as if people are playing completely different tunes at the same times, and the "improvisations" often sound very similar from one piece to another, which seems more like spontaneous adaptation than really on the spot improvisation.


----------



## jailhouse

you could try some more fusiony jazz maybe that'd work better for you?

check some weather report, mahavishnu orchestra, return to forever, pat metheny stuff


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Manxfeeder said:


> It must be the way our individual brains are wired. Personally, I love jazz, but I find most rock music boring. I guess that's what makes us unique.


Yup, me too. Plus this, to make up 15+ characters


----------



## Richard8655

Wired for sure. Classical, of course. Rock also yes, but jazz nope. I see classical and rock making statements about our state of affairs, but jazz just seems to meander with no point.


----------



## Guest

My starting point for music is noise. Noise is music to me. Noise is on the perimeter and the closer to the center we get, the closer we get to mediocrity. On another thread, I posted the sound of tornado sirens as music. Listening to a recording of a tornado roaring against sirens wailing is musically very interesting to me. Air raid sirens also interest me greatly as do the sounds of propeller-driven planes when they're droning. And jets--I like the sound of jets when the roar goes on for awhile and starts to phase shift. I love the sound of droning. A simply low frequency drone doesn't bore me nor does it drive me nuts. I cannot understand people who say that it drives them crazy. I think they are shallow listeners perhaps even stupid. I like East Indian music for that reason--it tends to drone. So does ambient music and trance so i tend to listen to a lot of that when I go to bed.

I don't like pop. I don't like rap. I don't like mainstream rock. I do like punk and metal (although metal has been stale for the last 25 years or so). Jazz is my favorite music because you can roll everything I like about sound into it and produce something cool. Certain artists are mainstays--Duke, Count, Miles, Trane, Bird, Sun Ra, Bill Evans, Cecil, Alvin Ayler, New York Unit (I have a love/hate relationship with Pharaoh--either I love it or I hate it but I love New York Unit). I really like Chris Dahlgren although a lot of people--even jazzers--often find him incomprehensible (which, I suppose, is why I like him). I like most of Steve Tibbetts. I also like Kid Ory a lot even though I don't listen to much dixieland. I like Mary Lou Williams because she never got stale. She kept changing and refused to settle into any category.

As for classical, I like Bach--first and foremost. I love baroque. I can sort of skip over the classical period--except for Beethoven and move into the modern era. For some reason, I only like the baroque melodies. Stuff that came later doesn't interest me much until we get to Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Ravel, Satie, Debussy, Bartok, Schoenberg, Boulez, Antheil, Ives, Webern I like (Satie and Bill Evans actually sound quite similar). I find the idea of dissonance and clashing notes and atonality personally pleasing and completely logical. And this takes us into avant-garde where I have a lot of favorites--Varese, Stockhausen, Cage, Dockstader, Babbitt, Ussachevsky, Arel, Schaeffer, Lamont Young, Eno. Back to noise and drones again. 

Where was I? Oh, yes--I DO like jazz quite a lot. Very malleable music, very useful.


----------



## Bettina

Richard8655 said:


> Wired for sure. Classical, of course. Rock also yes, but jazz nope. I see classical and rock making statements about our state of affairs, but jazz just seems to meander with no point.


I feel the same way. Most jazz doesn't seem goal-oriented enough for me. When I listen to jazz, I often don't get a clear-cut sense of a beginning, middle and end. It seems like a lot of jazz pieces could just randomly end at any point.

All of this is my fault, definitely not the fault of the genre. The problem is that I'm trying to listen for tonal layout and formal design, the way that I do in classical music. This probably isn't the most effective mode of listening for jazz...


----------



## PresenTense

Casebearer said:


> You have put in a YT-link to a Coltrane-song as an example of bebop music that goes on and on with nothing happening and no narrative.
> 
> Coltrane just isn't about those kind of bebop songs in general. His music is much more versatile. He's made several albums with ballads, he's made albums with prolonged compositions (very narrative) and everything in between. The typical image of a bebop piece with alternative endless soloing by the band members without the piece itself developing hardly applies to Coltrane in my opinion.
> 
> He often starts off with a well known and well structured ballad or traditional and then takes it stellar in steps. If ever music can help you transcend here and now it's his in my opinion. It takes you onto a journey into the spiritual realm if you let yourself be transported on this stairway to heaven. I know many people don't like it but I liked it immediately. Since Coltrane to me there's a new standard of what great music is. Although that leaves plenty of room for different kinds of music to enjoy in my case.
> 
> I have to admit though that he took it too far even for my taste in his last two years.
> 
> I like it when he's starting off with a recognizable tune and then gradually deconstructs it, although deconstructing sounds to negative because he's building up something different in the process:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also love his own long compositions, especially between 1957 and 1965 like First Meditations and a Love Supreme. Have you listened to those? Masterpieces of music that'll be classic for centuries to come.


A love supreme is amazing ❤


----------



## PresenTense

Victor Redseal said:


> My starting point for music is noise. Noise is music to me. Noise is on the perimeter and the closer to the center we get, the closer we get to mediocrity. On another thread, I posted the sound of tornado sirens as music. Listening to a recording of a tornado roaring against sirens wailing is musically very interesting to me. Air raid sirens also interest me greatly as do the sounds of propeller-driven planes when they're droning. And jets--I like the sound of jets when the roar goes on for awhile and starts to phase shift. I love the sound of droning. A simply low frequency drone doesn't bore me nor does it drive me nuts. I cannot understand people who say that it drives them crazy. I think they are shallow listeners perhaps even stupid. I like East Indian music for that reason--it tends to drone. So does ambient music and trance so i tend to listen to a lot of that when I go to bed.
> 
> I don't like pop. I don't like rap. I don't like mainstream rock. I do like punk and metal (although metal has been stale for the last 25 years or so). Jazz is my favorite music because you can roll everything I like about sound into it and produce something cool. Certain artists are mainstays--Duke, Count, Miles, Trane, Bird, Sun Ra, Bill Evans, Cecil, Alvin Ayler, New York Unit (I have a love/hate relationship with Pharaoh--either I love it or I hate it but I love New York Unit). I really like Chris Dahlgren although a lot of people--even jazzers--often find him incomprehensible (which, I suppose, is why I like him). I like most of Steve Tibbetts. I also like Kid Ory a lot even though I don't listen to much dixieland. I like Mary Lou Williams because she never got stale. She kept changing and refused to settle into any category.
> 
> As for classical, I like Bach--first and foremost. I love baroque. I can sort of skip over the classical period--except for Beethoven and move into the modern era. For some reason, I only like the baroque melodies. Stuff that came later doesn't interest me much until we get to Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Ravel, Satie, Debussy, Bartok, Schoenberg, Boulez, Antheil, Ives, Webern I like (Satie and Bill Evans actually sound quite similar). I find the idea of dissonance and clashing notes and atonality personally pleasing and completely logical. And this takes us into avant-garde where I have a lot of favorites--Varese, Stockhausen, Cage, Dockstader, Babbitt, Ussachevsky, Arel, Schaeffer, Lamont Young, Eno. Back to noise and drones again.
> 
> Where was I? Oh, yes--I DO like jazz quite a lot. Very malleable music, very useful.


We could be friends hahaha. We have similar taste.


----------



## PresenTense

norman bates said:


> can I ask you why? Just curious.
> Even in jazz, few instruments if any can have so many different ways to be played.
> My pet peeve is the lack of major composers in jazz guitar (I mean, guys to put on the level of Ellington/Strayhorn/Monk/Shorter), but lately I'm appreciating jazz guitarists much more than in the past.


My brain decided that guitar solos in Jazz sound boring. I can't seem to enjoy Jazz guitarists and it made me feel depressed because I am a guitarist.


----------



## Casebearer

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> I didn't mean to pick on or pigeonhole Coltrane; I've listened to extensive amounts of his music and I do like that most of it doesn't fall into those repetitive bebop patterns I'm talking about, and for that reason it's always puzzled me that I don't like his music more than I do.
> 
> What I notice is that I will like any given 10 seconds of Coltrane, but that in the bigger picture the mountings and releases of tension happen almost too frequently, and that the "story" tends to move from one state of suspense to another slightly different state to another slightly different state and so on, and then to a short respite, and then to another series of suspenseful squeezes that emotionally and rhythmically aren't all that different from the one we just heard.
> 
> Sometimes I like the way Jazz noodles around the nooks and crannies of a single or similar moods for long periods, but I'm much more partial to the more overt color changes in other genres of music. It isn't unlike the troubles I have with 12-tone music. In chunks I find Schoenberg exhilarating, but over time my impression is that the emotion keeps restarting, or that it's stuck vibrating in a climax that never ends. In moments there will be a shift, and I'll like those few moments, but not the entire piece.
> 
> Ex
> 
> 
> 
> (I don't believe this is 12-tone music, but my struggles with this piece of classical music (the first movement of Schuman's tenth) are similar to my struggles with Coltrane and jazz in general).
> 
> As for ballads, whoever's playing them, it's the same deal. I feel like I'm hearing the same 10 or 15 ideas, none of which even remotely as interesting as the initial, composed theme, recycling themselves.


Allright, I see what you mean although I'm not having your problem with enjoying jazz. You're looking for more different states and color changes within a composition. Maybe you can post something as an example of what you like. BTW I think there are many states and color changes in for instance A Love Supreme, but putting that aside there must be a lot of jazz that fits your liking because there are so many kinds.


----------



## Casebearer

Victor Redseal said:


> My starting point for music is noise. Noise is music to me. Noise is on the perimeter and the closer to the center we get, the closer we get to mediocrity. On another thread, I posted the sound of tornado sirens as music. Listening to a recording of a tornado roaring against sirens wailing is musically very interesting to me. Air raid sirens also interest me greatly as do the sounds of propeller-driven planes when they're droning. And jets--I like the sound of jets when the roar goes on for awhile and starts to phase shift. I love the sound of droning. A simply low frequency drone doesn't bore me nor does it drive me nuts. I cannot understand people who say that it drives them crazy. I think they are shallow listeners perhaps even stupid. I like East Indian music for that reason--it tends to drone. So does ambient music and trance so i tend to listen to a lot of that when I go to bed.
> 
> I don't like pop. I don't like rap. I don't like mainstream rock. I do like punk and metal (although metal has been stale for the last 25 years or so). Jazz is my favorite music because you can roll everything I like about sound into it and produce something cool. Certain artists are mainstays--Duke, Count, Miles, Trane, Bird, Sun Ra, Bill Evans, Cecil, Alvin Ayler, New York Unit (I have a love/hate relationship with Pharaoh--either I love it or I hate it but I love New York Unit). I really like Chris Dahlgren although a lot of people--even jazzers--often find him incomprehensible (which, I suppose, is why I like him). I like most of Steve Tibbetts. I also like Kid Ory a lot even though I don't listen to much dixieland. I like Mary Lou Williams because she never got stale. She kept changing and refused to settle into any category.
> 
> As for classical, I like Bach--first and foremost. I love baroque. I can sort of skip over the classical period--except for Beethoven and move into the modern era. For some reason, I only like the baroque melodies. Stuff that came later doesn't interest me much until we get to Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Ravel, Satie, Debussy, Bartok, Schoenberg, Boulez, Antheil, Ives, Webern I like (Satie and Bill Evans actually sound quite similar). I find the idea of dissonance and clashing notes and atonality personally pleasing and completely logical. And this takes us into avant-garde where I have a lot of favorites--Varese, Stockhausen, Cage, Dockstader, Babbitt, Ussachevsky, Arel, Schaeffer, Lamont Young, Eno. Back to noise and drones again.
> 
> Where was I? Oh, yes--I DO like jazz quite a lot. Very malleable music, very useful.


The same with me, although I don't like baroque that much (except for Bach). I like early music though.


----------



## DavidA

I find that to really enjoy jazz you have to hear it live. It's a spontaneous thing and should be heard as it's improvised.


