# Why do many classical music lovers dismiss jazz music?



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

After some jestful comments about free jazz on one of the posts here and remember my childhood days where my biological dad dismissed jazz music as "black music" I am just curious why so many classical music lovers dislike jazz music?

Jazz music is an extension of classical music methinks.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

albertfallickwang said:


> Jazz music is an extension of classical music methinks.


I think you are giving classical music way too much credit if you put it like that.



albertfallickwang said:


> After some jestful comments about free jazz on one of the posts here and remember my childhood days where my biological dad dismissed jazz music as "black music" I am just curious why so many classical music lovers dislike jazz music?


I used to study jazz myself and there are also a lot of jazz musicians who dismiss free jazz. Max Roach even punched Ornette Coleman in the face because of it!

Contemporary jazz certainly has embraced some parts of free jazz but it mostly returned to more structured forms. So it is not like it is completely embraced in the jazz community itself.

My own feelings on this are a bit complicated because I like some of it and dismiss other stuff. Some Free jazz really sounds like as if the player couldn't play. I've also met people who just said that they liked "free improv" and they wouldn't be able to play through a jazz blues. I prefer the more avant-garde stuff like Dolphy and Late Coltrane to peter brotzmann


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

I dont think that they do. Maybe you have been unlucky in the people that you have talked to. Of all the people whom I know like Classical music, they all like jazz too.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Many "classical lovers" dismiss all sorts of things outside the mainstream rep so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Me, I blow a bit hot and cold on jazz but I never write it off - those are musicians with great chops adn great minds! I don't know much but I know I like Coleman and Dolphy, so there's that....


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I thought jazz was one of the more popular forms of non-classical music among classical fans  I'm not a huge fan of improvisation and noodly solos so I'm a bit skeptical about jazz though sometimes the results can be okay and I've also liked some "jazzy" sounding non-jazz.

The thread "The Jazz Hole" has 63 pages. Are you really surprised simply by the fact that there are also many classical fans who _don't_ like jazz?


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

I like more something like Glenn Miller type jazz and even older jazz. Honestly, I can't stand modal jazz.. or free jazz. I found that famous Kind of Blue album by Miles Davis tedious. It's even hard for me to believe that people actually do love it as they are saying. That's how much I don't like it.
The worst part in jazz is noodling... lifeless noodling without begining or the end. So, they think if they can noodle a thousands tones in half minute, that is good then!? 
To me, music is not mathematic and nobody should try to impress me with how fast he can noodle on instrument. Otherwise, I should be impressed by typist and their writing speed.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

nikola said:


> I like more something like Glenn Miller type jazz and even older jazz. Honestly, I can't stand modal jazz.. or free jazz. I found that famous Kind of Blue album by Miles Davis tedious. It's even hard for me to believe that people actually do love it as they are saying. That's how much I don't like it.


Really? Why would you find it tedious? It is pretty accessible


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Why? Probably because it is tedious to me. Lifeless, tasteless... like chewing cardboard. Nothing interesting to hear... it's all the same no matter where it goes.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> I like more something like Glenn Miller type jazz and even older jazz. Honestly, I can't stand modal jazz.. or free jazz. I found that famous Kind of Blue album by Miles Davis tedious. It's even hard for me to believe that people actually do love it as they are saying. That's how much I don't like it.
> The worst part in jazz is noodling... lifeless noodling without begining or the end. So, they think if they can noodle a thousands tones in half minute, that is good then!?
> To me, music is not mathematic and nobody should try to impress me with how fast he can noodle on instrument. Otherwise, I should be impressed by typist and their writing speed.


this description of jazz just as an empty display of virtuosity (that often is indeed a problem but hey, in classical music there are also composers like Amédée Méreaux) is very limitative. But I have also to add that I find Kind of blue the opposite of that. After all, Davis wasn't a virtuoso and he liked to play melodies.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> tasteless


I'm fine if you don't like it, but if a piece like "Blue in green" is your idea of tasteless, I would be really curious to know what is your idea of elegance. 





It's like saying that "When I am laid in earth" is too happy.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

I can't say that I didn't hear good jazz and I do like mostly the oldest jazz, but most of the time I just found it to be some background muzak if I'm in the bar for example and they are playing it. So many jazz music and 90% of it sounds the same to me. I guess when you have great quantity of music and thousands and thousands of artists who are doing the same thing, simply statistically it can't be that good anymore. Same with metal, hip-hop and other genres that become too accesible and are done by thousands of bands for teens who mistaken music for lifestyle. 
In the end it's all coming down to the belief that all music is great and all musicians are talented and brilliant. If that is true, then all people would be Einsten, Tesla or good at painting like Van Gogh etc. But, that's simply not true. When something is turned into product instead of being an art, the quality must drop. 
Unfortunatelly, I was never lucky to hear in most of the jazz anything more than some empty noodling that should probably impress me with virtuosic playing. I'm sure that most of jazz musicians are great at their instrument. It's just that most of the time I don't like at all what I hear. It is either annoying or boring to me.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I'm fine if you don't like it, but if a piece like "Blue in green" is your idea of tasteless, I would be really curious to know what is your idea of elegance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is probably the best track on the album, but it's still not for me.