----------



## Hfrank83

C95 said:


> I listen to experimental electronic music, some folk, classical music and contemporary music. I like the avant-garde stuff in music but for me, it's impossible to enjoy jazz music. I can't get the idea of improvisation and all the jazz culture in general. I enjoy very VERY few jazz songs.



























You clearly have no clue what it means to attack really tricky chord changes do you? Try Stella by starlight as slow as possible, try playing the melody straight from the part and of course learn it by heart and try to remember the whole chordal structure. Don't forget the rhythm, you need to have king of an African percussion sense for it. Important as hard as you can not to sound like anyone else, either repeating the same improvisation everytime you play it or playing some else's. Then will talk. There great music and there is bad music. I am a jazz musician and I love Stravinsky and Bartok because the had exactly what jazz musicians had. They broke the rules. Other guys like Bernd Alois Zimmermann, Maurice Ravel, Darius Milhaud, Dmitri Shostakovich all were Strongly influenced by early jazz. They didn't want to get stuck in time. They used complex chord forms, Improvization, modern take on rhythm. Mozart was genius there is no doubt, I love a lot of his work, but arts in general are the image of the society, its fashion, cultural approaches and limits. We are in 2017 and we can take advantage all the knowledge all those great masters left plus the new world thing we can add. There is a huge amount of amazing contemporary composers there doing things that Mozart couldn't even dream of and their work is just getting wasted because most of the classical crowd is stuck before the 19s century. As a musician I listen and I try to learn from those greats but I don't limit myself to old or modern times. 
There is more music as well. Have you paid attention to any klezmer artist. 



these artist have the same level of freedom as contemporary Jazz artist but with a level of expression I haven't heard in other music.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Hfrank83 said:


> Don't forget the rhythm, you need to have king of an African percussion sense for it.


This is an African percussion sense: 




Jazz percussion of course can be fairly rhythmically complex, but the tradition of jazz percussion is extrapolated from an extremely rudimentary vestige of African rhythm, such as you hear in early Dixieland jazz. It has almost nothing to do with complex African music.



Hfrank83 said:


> We are in 2017 and we can take advantage all the knowledge all those great masters left plus the new world thing we can add.


This is a "new world" thing: 




Jazz is a product of one "old world" group - Europeans - enslaving and minoritizing another "old world" group - Africans.



Hfrank83 said:


> There is a huge amount of amazing contemporary composers there doing things that Mozart couldn't even dream of and their work is just getting wasted because most of the classical crowd is stuck before the 19s century.


These words are true, but I'm getting the impression you don't listen much to contemporary classical composers.


----------



## Hfrank83

These words are true, but I'm getting the impression you don't listen much to contemporary classical composers.[/QUOTE]

Well I am interested in contemporary " classical" composers and that's the reason I am in this forum. Actually it would be really helpful if you can post at least a few names for me knowing that I naturally lean towards Stravinskys work but I love Bartok as well. I am always looking for the new thing. Thanks in advanced.


----------



## Hfrank83

Hfrank83 said:


> These words are true, but I'm getting the impression you don't listen much to contemporary classical composers.


Well I am interested in contemporary " classical" composers and that's the reason I am in this forum. Actually it would be really helpful if you can post at least a few names for me knowing that I naturally lean towards Stravinskys work but I love Bartok as well. I am always looking for the new thing. Thanks in advanced.[/QUOTE]

I actually have a few contemporary random works but it would be nice to have a certain path to listen to since most of the times I ask for info between the classical crowd they just tell me everything every snob knows by heart and when I ask about "now" work they just tell me it' s noise and that's why they don't bother. WTF??? Someone like you who truly appreciates the new works would be helpful.


----------



## ldiat

if i missed it... i like the "old" jazz davis-coltrain-hancock, but i do like what is called "jazz fusion". bands like Spyro Gyro- Yellow Jackets-'Koinonia-Weather Report if one mentioned this sorry.


----------



## David OByrne

No, jazz is exciting


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I like Jazz and Classical music but some people should be shot for combining the two...........


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Hfrank83 said:


> I actually have a few contemporary random works but it would be nice to have a certain path to listen to since most of the times I ask for info between the classical crowd they just tell me everything every snob knows by heart and when I ask about "now" work they just tell me it' s noise and that's why they don't bother. WTF??? Someone like you who truly appreciates the new works would be helpful.


I don't know if I truly appreciate anything, but I try to be marginally informed. I linked to recordings of La Monte Young and Gérard Grisey in our other conversation. They're not exactly contemporary either, but more so than Stravinsky and Bartók, and maybe the most important figures in the American "just intonation" and French "spectral" traditions respectively.

Here's a good primer on Young, including excerpts from three pieces and an interview with the composer:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/64957-from-the-vaults-la-monte-young/

And here's Grisey's last completed work again, this time the whole thing:


----------



## Magnum Miserium

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I like Jazz and Classical music but some people should be shot for combining the two...........


On the other hand:


----------



## TheRedScarf

Yes it is vary boring and dead


----------



## ldiat




----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

TheRedScarf said:


> Yes it is vary boring and dead


Some one once said it smells funny but then he made Jazz from Hell...............


----------



## janxharris

C95 said:


> I listen to experimental electronic music, some folk, classical music and contemporary music. I like the avant-garde stuff in music but for me, it's impossible to enjoy jazz music. I can't get the idea of improvisation and all the jazz culture in general. I enjoy very VERY few jazz songs.


Somebody once recommended 'Kind of Blue' to me but I just didn't and don't get it.


----------



## Barbebleu

ldiat said:


>


Very pleasant but imo, not jazz.


----------



## Hfrank83

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I like Jazz and Classical music but some people should be shot for combining the two...........


Depends on who does it. In that case I prefer when the version comes from jazz players. Though I am pretty sure there are great things out there done by classical composers as well. 



 



 



 



.


----------



## neofite

I've never been too clear on the distinction between "jazz" and popular music in general (Is the boundary somewhat fuzzy?), perhaps because I find most of it not only boring but also irritating. That said, I also find most music of recent decades to be boring, including the supposedly "classical" music that has been written during this period.


----------



## jegreenwood

Barbebleu said:


> Very pleasant but imo, not jazz.







Same song - different artist.


----------



## jegreenwood

neofite said:


> I've never been too clear on the distinction between "jazz" and popular music in general (Is the boundary somewhat fuzzy?), perhaps because I find most of it not only boring but also irritating. That said, I also find most music of recent decades to be boring, including the supposedly "classical" music that has been written during this period.


I think that is especially true for singers. (I was thinking about that while listening to the vocal version of "I've Got the World on a String" posted above.) So many jazz-influenced singers like Sinatra and Bennett. And you could debate forever how to categorize Ella Fitzgerald. Depends mostly on which recordings of hers you pick.

But if you find both boring and irritating, it shouldn't matter to you. I am more than happy to switch between Sinatra, Miles Davis (been listening to him more than any other musician in recent months), Schubert and Neil Young during a listening session.


----------



## Hfrank83

Barbebleu said:


> Very pleasant but imo, not jazz.


Yes it's jazz."I've Got The World On A String" is pretty much a jazz standard and really well known one. On the other hand everything harmony and rhythm-wise there screams jazz. From the very start of the song you have already IIm7-V7... progressions. 
Here is the basic harmony; I really didn't have time to do any extra work. This one is over my poor voice range, just trying to remember the melody. Sorry If I escaped any chord. Now listening again to the one In this video I can hear a few substitutions but I am saxophonist so I am bit more limited with piano and I am busy now. Have a good day. If you are a pianist I suggest trying to voice the chords with rootless quartal viocings. They sound killer here.

D7 D7/9 D9 G6 G/F# E7 Am7 Cdim
I've got the world on a string, sittin' on a rainbow,
G G/F# E-9 EM7#11
Got the string around my fin - ger;
Am7 D7 Am7 Cdim Im7 G Em7 Am7
What a world, what a life -- I'm in love.
D7 D7/9 D9 G6 G/F# E7 Am7 Cdim
I've got a song that I sing, I can make the rain go
G G/F# E-9 EM7
Anytime I snap my fin - ger;
Am7 D7 Am7 Cdim Am7 G Gdim G
Lucky me, can't you see? I'm in love.
Bridge:
G G7 B9 G E9
Life is a beautiful thing as long as I've got that string;

G G/F# A7 A7+5 C F7 D7
I'd be a silly so-and-so if I should ever let it go.
D7 D7/9 D9 G6 G/F# E7 Am7 Cdim
I've got the world on a string, sittin' on a rainbow,
G G/F# E-9 E
Got the string around my fin - ger;
Am7 D7 Am7 Cdim Am7 G Gdim Am7alt Cm7 G6
What a world, what a life -- I'm in love.


----------



## Aegimius

I also gotta admit I find a lot of jazz boring. I also find a lot of classical music boring, though there are many composers I love. I especially dislike smooth jazz. The jazz music I do like though is often edgy, or "avant-garde". I've recently "discovered" chamber jazz, which combines jazz with Baroque or classical type instruments and often find it very enjoyable. I find Baroque Jazz Trio pretty entertaining: 




as well as Meg Okura 




I sometimes also enjoy the old stuff and bebop. It seems in the 50s the more popular jazz styles became increasingly mellow.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I love In A Silent Way by Miles Davis, I just find it so beautiful, but in general I think I agree. I MUCH prefer Classical Music to any other genre of music, to me it is the epitome of what music can be.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Jazz is the genre I have the most contentious relationship with. There are times when it transports me and there's this feeling of being so "in the moment" that it's as if I'm living life on fast-forward and experiencing so much at such velocity that it's exhilarating like nothing else... but then there are times where I find myself completely lost, bored, bewildered, and just annoyed. I've tried to contemplate whether this is a feature of the music, my mind/personality, a temporary mood, or some combination. I think the best answer I've come to is that my interest in jazz is fundamentally tied to my ability to hear how the soloing is connected to the initial melody and chord progressions. When I can "hear" that connection I find jazz utterly thrilling, but then there are times when I forget what the initial melody is, lose track of the chord progressions, and soloing just feels like random noises with no sense of purpose or direction. One thing I've found that helps this is if I listen to the beginning of a jazz piece, before the soloing starts, several times so that the melody is much more "fixed" in my mind so that I can better follow just what the solos are doing, what story they're telling and where it's taking me.

Of course, I find this is easier to do with some jazz than with others. One reason I tend to love Miles Davis is because he was a supreme melodist even when he soloed, so even if I get a bit lost I still usually feel comforted by what he's doing. He's never alienating like Coltrane or Coleman or others can be. I can also appreciate the guys that had a very unique, singular, often eccentric or "weird" personality to their approach like Monk, Mingus, and Dolphy. Even when I get lost with them I'm often intrigued by what they're doing because it sounds so unusual, a kind of alien-like attraction. I also seem to gel pretty well with jazz fusion because it's closer to the classic rock music I grew up with so there's a bit of familiarity there as well. Here's a few of my favorite jazz pieces:













And for something more contemporary:


----------



## Woodduck

I like music that seems to be moving toward a goal. A lot of jazz just percolates and the coffee never gets made. I simply tune out - and in recent years I rarely tune in.


----------



## Larkenfield

C95 said:


> I listen to experimental electronic music, some folk, classical music and contemporary music. I like the avant-garde stuff in music but for me, it's impossible to enjoy jazz music. I can't get the idea of improvisation and all the jazz culture in general. I enjoy very VERY few jazz songs.


It's the great American art form and there are a number of examples of the masters of improvisation on the Jazz Hole thread. Improvisation is a fact of life like sex, pizza, and Louis Armstrong. There's Kind of Blue by Miles that's considered a masterpiece, and just about anything by the legendary pianist Bill Evans. The rapport that he has with his trios is often breathtaking. There's also Stan Getz, Chet Baker, Sarah Vaughan, John Coltrane, Wynton Marsalis... The list is virtually endless of those who have the skill to play in the moment without a net under them saving their skin like in classical music where almost everything is nailed down in the score. Jazz is about the spontaneous thrill of freedom.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I like music that seems to be moving toward a goal. A lot of jazz just percolates and the coffee never gets made. I simply tune out - and in recent years I rarely tune in.


I suspect that part of the appeal of jazz music--and this is true of myself when I'm in the mood--is the lack of goal-oriented motion, in the celebration and appreciation of what's happening now in the moment. We often find ourselves in life enjoying being in such moments without any immediate goals or future purpose in mind, and I've even found it's often those moments we look back most fondly on, while our goals are often directed towards attaining such moments that may or may not actually happen.

I also suspect that many jazz players and perhaps theorists would object to this. They'd probably say that the goal/purpose of jazz is in the musical adventure going out and away from home and the equal musical adventure of getting back... but it just seems to be happening in a way that can feel intuitively aimless to those unaccustomed to it... but that's just my speculation.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I do find a lot of more conventional Jazz boring. Things really got more interesting starting in the 60's though. Ellington, Dolphy and Mingus are always interesting.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I suspect that part of the appeal of jazz music--and this is true of myself when I'm in the mood--is the lack of goal-oriented motion, in the celebration and appreciation of what's happening now in the moment. We often find ourselves in life enjoying being in such moments without any immediate goals or future purpose in mind, and I've even found it's often those moments we look back most fondly on, while our goals are often directed towards attaining such moments that may or may not actually happen.
> 
> I also suspect that many jazz players and perhaps theorists would object to this. They'd probably say that the goal/purpose of jazz is in the musical adventure going out and away from home and the equal musical adventure of getting back... but it just seems to be happening in a way that can feel intuitively aimless to those unaccustomed to it... but that's just my speculation.


I think you're making an imaginative but false parallel. I love being aimless and doing nothing - just being "in the now." But in music I enjoy "plot," as I enjoy clearly marked and dynamically charged structure in visual art, and a good cliff-hanging story in literature. It's not so much a parallel to living as to thinking: I like the dynamic tension of purposeful mental activity, of having a thesis and taking premises to a conclusion. "Theme and variations" is for me a boring musical concept unless the variations are varied indeed, so as to amount to a series of different compositions (e.g., Bach's and Beethoven's great works in the form). A huge opera, ballet or symphony can have a good "plot"; a well-shaped melody can have one in just a few bars. I simply get bored with jazz pianists and saxophonists (pardon me, horn players) who go on and on in a theoretically endless thicket of notes beneath which whatever tune they started with disappears and isn't replaced by any memorable new ones. I can respect their artistry and virtuosity, but I tend not to enjoy it.

I also find insistent, frenetic rhythms wearing, and squawking saxophones and shrieking trumpets repugnant.


----------



## Haydn70

C95 said:


> I listen to experimental electronic music, some folk, classical music and contemporary music. I like the avant-garde stuff in music but for me, it's impossible to enjoy jazz music. I can't get the idea of improvisation and all the jazz culture in general. I enjoy very VERY few jazz songs.


I do. (In answer to the thread title.) :tiphat::tiphat:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I think you're making an imaginative but false parallel. I love being aimless and doing nothing - just being "in the now." But in music I enjoy "plot," as I enjoy clearly marked and dynamically charged structure in visual art, and a good cliff-hanging story in literature. It's not so much a parallel to living as to thinking: I like the dynamic tension of purposeful mental activity, of having a thesis and taking premises to a conclusion. "Theme and variations" is for me a boring musical concept unless the variations are varied indeed, so as to amount to a series of different compositions (e.g., Bach's and Beethoven's great works in the form). A huge opera, ballet or symphony can have a good "plot"; a well-shaped melody can have one in just a few bars. I simply get bored with jazz pianists and saxophonists (pardon me, horn players) who go on and on in a theoretically endless thicket of notes beneath which whatever tune they started with disappears and isn't replaced by any memorable new ones. I can respect their artistry and virtuosity, but I tend not to enjoy it.
> 
> I also find insistent, frenetic rhythms wearing, and squawking saxophones and shrieking trumpets repugnant.


Yes, I know you were just stating your preferences in music, I was just suggesting that those who enjoy it might appreciate that aimless "being in the now" feeling in music as well. There is a certain potential excitement it can produce that's rather unique to that mode of music-making; of course I say "potential" as one has to appreciate it to feel it... or maybe the reverse is true. Anyway, I imagine most of us can also enjoy the things you mention here--purposeful mental activity, plot, dynamically charged structure, etc.--as well.

As for frenetic rhythms and squawking/shrieking saxes/trumpets, there's always slower pieces, many of which don't feature horns. I posted one from a piano/bass/drum trio above called "If."


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> I also find insistent, frenetic rhythms wearing, and squawking saxophones and shrieking trumpets repugnant.


Weirdly enough, I don't!!

Albert Ayler, Cecil Taylor, Roswell Rudd, ah, now we're talking - or is that squawking?:lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain

No. I love jazz. For those who think it's too raucous I prescribe a dose of Chet Baker or Frank Wess on the flute. There's no raucous there. Jazz is invigorating, uplifting, exciting, often beautiful, intelligent, entertaining, innovative. And so much more.

Anyone who dislikes the sound of three saxes playing in harmony, perhaps with a clarinet top in the Glenn Miller big band style, is heartless (and maybe even stark raving mad).


----------



## tdc

I generally don't find it extremely boring, I like some of it, I'm often very impressed by the musicianship but I find my tastes more often lean towards classical, and when I'm not listening to that it is usually rock or pop. I tend to prefer works that are composed to improvisation.

As far as jazz I generally prefer the more concise stuff like songs by Ellington and Jobim. Long drawn out improvised pieces I'm less interested in.

There is also another quality but I find it harder to explain, there seems like a general clear intent to be more intense in the _underlying musical message_ in classical and rock music, as though the artists are attempting to say something important. In jazz this seems muddled, as though the music is cloaked in a harmonic language that leans towards something not sincere, or just a caricature of something sincere, or a celebration of the mundane. Adorno suggested the musical style somehow symbolizes impotence.


----------



## Larkenfield

Miles Davis referred to jazz as social music and a great deal of the raw, angry, honking jazz that some complain about was the result of_ black anger and social injustice_. It came out in the music at that time. But the point is lost when no one has any idea of the culture that some of this music springs from, such as the angry recordings of Albert Ayler, or that not all jazz springs from that anger. Caucasians in jazz have also wanted to express themselves, such as the great non-honking tenor player Stan Getz.

Really. What a waste of time discussing this music when those who don't like or understand it do not mention specific recordings. It's like a novice saying that a thousand years of classical music is all the same from Hildegard of Bingen to Karlheinz Stockhausen.

Jazz is another language with a different orientation to harmony, time and rhythm, and its genius is a swinging rhythm section. Jazz usually states a melody and a series of harmonic changes, then the musicians improvise and express their feelings about it like what the 12-year old prodigy Joey Alexander does here... Anyone who can carry a tune is likely to understand exactly what he's doing in the spontaneity of the moment:






Classical music sprang from European culture. Jazz sprang from American culture, from the genius of such creative giants as Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, and Charlie Parker who became famous around the world... and they couldn't exactly aspire to play in a symphony orchestra, could they? Blacks would never have been accepted. So they created their own as an expression of American culture... The swing of jazz:


----------



## JosefinaHW

C95 said:


> I listen to experimental electronic music, some folk, classical music and contemporary music. I like the avant-garde stuff in music but for me, it's impossible to enjoy jazz music. I can't get the idea of improvisation and all the jazz culture in general. I enjoy very VERY few jazz songs.


I've been enjoying Saint-Saen's Bach Transcriptions, but I can't hide my head in the sand.... Why is this thread in the Classical Music Section of the Forum?

Is anyone moderating this cr**?


----------



## Simon Moon

Big jazz fan here!

There are so many different styles and genres of jazz, not sure how it can all be painted with the same broad brush?

From the intense fiery fusion of Mahavishnu Orchestra, Iceberg, Return to Forever, Spaced Out, and others, to the intricate interplay of much of the ECM catalog, to the 'seat of your pants' near free jazz of of The Art Ensemble of Chicago, to the highly complex funky rhythms of Steve Coleman (and M-BASS), to the 12 tone big band of Darcy James Argue, the very complex jazz-metal as played by German band Panzerballett or Exivious... seriously, the styles are almost endless.

I too get bored with the same catalog of 'standards' that so many players seem to have to regurgitate, over and over again, with some typical trio or quartet. But the unique players (on all instruments), the level of musicianship, the unique composing, the interesting use of nonstandard instrumentation, the influence of various world musics, contemporary classical, funk, prog-rock, etc, are constantly pushing jazz into new territories.


----------



## millionrainbows

Through-composed jazz, anyone?






Anybody who doesn't like some sort of jazz, and is ready to write-off the entire genre, is missing part of America, and has a cultural blind spot.


----------



## skim1124

I'm very new to the forum, as I'm trying to learn more about classical music. But that doesn't mean that I enjoy classical music more than jazz, which I find to be high art indeed, full of as many geniuses as there are in classical music, and about as far from "extremely boring" as you can get. Even though I studied classical piano for about 10 years growing up, many, perhaps most, of my best musical experiences have come through jazz which I discovered only in college. 

There is art, genius, skill and creativity in interpreting a piece of 100, 200, 300-year old piece of classical music written down with strict-ish guidelines on how it should be played, but to me there is equal art, genius, skill and perhaps even more creativity in improvising on a jazz piece.


----------



## Barbebleu

tdc said:


> I generally don't find it extremely boring, I like some of it, I'm often very impressed by the musicianship but I find my tastes more often lean towards classical, and when I'm not listening to that it is usually rock or pop. I tend to prefer works that are composed to improvisation.
> 
> As far as jazz I generally prefer the more concise stuff like songs by Ellington and Jobim. Long drawn out improvised pieces I'm less interested in.
> 
> There is also another quality but I find it harder to explain, there seems like a general clear intent to be more intense in the _underlying musical message_ in classical and rock music, as though the artists are attempting to say something important. In jazz this seems muddled, as though the music is cloaked in a harmonic language that leans towards something not sincere, or just a caricature of something sincere, or a celebration of the mundane. Adorno suggested the musical style somehow symbolizes impotence.


Adorno was a clown!


----------



## regenmusic

I like the influence of Jazz more than I like the originals or those who stayed true to the originals. Fusion (RTF, Mahavishnu, Weather Report) and other forms Jazz influenced, like some Prog or other composers outside of classical like Pekka Pohjola. And then there is Sun Ra, who I think is the best pure jazz writer with Coltrane and Pharaoh Sanders.


----------



## Barbebleu

JosefinaHW said:


> I've been enjoying Saint-Saen's Bach Transcriptions, but I can't hide my head in the sand.... Why is this thread in the Classical Music Section of the Forum?
> 
> Is anyone moderating this cr**?


Ask the moderators. Are you suggesting the genre is c**p or the posts? Either of which would seem pretty objectionable. Given the title of the thread why are you reading this thread regardless of where it has been started? I assumed that the OP was a classical listener who had occasion to try some jazz and found it, to his/her ears, wanting in some respect.


----------



## Larkenfield

The thread was probably started here because the person who made the OP is oriented more to classical music than to jazz... Classical is his starting point, his primary point of reference, so he may not have considered posting in the non-classical section. I'm sure it was not intended as an affront to anyone and I've seen a number of threads posted in classical when there are other sections. For instance, there's a section for film and tv music called The Movie Corner: Music for Cinema and TV, but sometimes it's not used.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I am not a fan of Jazz but occasionally I find it interesting - for a short time. After classical my next favourite genre is pop/rock 60s/70s - I get much more out of that than I do Jazz.

I like the part of the film La La Land where the girl says to her new boyfriend (a jazz musician) "There's something I need to get out of the way - I hate jazz"

I love that.

also the film where Tim Roth plays a pianist who was born on a ship - after a duel with a famous jazz player he calls out to his humiliated foe "Fxxx jazz!"

That makes me laugh too. Ive nothing against jazz as such though.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Since a fair sprinkling of the members here appear to be people who had their heyday in the late 60s or the 70s, there is more love for (dreary) genres like 'prog rock' or just 'rock' than for jazz.


----------



## millionrainbows

To C95, you shouldn't put the word "jazz" in any thread title, or it will fail.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Since a fair sprinkling of the members here appear to be people who had their heyday in the late 60s or the 70s, there is more love for (dreary) genres like 'prog rock' or just 'rock' than for jazz.


Yeah, right on, Return To Forever, Weather Report...


----------



## millionrainbows

Larkenfield said:


> The thread was probably started here because the person who made the OP is oriented more to classical music than to jazz... Classical is his starting point, his primary point of reference, so he may not have considered posting in the non-classical section. *I'm sure it was not intended as an affront to anyone* and I've seen a number of threads posted in classical when there are other sections. For instance, there's a section for film and tv music called The Movie Corner: Music for Cinema and TV, but sometimes it's not used.


"Does anybody else find Jazz extremely boring?" 

*Attention jazz-haters: come to this thread to unload!
*


----------



## Barbebleu

eugeneonagain said:


> Since a fair sprinkling of the members here appear to be people who had their heyday in the late 60s or the 70s, there is more love for (dreary) genres like 'prog rock' or just 'rock' than for jazz.


Miaow!! Saucer of milk for Eugene on the gin!!


----------



## starthrower

eugeneonagain said:


> Since a fair sprinkling of the members here appear to be people who had their heyday in the late 60s or the 70s, there is more love for (dreary) genres like 'prog rock' or just 'rock' than for jazz.


Even so, the bulk of my record collection is made up of jazz records. There are only so many good prog albums before you hit a brick wall. But the volume of great jazz records is endless.


----------



## Mark Emanuele

It depends on the type of Jazz for me. I tend to like more of the modern Jazz. Many "Classical" works have Jazz influence, such as Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring"


----------



## Red Terror

starthrower said:


> Even so, the bulk of my record collection is made up of jazz records. There are only so many good prog albums before you hit a brick wall. But the volume of great jazz records is endless.


Great prog is still being made ... often by jazz or jazz influenced musicians. Jazz musicians can rock better than most.


----------



## starthrower

There is so much interesting stuff to explore outside the famous names in jazz that may have an appeal for classical fans that are curious. The German ECM label has over a thousand releases that sound nothing like Coltrane or Horace Silver. Bassist Eberhard Weber or guitarist/pianist Ralph Towner are two unique artists to explore. This stuff is far removed from boppin' jazz.


----------



## starthrower

Red Terror said:


> Great prog is still being made ... often by jazz or jazz influenced musicians. Jazz musicians can rock better than most.


A lot of the hard core prog fans have fairly conservative taste and eat up the 70s sounding neo prog bands which don't interest me. I don't really like to use that term. I don't care about the labels, I'm looking for interesting music that doesn't sound like rehash. Much of modern classical sounds like rehash as well. Nowadays it's difficult for me to find an interesting new composer.


----------



## jegreenwood

Mark Emanuele said:


> It depends on the type of Jazz for me. I tend to like more of the modern Jazz. Many "Classical" works have Jazz influence, such as Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring"


Hmm . . . The Rite of Spring was first performed in 1913. That was really the era of ragtime. The earliest roots of jazz were just forming. However later composers, such as Ravel, were influenced by jazz.


----------



## starthrower

jegreenwood said:


> Hmm . . . The Rite of Spring was first performed in 1913. That was really the era of ragtime. The earliest roots of jazz were just forming. However later composers, such as Ravel, were influenced by jazz.


Maybe Igor went drinking with Jelly Roll Morton one night, but I don't hear it.


----------



## Mark Emanuele

There is a New Jersey-based Prog Band that does a lot of original work. It is Advent. All of the musicians were "Classically" or Jazz Trained.
http://www.adventmusic.net/


----------



## Aegimius

I don't hate jazz, but I sure do find a lot of the more mainstream acts boring. I'm not sure if that's my fault or the fault of the performer. I usually think it's my fault(though there's also a lot of classical music I don't like).

I primarily like classical music, and I often find I'm much more likely to like jazz music that has a strong classical or Baroque influence. Or it sounds exotic, edgy, or high energy. Hence I tend to like chamber jazz, Third Stream, some bebop, some free and avant-garde jazz. I tend to dislike almost everything that is cool jazz or reminds me of elevator music. I often can't get over how much mainstream jazz often sounds like elevator music, though elevator music is usually far superior to pop these days.

Jazz artists I like: Eric Dolphy, Mingus, Baroque Jazz Trio, Meg Okura, Sonny Sharrock, Dizzy Gillespie and some early George Benson and Wes Montgomery. Dolphy died at 36 from a diabetic coma. He had an amazing career and he was just getting started!

Miles Davis rarely does anything for me for some reason, though at least he doesn't sound like elevator music.


----------



## starthrower

This may appeal to Steve Reich fans. He's been a big influence on Pat as far as rhythm.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I can take Pat Metheny, but I can only listen to that kind of music for short bursts. It has the feel of...dare I say it...elevator music!

My sort of jazz guitar (I'm unadventurous):


----------



## starthrower

I don't think that's a fair criticism of Metheny. Especially the clip I uploaded which features some very inventive and sophisticated music. But to each his own.


----------



## Barbebleu

eugeneonagain said:


> I can take Pat Metheny, but I can only listen to that kind of music for short bursts. It has the feel of...dare I say it...elevator music!
> 
> My sort of jazz guitar (I'm unadventurous):


You're right about this being unadventurous. But Wes is ok. There's room for everyone on board the good ship jazz.


----------



## starthrower

I'd say it's quite adventurous for the guy who has to play it on the guitar. Wes was phenomenal.

The great musicians make it look easy, but it's anything but.


----------



## jegreenwood

starthrower said:


> This may appeal to Steve Reich fans. He's been a big influence on Pat as far as rhythm.


I don't know if Reich's Electric Counterpoiunt was actually written for Metheny, but he was the first to record it.


----------



## Barbebleu

starthrower said:


> I'd say it's quite adventurous for the guy who has to play it on the guitar. Wes was phenomenal.
> 
> The great musicians make it look easy, but it's anything but.


Unadventurous was probably a bit over-critical. Definitely not criticising Wes's technique or taste. He was the first jazz guitarist I properly listened to and the first one whose albums I collected. He paved the way for my love of jazz guitar that goes from Charlie Christian to Sonny Sharrock and many, many great stops in between.


----------



## Larkenfield

starthrower said:


> This may appeal to Steve Reich fans. He's been a big influence on Pat as far as rhythm.


Crazy good with thrilling musicianship. Amazing.


----------



## jim prideaux

good to see the usual criticisms being applied to Metheny......personally I have found him responsible for some of the most uplifting and enthralling music I have ever heard, and that is over a period of 35 years.....but what do I know?


----------



## Barbebleu

jim prideaux said:


> good to see the usual criticisms being applied to Metheny......personally I have found him responsible for some of the most uplifting and enthralling music I have ever heard, and that is over a period of 35 years.....but what do I know?


He first came to my attention on Joni Mitchell's fantastic live album Shadows and Light. His band was her backing group with Lyle Mays, Jaco Pastorius, Don Alias et al. His brilliant solo, titled appropriately Pat's Solo made me sit up and listen. And that was me down the rabbit hole. I'm pretty sure I've now got all his albums. Just a sensational musician.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Far-and-away my favorite jazz guitarist is Allan Holdsworth. He's a guitar hero of mine, in general. I'm just in awe at what he's able to do both with his chordal structures, progressions, and those insane runs that I can't figure out harmonically or intuitively. Here's a few vids:


----------



## Dan Ante

C95 said:


> I listen to experimental electronic music, some folk, classical music and contemporary music. I like the avant-garde stuff in music but for me, it's impossible to enjoy jazz music. I can't get the idea of improvisation and all the jazz culture in general. I enjoy very VERY few jazz songs.


The only Jazz that I don't like is 'Free Jazz' at least that which I have heard, for me any music must have at least one of the following melody, rhythm, harmony if it has all three then I am happy with it. I can under stand that some people find jazz boring compared to classical but some classical can be boring as well. I also like all kinds of folk, Indian music can also be riveting. I do not like electronic music of any persuasion for me it is acoustic all the way. Regarding improvisation which is at the heart of jazz compare it to classical variations but not written.


----------



## David Phillips

Joe Venuti and Eddie Lang recorded in 1928.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes

Jazz is OK, what I really hate is Rap/Hip-Hop-I can't find that pleasurable for my ears in any way!


----------



## Bkeske

Another good jazz guitarist is Herb Ellis. I have a couple 'Triple Treat' albums with Monty Alexander, Ray Brown, and Ellis.

I was also fortunate enough to see this trio back in the mid-eighties at a nice jazz 'dinner club'. Still one of my favorite jazz trios, especaially as I am a big Ray Brown fan.

I am a big, big, jazz fan, and personally, find a fairly nice connection between jazz and classical music.

Yes, in the early to mid-70's I was exposed to Matheny, Chic Corea, John McLaughlin (and with the Mahavishnu Orchestra), Weather Report, Stephane Grappelli, and the like. I enjoyed it to a degree, but it was that exposure which lead me to 'true jazz' (my word). Today, I'm into more the older 'jazz standards', and those whom the older style was an influance.

For some classical only folks here, you may be pleasantly surprised by the likes of The modern Jazz Quartet (one of my favorites), or pianist as Ahmad Jamal. I like those two in particular as they have a nice 'classical' influence.


----------



## Larkenfield

Oh yes, the Modern Jazz Quartet with their classy swinging elegance and style. Glad to hear them mentioned among everyone else.

Jazz is simple: it's simply a group of people with the ability to improvise joining together to create something new in the moment that usually has great enjoyment or happiness. It's spontaneous and informal. Everything is not tied to the page like in most classical music. That's the freedom of it and jazz is about freedom. Done well, it's a worthwhile contrast to the formality of classical music. Jazz can swing… it has the rhythmic swing that's missing from most classical music.


----------



## Dan Ante

The MJQ has always been a favorite of mine I even have some of their early LPs must give them a spin to night.


----------



## Bkeske

Larkenfield said:


> Oh yes, the Modern Jazz Quartet with their classy swinging elegance and style. Glad to hear them mentioned among everyone else.
> 
> Jazz is simple: it's simply a group of people with the ability to improvise joining together to create something new in the moment that usually has great enjoyment or happiness. It's spontaneous and informal. Everything is not tied to the page like in most classical music. That's the freedom of it and jazz is about freedom. Done well, it's a worthwhile contrast to the formality of classical music. Jazz can swing… it has the rhythmic swing that's missing from most classical music.


Very nice.

I was lucky enough to see The Modern Jazz Quartet in concert in a concert hall, after they reunited following their 'last concert' album (which is a great recording, and highly recommended). I was 'in heaven' watching these guys play together. I had seen some of them with other 'groups' (as Ray Brown in 'Triple Treat' and Milt Jackson with someone else, whom I cannot remember right now...), but never together as MJQ. It was simply incredible, and am very lucky to have had the opportunity, and made sure I got tickets in the first couple rows, right near center stage.

Ray left MJQ back in the 50's I believe, was replaced by Percy Heath, but reunited after Heath's death for some shows and recordings, as he is in the video above.

Unfortunately, I believe they have all passed away now.


----------



## Dan Ante

Bags Groove eh yep I got that


----------



## Barbebleu

More years ago than I care to remember there was a radio show in Scotland on a Sunday that played jazz records. I caught the show by chance and the first piece of music I heard was The Cylinder by the MJQ from the album European Concert Vol. 2. I sent away to Dobell's Record shop in London and that was me hooked on jazz. Dave Brubeck, Cannonball Adderley, Miles, all followed soon after then Gary Burton, Max Roach, and everyone else that I could get hold of. Never regretted an instant.


----------



## Dan Ante

Barbebleu said:


> More years ago than I care to remember there was a radio show in Scotland on a Sunday that played jazz records. I caught the show by chance and the first piece of music I heard was The Cylinder by the MJQ from the album European Concert Vol. 2. I sent away to Dobell's Record shop in London and that was me hooked on jazz. Dave Brubeck, Cannonball Adderley, Miles, all followed soon after then Gary Burton, Max Roach, and everyone else that I could get hold of. Never regretted an instant.


All names that jazz lovers know and worship.


----------



## Enthusiast

Strangely, I have kept away from the forum for a few days and have mostly been listening to jazz. A lot of it was fusion from the 60s and 70s but I also listened to a good few bebop classics. The richness of this music amazes me. There is just so much that is so good! Choose any period and your chances of getting to hear all the great records from that period are slim - there will always be something new to discover. Only classical music can match that fecundity and even classical recordings would probably be challenged to match the sheer numbers of great records over such a short period. Much of it was the music of black American musicians - the genre is surely authentically theirs - and I do wonder if we would know it better if that were not so.


----------



## jegreenwood

Bkeske said:


> Very nice.
> 
> I was lucky enough to see The Modern Jazz Quartet in concert in a concert hall, after they reunited following their 'last concert' album (which is a great recording, and highly recommended). I was 'in heaven' watching these guys play together. I had seen some of them with other 'groups' (as Ray Brown in 'Triple Treat' and Milt Jackson with someone else, whom I cannot remember right now...), but never together as MJQ. It was simply incredible, and am very lucky to have had the opportunity, and made sure I got tickets in the first couple rows, right near center stage.
> 
> Ray left MJQ back in the 50's I believe, was replaced by Percy Heath, but reunited after Heath's death for some shows and recordings, as he is in the video above.
> 
> Unfortunately, I believe they have all passed away now.


I saw them twice during that period at the 92nd St. Y in NYC. I mention the Y because it was during this period that they recorded "Three Windows" with Y's own orchestra. Of course, John Lewis was a leader in the third stream (jazz/classical) movement. He even tried his hand(s) at Bach.


----------



## Bkeske

I have Three Windows on vinyl, and just recently played it for the first time in years last week after un-digging my turntable from the basement (yes a touted digital recording on vinyl). I missed that album, and nice to have it back into my rotation.

It is said John Lewis was the actual leader of MJQ in terms or music director, and yes, would dip his toe into classical works, and perhaps the reason they were so different and unique, and willing to do things as Windows.

Other jazz artists would as well, as the aforementioned Amad Jamal. 

As you know, seeing them live was an incredible experiance.

Another that 'blew me away' seeing live win a small club was McCoy Tyner. Sat literally 6-8' from him and the keys of his piano. Incredible to watch.


----------



## jegreenwood

Bkeske said:


> I have Three Windows on vinyl, and just recently played it for the first time in years last week after un-digging my turntable from the basement (yes a touted digital recording on vinyl). I missed that album, and nice to have it back into my rotation.
> 
> It is said John Lewis was the actual leader of MJQ in terms or music director, and yes, would dip his toe into classical works, and perhaps the reason they were so different and unique, and willing to do things as Windows.
> 
> Other jazz artists would as well, as the aforementioned Amad Jamal.
> 
> As you know, seeing them live was an incredible experiance.
> 
> Another that 'blew me away' seeing live win a small club was McCoy Tyner. Sat literally 6-8' from him and the keys of his piano. Incredible to watch.


At the time I saw MJQ, the person in charge of music programming at the Y was Omus Hirshbein who later went on to direct the music and opera program at the National Endowment for the Arts. I was involved with the Y at that time (and I currently take music analysis classes there). I could be wrong, but during the 7 or 8 years we overlapped, I believe MJQ was the only jazz act he booked for the auditorium. Omus told me that the group liked playing there because it was as large a house as possible where they could play unmiked.


----------



## Simon Moon

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Far-and-away my favorite jazz guitarist is Allan Holdsworth. He's a guitar hero of mine, in general. I'm just in awe at what he's able to do both with his chordal structures, progressions, and those insane runs that I can't figure out harmonically or intuitively. Here's a few vids:


Absolutely!

A good friend of mine (Juilliard grad) said this about Holdsworth:

"his innovative, unique approach to improv is unmatched. The greatest jazz soloists (McCoy, Brecker, Freddie, Coltrane, etc.), all had predecessors on their respective instruments that they copped licks from and modified with their own voice. There clearly is no guitar lineage leading up to Allan's approach. This freak landed ship with a completely new vocabulary not based on anything that was already established. No blues, pentatonics, bop, post-bop...NOTHING!"


----------



## starthrower

Holdsworth was brilliant but his music is never going to appeal to many non-musicians or guitarists. With the brisk tempos he preferred much of the time, the ideas are flying by so fast that few listeners will invest in the repeated listening required to absorb what's going on. But for those who like thing kind of music it's great.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Simon Moon said:


> Absolutely!
> 
> A good friend of mine (Juilliard grad) said this about Holdsworth:
> 
> "his innovative, unique approach to improv is unmatched. The greatest jazz soloists (McCoy, Brecker, Freddie, Coltrane, etc.), all had predecessors on their respective instruments that they copped licks from and modified with their own voice. There clearly is no guitar lineage leading up to Allan's approach. This freak landed ship with a completely new vocabulary not based on anything that was already established. No blues, pentatonics, bop, post-bop...NOTHING!"


This is certainly true of Holdsworth's mature music, but there are older vids of him floating around out there where you can hear his roots in blues and more typical fusion, and even his first few albums have touches of those roots; the opening of Metal Fatigue is even pretty clearly based on heavy blues-rock riffs, but with several uniquely Holdsworth-y embellishments. I half suspect the latter is more Allan being a bit tongue-in-cheek given that it sounds like little else on those first few albums. Still, it's very easy to hear and understand why Allan had such an immense impact on the rock and metal "shredders" that came after. Fredrik Thordendal of Meshuggah flat-out copied his style, but little of his harmonic inventiveness (though Meshuggah's rhythmic invention is equally interesting to me as Holdsworth's harmonic language).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

starthrower said:


> Holdsworth was brilliant but his music is never going to appeal to many non-musicians or guitarists. With the brisk tempos he preferred much of the time, the ideas are flying by so fast that few listeners will invest in the repeated listening required to absorb what's going on. But for those who like thing kind of music it's great.


I did post one of his slower numbers above (Zarabeth). Allan could be drop-dead gorgeous when he wanted to. Home is another favorite:


----------



## StrangeHocusPocus

I prefer Jazz to pre-1900's music


----------



## starthrower

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I did post one of his slower numbers above (Zarabeth). Allan could be drop-dead gorgeous when he wanted to. Home is another favorite:


I think all of his stuff is gorgeous. For anybody that plays guitar or piano, just play some of his chords nice and slowly and let them ring. It's all beautiful stuff. The guy was a genius. And that's not to use the term lightly. His music is totally unique and brilliant.

But Holdsworth was a jazz guy that played with a rock sound. So like he says at the beginning of the Tokyo 1984 video, his music was too rock for jazz radio, and too jazz for rock radio. So he fell through the cracks and died broke.


----------



## Larkenfield

Would love to have heard Holdsworth with Miles, but I think Allan was more comfortable as a leader. I really like what he did here and it's doubtful that anyone will ever come close to duplicating his incredible harmonic sense and creamy lyricism. He looks completely blissed out when he's soloing. Here are three jazz masters in an amazing group playing with a lifetime of experience. It's a privilege for me to hear this.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Good quality lift music.


----------



## NLAdriaan

I probably am an omnivore in music, as my shelve starts with Bach and ends with John Zorn. In between a couple of thousand recordings. Jazz and Classical music do meet, listen to the following two pieces, where Tchaikovsky and Stan Kenton shake hands

The first 5 minutes or so, just the scherzo movement:





and now, this:


----------



## Enthusiast

starthrower said:


> *Holdsworth was brilliant but his music is never going to appeal to many non-musicians or guitarists.* With the brisk tempos he preferred much of the time, the ideas are flying by so fast that few listeners will invest in the repeated listening required to absorb what's going on. But for those who like thing kind of music it's great.


I don't know but doesn't the highlighted sentence more or less add up to saying he fails to make good music? If someone has to be a musician to enjoy a piece of music then there is something wrong with the music! Luckily, and although I am no musician, I do greatly enjoy and (I think) appreciate his music.


----------



## NLAdriaan

And if you don't know this, be prepared to change your life, it takes just 40 minutes of your time:






Charles Mingus: The black saint and the sinner lady!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

starthrower said:


> I think all of his stuff is gorgeous. For anybody that plays guitar or piano, just play some of his chords nice and slowly and let them ring. It's all beautiful stuff. The guy was a genius. And that's not to use the term lightly. His music is totally unique and brilliant.
> 
> But Holdsworth was a jazz guy that played with a rock sound. So like he says at the beginning of the Tokyo 1984 video, his music was too rock for jazz radio, and too jazz for rock radio. So he fell through the cracks and died broke.


I've tried playing some Holdsworth on guitar, but my fingers don't want to cooperate! Many of his chord progressions ties my fingers in knots. I have no idea how he makes it look so effortless. But, yes, it's gorgeous stuff when I manage to do it! I agree he was indeed brilliant. As for dying broke, though, I imagine most jazz players aren't terribly rich given how niche of a genre it is these days.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Larkenfield said:


> Would love to have heard Holdsworth with Miles, but I think Allan was more comfortable as a leader. I really like what he did here and it's doubtful that anyone will ever come close to duplicating his incredible harmonic sense and creamy lyricism. He looks completely blissed out when he's soloing. Here are three jazz masters in an amazing group playing with a lifetime of experience. It's a privilege for me to hear this.


Holdsworth with Miles would've been interesting. He definitely has a Coltrane-esque quality to his playing, where it's both extremely fast and technical, but also very daring and sophisticated; so a nice contrast to Davis's typically laid-back, clear, deceptively simple melodicism.

That's a hell of a performance of Devil Take the Hindmost! I've never heard that one before, but it's really interesting to hear Allan change it up so much, even the chord progressions. Great bassist and drummer too. Both add a real elasticity and intensity to the piece, especially the drummer playing off Allan. It's interesting to hear how Allan's playing has evolved. He's not quite as clean/fluid here as his older performance, but he may be even more harmonically adventurous and out-there. Some really crazy stuff going on there!

The studio version of that song was actually the first Allan track I heard back in the day. Someone had linked to a video on a guitar forum I was a member of and my 16-year-old brain was utterly flummoxed. I immediately bought the Metal Fatigue album and, not long after, the rest of Allan's discography.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Since we're all talking about Allan, I guess I can take this opportunity to mention Shawn Lane, who was probably the best of the "Allan disciples" out there. He didn't have Allan's harmonic sensibility or originality--who does?--but technique-wise he's the only guy that surpassed him (and every guitarist ever). His best work was with Hellborg and Sipe, though it was sadly brief (he died at 40).

One of my favorites from him: 





And, just to give you an idea of the guy's terrifying technique: 




^ Go to 4:10. It's nothing of musical value but, my God, the stuff he's doing there is not human.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Jaco Pastorius!

Thx to all in this thread for bringing Allan Holdsworth up. I must admit that I never heard of him  but I am catching up.

As a thank you, I would like to bring up another genius of (4) strings: Jaco Pastorius.






He had a short career, which untimely ended in front of a Fort Lauderdale Discotheque. He re-invented the electric bass and made a melodic instrument out of it. In his time with Weather Report (how about a great jazzband!) and in playing with Joni Mitchell, you can immediately recognize his music. This video is a bass-solo from a Weather Report concert in 1978. I hope you enjoy it!


----------



## starthrower

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I've tried playing some Holdsworth on guitar, but my fingers don't want to cooperate! Many of his chord progressions ties my fingers in knots. I have no idea how he makes it look so effortless. But, yes, it's gorgeous stuff when I manage to do it! I agree he was indeed brilliant. As for dying broke, though, I imagine most jazz players aren't terribly rich given how niche of a genre it is these days.


Try Letters Of Marque, Fred, or Abington Chasp. Those are the easier tunes.


----------



## Barbebleu

eugeneonagain said:


> Good quality lift music.


You must travel in some really classy, high quality lifts with impeccable taste in music!:lol:


----------



## starthrower

I never hear any jazz in America when I go out. Unless I go to an upscale restaurant. But mostly they play Sinatra in those places. I get my fix of classic rock while filling my gas tank. And that crud they play at the gym? I'm not sure what it is? But the 20 something gung ho staffers don't seem to mind. They are programmed to grin a lot and enthusiastically wish you a marvelous work out on your way in, and a nice day on your way out.


----------



## NLAdriaan

And here, Toots & Jaco join, whoever said jazz was boring? Enjoy


----------



## Open Book

Jazz is an astonishing creation. I would love to have been around when it was first being born, to have magically been everywhere it was played so I could see how it evolved out of seemingly nothing in such a short time, a few decades.
I can't imagine our culture without jazz. I appreciate its influence on other kinds of music, including classical (Ravel, Gershwin).
However, it's not a kind of music I'm passionate about. It's great as background music in movies and elsewhere. 
I don't get excited over jazz compositions as I do with classical where if the piece moves me, I must own it, in multiple versions. I don't find that I gain anything in rehearing a jazz composition over and over as opposed to a classical piece where I might find something new with every listen.
Jazz is ephemeral, like it is created on the spot and meant to just disappear as soon as it is played.


----------



## starthrower

Enthusiast said:


> I don't know but doesn't the highlighted sentence more or less add up to saying he fails to make good music? If someone has to be a musician to enjoy a piece of music then there is something wrong with the music! Luckily, and although I am no musician, I do greatly enjoy and (I think) appreciate his music.


How many people in the world sit around listening to Beethoven or Bartok quartets? Does this mean it's not good music? Music doesn't have to have mass appeal to be deemed great. Is Holdsworth inferior to AC/DC because they sold more records?


----------



## Enthusiast

starthrower said:


> How many people in the world sit around listening to Beethoven or Bartok quartets? Does this mean it's not good music? Music doesn't have to have mass appeal to be deemed great. Is Holdsworth inferior to AC/DC because they sold more records?


You've lost me. You said



> Holdsworth was brilliant but his music is never going to appeal to many non-musicians


and I thought that you could only mean that his music could only appeal to other musicians ... which would represent a failure for a musician or composer. It isn't about his not dumbing down his music. It is about whether or not his music rewards audiences. As it happens, though, I do quite enjoy Holdsworth and I am certainly no musician - so you were wrong, anyway.


----------



## apricissimus

Jazz is my first and truest love.


----------



## larold

I don't find jazz boring but I don't listen to it much. There is some I have liked in the past. I really liked the jazz score to the film "The French Connection."

The thing I understand least is why there is any connection between classical and jazz music. Both BBC Music Magazine and Fanfare in USA include jazz sections in their magazines -- usually a single page, sometimes two.

I have never understood this. To me they may as well include a page dedicated to top 40 music as jazz. The relationship between jazz and classical music is, to me, spurious at best.


----------



## apricissimus

larold said:


> I don't find jazz boring but I don't listen to it much. There is some I have liked in the past. I really liked the jazz score to the film "The French Connection."
> 
> The thing I understand least is why there is any connection between classical and jazz music. Both BBC Music Magazine and Fanfare in USA include jazz sections in their magazines -- usually a single page, sometimes two.
> 
> I have never understood this. To me they may as well include a page dedicated to top 40 music as jazz. The relationship between jazz and classical music is, to me, spurious at best.


My only guess is that there is some overlap between fans of classical and jazz, and that they're both considered niche and somewhat sophisticated or intellectual (usually), at least as compared to other more popular kinds of music.

I think most serious jazz people take classical music seriously as well. Not sure about the reverse.


----------



## Simon Moon

larold said:


> I don't find jazz boring but I don't listen to it much. There is some I have liked in the past. I really liked the jazz score to the film "The French Connection."
> 
> The thing I understand least is why there is any connection between classical and jazz music. Both BBC Music Magazine and Fanfare in USA include jazz sections in their magazines -- usually a single page, sometimes two.
> 
> I have never understood this. To me they may as well include a page dedicated to top 40 music as jazz. The relationship between jazz and classical music is, to me, spurious at best.


I think the inclusion in classical publications may be due to a lot of overlap in listeners.

Also, both classical and jazz have similar high levels of musicianship, which appeals to both audiences. Many jazz players have come from a classical background and training. Herbie Hancock, Ralph Towner, Wynton Marsalis, Terje Rypdal, Cecil Taylor, Jean Luc Ponty and many more, especially European jazz players.

Also, jazz, in some of its forms and subgenres (M_BASS, third stream, chamber jazz, some fusion), has a level of sophistication and complexity approaching that of classical. The same can't be said of top 40, where none of it has any level of sophistication or complexity.

I know plenty of classical fans, and without exception, they all also listen to jazz. Or should I say, I know plenty of jazz fans, and without exception, they all also listen to classical. The same can't be said of them listening to top 40. None of them do.


----------



## flamencosketches

Love both. Classical is a newer love than jazz. Also into many other varieties of music such as rock, electronic and ambient music, hip-hop, etc. 

I agree that there is not much overlap between jazz and classical, outside of certain classical composers taking inspiration from jazz and certain jazz composers taking influence from classical music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Simon Moon said:


> I think the inclusion in classical publications may be due to a lot of overlap in listeners.
> 
> Also, both classical and jazz have similar high levels of musicianship, which appeals to both audiences. Many jazz players have come from a classical background and training. Herbie Hancock, Ralph Towner, Wynton Marsalis, Terje Rypdal, Cecil Taylor, Jean Luc Ponty and many more, especially European jazz players.
> 
> Also, jazz, in some of its forms and subgenres (M_BASS, third stream, chamber jazz, some fusion), has a level of sophistication and complexity approaching that of classical. The same can't be said of top 40, where none of it has any level of sophistication or complexity.
> 
> I know plenty of classical fans, and without exception, they all also listen to jazz. Or should I say, I know plenty of jazz fans, and without exception, they all also listen to classical. The same can't be said of them listening to top 40. None of them do.


Yes, I agree, and share your enthusiasm for the artists you listed; and I really like the "third stream"music, like Gunther Schuller, George Russell, and others.


----------



## starthrower

Enthusiast said:


> You've lost me. You said
> 
> and I thought that you could only mean that his music could only appeal to other musicians ... which would represent a failure for a musician or composer. It isn't about his not dumbing down his music. It is about whether or not his music rewards audiences. As it happens, though, I do quite enjoy Holdsworth and I am certainly no musician - so you were wrong, anyway.


I didn't say his music appeals to no non musicians. But a large percentage of his fans are guitarists and musicians.


----------



## tdc

There is no denying some of the best musicians out there are jazz musicians. I don't think a person today can really be considered a complete musician if they cannot do jazz improvisation. Therefore I want to learn jazz improvisation. I wonder what would be a relatively less difficult standard to start out on? There is so much out there it is kind of daunting. I'm thinking gypsy jazz might be a good starting point. But I don't know...


----------



## science

I love jazz as much as I love classical music. Fantastic musical tradition. 

In fact, to a considerable degree, the two traditions have merged. Not entirely of course. But I don't think any elite musicians in either genre are free of the influence of the other, and a lot of contemporary art music is impossible to categorize as simply one or the other.


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> There is no denying some of the best musicians out there are jazz musicians. I don't think a person today can really be considered a complete musician if they cannot do jazz improvisation. Therefore I want to learn jazz improvisation. I wonder what would be a relatively less difficult standard to start out on? There is so much out there it is kind of daunting. I'm thinking gypsy jazz might be a good starting point. But I don't know...


I started with "All the Things You Are," the Peter Sellers version.


----------



## tdc

millionrainbows said:


> I started with "All the Things You Are," the Peter Sellers version.


:lol: Great, thanks Mister MR.


----------



## TheGazzardian

I enjoy Jazz, but usually where it intercepts with rock music, especially modern avant-garde progressive rock music ... stuff like Merkabah, Saal Hardali, Afuche, Guillaume Perret, Fire Orcestra, Theo Ceccaldi, etc... excellent stuff!


----------



## Open Book

tdc said:


> I don't think a person today can really be considered a complete musician if they cannot do jazz improvisation.


Are you saying a classical musician is not a real musician unless they can do jazz improvisation?


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> :lol: Great, thanks Mister MR.


But seriously, it's a good tune to get you going on improv. Every time I pick up a guitar, I play it. You can learn a chord-melody version, then turn that into accompaniment, then start soloing, using the "landmarks" of your chord-melody.


----------



## tdc

Open Book said:


> Are you saying a classical musician is not a real musician unless they can do jazz improvisation?


Well, I said 'complete', not real. If we look at what is hardest to do, being a professional classical soloist is the most difficult, since there are virtually no pros who did not start before the age of 10. But I think the best classical musicians can also do jazz improv.


----------



## apricissimus

Obligatory Adam Neely post on the subject.






And the follow up:


----------



## Open Book

tdc said:


> Well, I said 'complete', not real. If we look at what is hardest to do, being a professional classical soloist is the most difficult, since there are virtually no pros who did not start before the age of 10. But I think the best classical musicians can also do jazz improv.


 Maybe writing one's own cadenzas makes a classical musician complete. I don't know why a classical musician should be knowledgeable in jazz music-making.


----------



## Torkelburger

tdc said:


> There is no denying some of the best musicians out there are jazz musicians. I don't think a person today can really be considered a complete musician if they cannot do jazz improvisation. Therefore I want to learn jazz improvisation. I wonder what would be a relatively less difficult standard to start out on? There is so much out there it is kind of daunting. I'm thinking gypsy jazz might be a good starting point. But I don't know...


I suggest "Autumn Leaves". The chords and melody are 99% diatonic in E minor and the harmonic rhythm is mostly one chord per bar so it is extremely easy. Progressions follow circle of fifths and two-fives. To improvise, you can just stick to one scale, like just 5 notes of an e minor pentatonic or an e -blues (adding the Bb). It will sound good and allow you to concentrate on phrasing, cohesion, and trying to build to the songs natural climax (the line "...But I miss you most of all My darling").


----------



## paulbest

I live in New Orleans,,,..so I should not ever be caught saying this

I hate jazz


----------



## tdc

Open Book said:


> Maybe writing one's own cadenzas makes a classical musician complete. I don't know why a classical musician should be knowledgeable in jazz music-making.


If the classical musician can improvise in a classical style, that is developing the same kind of ability. Those skills would quickly translate over into the jazz realm. It is not so much about necessarily being an expert in jazz, but having a highly developed ear and the knowledge of how chords and scales relate to each other and the ability to create music over chord changes. This goes beyond writing one's own cadenzas. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy, Chopin etc. were all excellent improvisers.


----------



## Tallisman

I think Keith Jarrett is a 'jazz' musician that classical fans would like a lot. Some of his improvisations strike one as perfect spontaneous compositions.


----------



## millionrainbows

paulbest said:


> I live in New Orleans,,,..so I should not ever be caught saying this
> 
> I hate jazz


From this, I assume you don't care for seafood, either. :lol:


----------



## Flutter

C95 said:


> I listen to experimental electronic music, some folk, classical music and contemporary music. I like the avant-garde stuff in music but for me, it's impossible to enjoy jazz music. I can't get the idea of improvisation and all the jazz culture in general. I enjoy very VERY few jazz songs.


Give me all your Jazz CDs, thank you :tiphat:


----------



## perempe

I find Fourplay boring despite the musicians are (probably) great.

I really like Metheny's Phase dance.

Liked Corea's Spain until I've found out it's not original. still like the album Light as a Feather (& Romantic Warrior).


----------



## jegreenwood

flamencosketches said:


> Love both. Classical is a newer love than jazz. Also into many other varieties of music such as rock, electronic and ambient music, hip-hop, etc.
> 
> I agree that there is not much overlap between jazz and classical, outside of certain classical composers taking inspiration from jazz and certain jazz composers taking influence from classical music.


Your post (and member name and avatar) led me to think about a single work (actually a single movement): the Adagio from the Concierto de Aranjuez. This has pretty much become a jazz standard, although by far the most famous jazz version is the one by Miles Davis and Gil Evans. I have to say, as much as I like the guitar (and I also have a version by the Los Angeles Guitar Quartet) I prefer Miles.


----------



## apricissimus

Many tunes from Gershwin's Porgy and Bess are well-established jazz standards. There are so many great jazz interpretations of Porgy and Bess that when I hear it sung in a traditional operatic style, it just sounds stilted, stiff, and weird.


----------



## WildThing

Porgy and Bess is a wonderful opera. I've heard and liked some jazz covers of some of the main tunes, but I don't find it makes the original sound any more stilted than the music of other operas.


----------



## jegreenwood

apricissimus said:


> Many tunes from Gershwin's Porgy and Bess are well-established jazz standards. There are so many great jazz interpretations of Porgy and Bess that when I hear it sung in a traditional operatic style, it just sounds stilted, stiff, and weird.


Including an entire album by Miles and Gil


----------



## millionrainbows

Another offshoot of "third stream" jazz is the early experimental stuff by *Don Ellis,* the trumpeter, before he started the big band. Also worthy of note is *Jimmy Guiffre,* clarinet and tenor sax, who did a lot of original, creative "chamber jazz," which usually had no drums. Don't forget George Russell.

ll.


----------



## philoctetes

ECM has been recording the classical (European) side of jazz for 50 years now, there will be a festival here next week to celebrate this milestone. One concert will include some of ECM's earliest contributors, Carla Bley and Steve Swallow. 

Carla was married to Paul Bley when he began to record the music of Annette Peacock, more recently Marilyn Crispell has recorded some of Peacock's compositions. Steve Swallow helped to create the chamber jazz genre with Jimmy Guiffre and later became partners with Bley (Carla). 

Then there is Paul Motian who played drums with Bll Evans and Scott LeFaro, who also recorded many times for ECM. These musicians have been creating classsically composed jazz for over 50 years, and belong on any Jazz Hall of Fame. It's never to late to hear something not so new.

If one must define jazz by "swing" then these developments may be disappointing. Rhythm in jazz is now one of the most complex aspects about it, far beyond the thump thump of the old big bands, giving jazz more space and dynamic range. Music does not evolve by imitating old traditions but by expanding them, and creative musicians will not settle for imitation in their profession. If you want swing then dig out your Django.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I didn't find any jazz tonight...


----------



## norman bates

tdc said:


> There is no denying some of the best musicians out there are jazz musicians. I don't think a person today can really be considered a complete musician if they cannot do jazz improvisation. Therefore I want to learn jazz improvisation. I wonder what would be a relatively less difficult standard to start out on? There is so much out there it is kind of daunting. I'm thinking gypsy jazz might be a good starting point. But I don't know...


Autumn leaves is pretty simple. I personally I think it's a boring tune, probably my least favorite standard ever. But it's extremely popular song, so I guess the problem is mine. 
Blue Monk or C-Jam blues are two other simple tunes.
Sweet georgia brown is a popular gypsy jazz standard.
This is a good resource on the more popular standards:
http://www.jazzstandards.com/compositions/index.htm

and to answer your question better than me, I guess there are many lists like this one:
https://www.learnjazzstandards.com/blog/20-standards-for-beginners/


----------



## Larkenfield

tdc said:


> There is no denying some of the best musicians out there are jazz musicians. I don't think a person today can really be considered a complete musician if they cannot do jazz improvisation. Therefore I want to learn jazz improvisation. I wonder what would be a relatively less difficult standard to start out on? There is so much out there it is kind of daunting. I'm thinking gypsy jazz might be a good starting point. But I don't know...


Anyone with a good ear, imagination and sense of curiosity can learn to improvise, and it's one of the great joys for a creative musician. I highly recommend the teachings and practice CDs of James Aebersold starting with Vol. 1 on How to Play Jazz and Improvise. Learn the fundamentals right off the bat. They are not difficult. A very famous jazz musician by the name of Charlie Parker learned how to develop his genius by practicing the blues in every key, I've Got Rhythm in every key, and All the Things You Are in every key. But as a starting point, the Aebersold CDs are outstanding and highly recommended to learn the basics, to learn scales, and to learn the essential chord progressions. Improvisation is freeing and liberating and you don't have to be dependent on anyone to fully express yourself. It's about unlimited personal freedom, self-expression and communion with other musicians: http://www.jazzbooks.com


----------



## Dan Ante

philoctetes said:


> Music does not evolve by imitating old traditions but by expanding them, and creative musicians will not settle for imitation in their profession. If you want swing then dig out your Django.


Some jazz seems to me to have followed the same road as classical in that it is hard to follow let alone enjoy, so I leave it alone does that make me a luddite ?


----------



## philoctetes

Dan Ante said:


> Some jazz seems to me to have followed the same road as classical in that it is hard to follow let alone enjoy, so I leave it alone does that make me a luddite ?


How would I know? Ask a luddite.


----------



## philoctetes

norman bates said:


> Autumn leaves is pretty simple.


Stolen from Borodin, those Polotsvian Dances or something. Check it out, then hit me back.


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> Anyone with a good ear, imagination and sense of curiosity can learn to improvise, and it's one of the great joys for a creative musician. I highly recommend the teachings and practice CDs of James Aebersold starting with Vol. 1 on How to Play Jazz and Improvise. Learn the fundamentals right off the bat. They are not difficult. A very famous jazz musician by the name of Charlie Parker learned how to develop his genius by practicing the blues in every key, I've Got Rhythm in every key, and All the Things You Are in every key. But as a starting point, the Aebersold CDs are outstanding and highly recommended to learn the basics, to learn scales, and to learn the essential chord progressions. Improvisation is freeing and liberating and you don't have to be dependent on anyone to fully express yourself. It's about unlimited personal freedom, self-expression and communion with other musicians: http://www.jazzbooks.com


Do you have examples of musicians who have successfully made the transition. I'm happy to believe you but can't think of a single classical musician who excelled at jazz. Perhaps Friedrich Gulda did but I have never heard his jazz. I'm not sure I can think of many examples of noted jazz musicians who have convinced in classical - perhaps Wynton Marsalis? Certainly not Benny Goodman, who sounded very rigid in his classical outings.


----------



## norman bates

Enthusiast said:


> Do you have examples of musicians who have successfully made the transition. I'm happy to believe you but can't think of a single classical musician who excelled at jazz. Perhaps Friedrich Gulda did but I have never heard his jazz. I'm not sure I can think of many examples of noted jazz musicians who have convinced in classical - perhaps Wynton Marsalis? Certainly not Benny Goodman, who sounded very rigid in his classical outings.


I can think of Bernard Peiffer, who was considered a great classical pianist and a great jazz pianist.
Richard Davis is both a jazz and a classical bassist.
Recently there are two extremely talented young jazz guitarists who have both studied also classical music, Antoine Boyer and Pasquale grasso. 
But certainly there aren't too much, probably because jazz and classical require a different kind of ability.
I would be very curious to see Richard Grayson playing jazz.


----------



## tdc

Keith Jarrett and Roland Dyens did both as well.

Also Julian Bream:





Here is a video of Bream improvising over Indian music with Ali Akbar Khan:





Paco De Lucia could do classical music as well as more improvisational styles. There are many more. The biggest names in either genre tend to focus mostly on whatever their specialization is, so that is why you typically don't find performers who are considered among the very best of the best in both. That doesn't mean they don't have the knowledge and ability.


----------



## Larkenfield

Enthusiast said:


> Do you have examples of musicians who have successfully made the transition. I'm happy to believe you but can't think of a single classical musician who excelled at jazz. Perhaps Friedrich Gulda did but I have never heard his jazz. I'm not sure I can think of many examples of noted jazz musicians who have convinced in classical - perhaps Wynton Marsalis? Certainly not Benny Goodman, who sounded very rigid in his classical outings.


Most musicians are called to classical or jazz, rarely both, because being good at either one can be equally demanding. Studying improvisation is not necessarily about becoming a career jazz musician but expanding one's imagination and creative inspiration that's not always tied literally to the page like most classical music is. But Hiromi on piano started out as a classical musician and became one of the great jazz musicians in the world. In my own career, I started out as a classical musician and then had a career in jazz. Most of the jazz musicians that I know also play classical music because of the self-discipline that's involved. My respect for jazz musicians is because they keep the art of improvisation alive that used to be part of classical music with such composer-performers as Mozart, Beethoven, and Chopin who were also great improvisers. So it's not necessarily the style though improvisation is taught more in jazz than in classical music; it's simply the art of unleashing one's ability to improvise. And of course, one of the greatest of all time in classical music for improvisation is Gabriela Montero who's simply fantastic. The only way to improvise is by hearing the music from within rather than from the written page, and that's an incredible accomplishment for most musicians that can be learned. The same principles apply whether it's jazz or classical improvisation. There are very few examples of jazz musicians who have become known for their ability to play classical music, but Friedrich Gulda could do both equally well, in my opinion, and so can Wynton Marsalis, perhaps a very few others.


----------



## starthrower

tdc said:


> Paco De Lucia could do classical music as well as more improvisational styles.


He didn't do much other than the Rodrigo concerto.


----------



## tdc

starthrower said:


> He didn't do much other than the Rodrigo concerto.


His performance of that concerto was praised highly by the composer himself, he also recorded some works by Falla.


----------



## regenmusic

I believe there is a new type of music which hasn't been categorized yet that is influenced by the improvisational quality of Jazz yet has more of the classical sensibilities. Vangelis might be such a composer. Jazz seems to lock one in certain harmonic and figurative neighborhoods, while classical is more open.


----------



## Haydn70

Open Book said:


> Maybe writing one's own cadenzas makes a classical musician complete. I don't know why a classical musician should be knowledgeable in jazz music-making.


Being knowledgeable in jazz music-making is irrelevant in evaluating a classical musician...tdc is wrong.


----------



## poconoron

Yes I do...............


----------



## tdc

Haydn70 said:


> Being knowledgeable in jazz music-making is irrelevant in evaluating a classical musician...tdc is wrong.


I agree when evaluating a classical musicians abilities in classical music, jazz music ability doesn't make any difference. But I think improvisational abilities _do_ make a difference, and that is what I was getting at. As I stated earlier in the thread, there are musicians that can improvise in a classical style in as advanced a way as jazz musicians, and that is the skill that I think is very important to develop - advanced improvisation. Whether or not it is in jazz makes little difference.

However, having jazz ability increases the opportunities a musician will have to make a living in music today, it is a skill that is in high demand, and so I see performers who can do both as having an advantage in that respect.

*edit -* I understand a lot of classical music requires no improvisation, but some of it does and on a personal musicianship level, it expands what a musician can do. I think to get the most out of music it is good to go beyond playing instructions on a page.


----------



## Open Book

Respectfully, I don't see what advantage it confers on a musician who wants to make a living only performing classical music, unless we return to the days when two pianists occupy one stage in a duel of creative improvisation.


----------



## Barbebleu

Have you noticed that the OP has posted nothing since August 2017? This is basically a redundant thread. I'm not sure that C95 was really interested in the replies. For those that love jazz it's not boring. For those that don't it probably is.


----------



## tdc

Open Book said:


> Respectfully, I don't see what advantage it confers on a musician who wants to make a living only performing classical music, unless we return to the days when two pianists occupy one stage in a duel of creative improvisation.


Fair enough. For the record I have a high amount of respect for the discipline and ability it takes anyone to make a living performing classical music, whether they improvise or not.


----------



## Open Book

I think it would be interesting to see/hear classical improvisation in a concert, except that I'm thinking I'd like to hear it in pieces that were written before the 21st century. That would get the type of criticism composer Alma Deutscher gets for writing in a style that is not of her own time.


----------



## Open Book

Barbebleu said:


> Have you noticed that the OP has posted nothing since August 2017? This is basically a redundant thread. I'm not sure that C95 was really interested in the replies. For those that love jazz it's not boring. For those that don't it probably is.


In what way is this thread redundant - does it duplicate another thread?
What does it matter whether the original poster is still around as long as there is lively discussion?
Sounds like you're angling to get this thread closed.


----------



## Barbebleu

I could care less whether or not the thread stays open. It seems to have moved a long way from the original question. I love jazz and don't find it boring. Others have an opposing point of view. In the words of Miles - 'So What?'

For a while now I only see posts of those trying to say that classical musicians are less than or more than jazz musicians. 

I think music is big enough to accommodate us all.

No music is boring. There may be a genre that we don't engage with. For me that's baroque but I would never start a thread that suggested baroque was boring, certainly it won't be to those that listen to it or play it.

I played with a pianist in a duo many years ago who could sight read anything brilliantly but who was all at sea if you asked him to play anything that wasn't written down. I would let him hear people like Bill Evans, Art Tatum, Bud Powell, et al. and he was astonished at their ability to improvise. But that didn't make him any less of a brilliant pianist.

In answer to the question about whether this thread duplicated another, off the top of my head I seem to recall one that asked 'Does anyone else not like jazz?'

I post on a lot of threads about things that do engage me and there are a lot of duplicate threads that ask variations on the same topics. Have a look at the opera forum ( another one of my likes) and you'll see what I mean. 

The real point of my post was to point out yet another hit and run OP where a question is asked and the original poster vanishes into the ether without further debate.:tiphat:


----------



## Guest

I have quite a lot of jazz across all of its main forms. I have never been a strong enthusiast but I built up a fairly decent collection based on the recommendations I found on another music site several years ago. I was mainly interested in Thelonius Monk, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, and Oscar Peterson. Of these I liked Thelonius Monk the most.

After a year or so, I became rather less interested. I wouldn't say "bored" by it, but I did rather find that it didn't offer as much variety as I would have liked. All of these artists tended to copy a lot from each other, gave the work a slight twist and re-packaged it. But it's still something I return to now and then.

Instead of jazz, I took up a keen interest in Blues, the "real" stuff that is: Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Son House, Howlin; Wolf, Lead Belly etc. When I'm not listening the classical - which is 90% of the time - it's Blues, and this is all that I listen to in the car. I love the variety that Blues has to offer, the different voices, the simple nature of it all, with just a man and his guitar, and the unpretentious nature of many of the songs. By contrast, a lot of the much later material, by the likes of B.B King, is not so much to my taste as it became too "jazzed" up. 

Among the "oldies", Robert Johnson is perhaps my particular favourite Blues artist. His guitar work is so good you'd think it was two guitarists at work, and his voice is incredibly agile and apt for the task. His "Love in Vain" is my favourite, often just playing it over and over.


----------



## paulbest

agree, some blues men can hold my attention Muddy waters, JL Hooker, not familiar with Robert Johnson,,,, remember Peter Green's Fleetwood mac? What about John Maclaughlin's Mahavishnu' Orch, Live Central park,,,nice stuff. 
But alas, all good things must pass, so sings George Harrison. 

WE move on. 
Being a purist in classical music, I can not allow a mixing of the musical elements. 

Sure, others have no issues listening to jazz, blues, old rock like Moody Blues (now there I cheat now and then),,but as time rolls on, (Stones song),,, I find less and less interest in anything other than great classical, modern period at that...Even my new discovery in one of Xenakis works, today,,,,,not just 1 hour after accepting the work,,,now,,i realize,,no, not going to work. I reject the score, as interference.

I am a purist and things have to stay that way for me to fully explore the great modern period, fully and completely, Xenakis did have some faint connective sounds with Webern,,but all in all, not worth the trouble,,,I have nothing to do with his music any longer, door slammed shut, tight. 

I mean if some like jazz, and also classical, , have at it. 

Music with me is a alchemical experience. I feel dropping some musical forms, allows others to be heard with a more open mind, more receptive. = Purity, I am a purist. 

Jazz to me is a lower form of music. I am only seeking High Art, which has its roots in Bach, Vivaldi, , Beethoven and Mozart.


----------



## norman bates

Partita said:


> I have quite a lot of jazz across all of its main forms. I have never been a strong enthusiast but I built up a fairly decent collection based on the recommendations I found on another music site several years ago. I was mainly interested in Thelonius Monk, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, and Oscar Peterson. Of these I liked Thelonius Monk the most.
> 
> After a year or so, I became rather less interested. I wouldn't say "bored" by it, but I did rather find that it didn't offer as much variety as I would have liked. All of these artists tended to copy a lot from each other, gave the work a slight twist and re-packaged it. But it's still something I return to now and then.
> 
> Instead of jazz, I took up a keen interest in Blues, the "real" stuff that is: Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Son House, Howlin; Wolf, Lead Belly etc. When I'm not listening the classical - which is 90% of the time - it's Blues, and this is all that I listen to in the car. I love the variety that Blues has to offer, the different voices, the simple nature of it all, with just a man and his guitar, and the unpretentious nature of many of the songs. By contrast, a lot of the much later material, by the likes of B.B King, is not so much to my taste as it became too "jazzed" up.
> 
> Among the "oldies", Robert Johnson is perhaps my particular favourite Blues artist. His guitar work is so good you'd think it was two guitarists at work, and his voice is incredibly agile and apt for the task. His "Love in Vain" is my favourite, often just playing it over and over.


I don't want to dispute your tastes but think it's strange that you find variety in blues (a genre often accused of sameness) while finding sameness in jazz where's there's way more variety in my experience. Actually even in the blues played by jazz musicians 
there's an outstanding variety compared to what one can hear listening to the musicians you've mentioned.


----------



## paulbest

tdc said:


> However, having jazz ability increases the opportunities a musician will have to make a living in music today, it is a skill that is in high demand, and so I see performers who can do both as having an advantage in that respect.
> .


 Now this is so true,,If a musician who was fully committed to classical, finds opportunities to play some jazz gigs and make some cash, go for it. . 
This is a wise choice, as bills have to be paid.


----------



## paulbest

But no, in my my experience, jazz really grates on my nerves. 
There is no way I could listen to jazz one day,,,then next day listen to Henze. 

Impossible to fully appreciate Henze with jazz bussing around my ears. Whereas with blues, I can watcha YT upoload with Duane Allman's son's band and Dicky Betts son on guitar as well, then next minute put on some Mozart,,with no hangups whatsoever. 
Jazz is too distracting to make that shift.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> I don't want to dispute your tastes but think it's strange that you find variety in blues (a genre often accused of sameness) while finding sameness in jazz where's there's way more variety in my experience. Actually even in the blues played by jazz musicians
> there's an outstanding variety compared to what one can hear listening to the musicians you've mentioned.


Fair comment. To some extent, I agree. It's the variety of voices that I was alluding to and find interesting in the Blues, even when sing the same song, and of course I only mentioned a few names by way of illustration. I still occasionally listen to the Jazz artists I mentioned, and I wasn't trying to belittle their art in any way. My earlier interest in that genre was a passing "fad" mainly. By far the most important area of interest to me has always been classical, but I don't like listening to it in the car and wanted something else rather than the radio.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Partita said:


> My earlier interest in that genre was a passing "fad" mainly. By far the most important area of interest to me has always been classical, but I don't like listening to it in the car and wanted something else rather than the radio.


Jazz is very related (jazz arrangers/composers had very poor (in terms of complexity) basis for their music - marching bands music, simple hymns, field work songs, simple pentatonic African folk songs, so they borrowed the most progressive music at the time) to late romantic and impressionistic styles.

The same cannot really be said about connection between these two and baroque/classical eras...

This discussion reminds me that people are more interested in labels and belonging to certain cultural group, not in the sound of the music.


----------



## KRoad

paulbest said:


> Jazz to me is a lower form of music. I am only seeking High Art, which has its roots in Bach, Vivaldi, , Beethoven and Mozart.


Paul, was it yourself who a few posts/topics back who used the word _dialectical_ in connection with the development of classical music? Just curious and please correct me if I am mistaken.


----------



## Bluecrab

paulbest said:


> I can watcha YT upoload with Duane Allman's son's band...


Duane Allman didn't have a son. What are you talking about?


----------



## Barelytenor

This is a picture of me trying to care whether someone else likes jazz ... or classical ... ;=(

Kind regards, :tiphat:

George


----------



## juliante

paulbest said:


> Jazz to me is a lower form of music. I am only seeking High Art, which has its roots in Bach, Vivaldi, , Beethoven and Mozart.


I guess I know what you mean by 'high art'. Jazz most certainly lacks the variety of CM (with about 700 years less time...) but it can be a great art form. Try music by Miles Davis' 2nd quintet eg on Miles Smiles or Sorcerer, tracks such as Masqualero. Complex, subtle, challenging yet accessible. Totally wonderful and awe inspiring musicianship and group playing. High art indeed imho.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Here is a great video I came across on the music theory in modal Jazz. If you take away the historical, social, and cultural aspects, it is really part of the larger umbrella of Classical Music, not that different in concept from the improvisations in early Gregorian Chant.


----------



## Guest

paulbest said:


> Jazz to me is a lower form of music. I am only seeking High Art, which has its roots in Bach, Vivaldi, , Beethoven and Mozart.


I couldn't disagree more. All art forms have one thing in common, the human being, and are limited by human creativity. Jazz and classical are different and excel in different aspects of music, but I can't say I believe one is superior in its best manifestations. Recently I was listening to a few tracks by the old Count Basie band. One O'Clock Jump, Swinging the Blues, Blues Backstage. A very simple structure, but instrumental solos breathtaking in their virtuosity and subtlety. I was listening to a trombone solo and was tempted to think, "this guy could play in the Berlin Philharmonic," then I thought better of it. No way he could be persuaded to play boring "blat, blat, blat" trombone part in a Bruckner symphony.


----------



## apricissimus

juliante said:


> I guess I know what you mean by 'high art'. Jazz most certainly lacks the variety of CM (with about 700 years less time...) but it can be a great art form. Try music by Miles Davis' 2nd quintet eg on Miles Smiles or Sorcerer, tracks such as Masqualero. Complex, subtle, challenging yet accessible. Totally wonderful and awe inspiring musicianship and group playing. High art indeed imho.


Jazz is a lot more varied than most people realize. I'm not sure if I could say how it compares to classical music in that regard (feels like comparing apples and oranges), but it almost seems like a misnomer to use "jazz" as an umbrella term for the very wide array of styles it has evolved into.

And for what it's worth, I think people who are not fans of classical music see classical music as stuffy, homogeneous, and rather same-sounding. So it really depends on your perspective.


----------



## Dan Ante

BabyGiraffe said:


> This discussion reminds me that people are more interested in labels and belonging to certain cultural group, not in the sound of the music.


Don't you agree with labels


----------



## Larkenfield

There is not one jazz, just like there is not one classical music. But people discuss categories of it as if they’ve heard everything when they may have heard nothing. Unless one mentions what one specifically likes or dislikes in the way of a recording and musicians, it’s a ridiculous discussion and even experienced listeners have this habit out of carelessness or laziness and it’s a disservice to everyone... There is not just one jazz, just like all Beethoven symphonies aren’t the same, just like Stravinsky isn’t Beethoven but they are both considered to be classical composers. All that one can really generalize about is that there’s a different concept of rhythm and time and improvisation and the beauty of swing when everything is working in harmony together and the spontaneity of it all. The flipside and focus on improvisation is the flipside to classical music, with perhaps Gabriela Montero being one of the few exceptions in classical improvisation, certainly at the highest possible level that borders on genius, if not genius itself. Genius can be found in any genre and the ones who cannot find it are often very narrow in their viewpoints, very narrow indeed in their taste and their outlook on life rather than the world expanding. It shrinks and it’s not inspiring.


----------