This would be jazz that I like:









But Badalamenti is not jazz musician, so.... 
I guess I like to hear some moods, but most of the jazz sound same and flat to me. It could be that problem is in me and not in jazz. I can live with that.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> I can't say that I didn't hear good jazz and I do like mostly the oldest jazz, but most of the time I just found it to be some background muzak if I'm in the bar for example and they are playing it.
> So many jazz music and 90% of it sounds the same to me. I guess when you have great quantity of music and thousands and thousands of artists who are doing the same thing, simply statistically it can't be that good anymore. Same with metal, hip-hop and other genres that become too accesible and are done by thousands of bands for teens who mistaken music for lifestyle.
> In the end it's all coming down to the belief that all music is great and all musicians are talented and brilliant. If that is true, then all people would be Einsten, Tesla or good at painting like Van Gogh etc. But, that's simply not true. When something is turned into product instead of being an art, the quality must drop.
> Unfortunatelly, I was never lucky to hear in most of the jazz anything more than some empty noodling that should probably impress me with virtuosic playing. I'm sure that most of jazz musicians are great at their instrument. It's just that most of the time I don't like at all what I hear. It is either annoying or boring to me.


if there's a musician that made light background music that one is Glenn Miller (many didn't consider him even jazz but dance music). I suspect your knowledge of jazz is very superficial, if you think that Duke Ellington, Thelonious Monk, the Art ensemble of Chicago, Ran Blake, Wayne Shorter and Tim Berne sounds the same.
You know, I don't think at all that all music is great, but the fact is that one has to listen a lot before blaming the relativism of our time. For a donkey, Heinrich Biber and Justin Bieber are pretty much the same.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Yes, my knowledge of jazz is superficial since I never found it interesting enough to dig much deeper. I heard enough in my life of it and many other music. Maybe one day I will be more interested into digging deeper, but I doubt. I've heard some good stuff from Duke Ellington, but I don't have an urge to listen to that. I guess that I must have heard so much of obnoxious jazz noodling that I don't have will to swim in the sea of crap to find a few diamonds. 
Jazz is simply not for me. 
I know that some people don't even consider Glenn Miller a jazz. That's why it is probably good. It's not some snobbish noodling pretending to be an art. Sure, it is light, easy on ear and it's still better. 
Justin Bieber? Nah.. I prefer Ennio Morricone


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> Yes, my knowledge of jazz is superficial since I never found it interesting enough to dig much deeper. I heard enough in my life of it and many other music. Maybe one day I will be more interested into digging deeper, but I doubt. I've heard some good stuff from Duke Ellington, but I don't have an urge to listen to that. I guess that I must have heard so much of obnoxious jazz noodling that I don't have will to swim in the sea of crap to find a few diamonds.
> Jazz is simply not for me.
> I know that some people don't even consider Glenn Miller a jazz. That's why it is probably good. It's not some *snobbish *noodling pretending to be an art. Sure, it is light, easy on ear and it's still better.
> Justin Bieber? Nah.. I prefer Ennio Morricone


are you sure that the snobbish attitude is not yours, or just the fact that you probably have not listened enough to have a good opinion of the genre? 
Because if you say that the problem of jazz is gratuitous noodling fine, I can agree on that; but I know also that there is an incredible amount of great music that could be not considered that way.



nikola said:


> I prefer Ennio Morricone


this is Morricone


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I had a roommate once that loved Anthony Braxton. It sounded like a lot of a avant garde classical , with plenty of squeaks and squaks.
My taste in Jazz is swing, big band, Brubeck, Miles, Gary Burton and Chick Corea


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

norman bates said:


> this is Morricone


I did not know that. I see that I'd underestimated his participation in both conventionally classical music composition and avant-garde jazz performance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ennio_Morricone

Enjoying some Bach/Busoni-like classical by him as well: 




I'll put his book on my library queue while I'm at it: http://www.amazon.com/Composing-Cin...id=1424778046&sr=1-3&keywords=ennio+morricone

Learn something new every day.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Since I do have more than 400 soundtrack by Morricone, I'm pretty much sure that I know what his music sound like and I do know that many music he made was appropriate for it's time and for thematic purposes for the movies and I still believe that even in such cacophony jazz he made he was still much better and what is the most important, he was much more versatile and talented musician and composer (and he still is) than great majority of jazz musicians. Yes, that's my opinion. 

Sure, maybe I am snob, but that won't make any jazz music better to me.
To say that I have 'not listened enough' is just your opinion. I've listened and heard a hundreds and hundreds of jazz music in my life. Just because I didn't listen to millions and millions of jazz doesn't make me complete and utter ignorant to make my opinion like you would like me to be. It's just not a good argument. 
It's like saying that someone who heard all hits by Phil Collins doesn't know anything about him because he didn't hear all his albums, so his statement that Phil sucks for him doesn't value. Oh well... Phil released probably cca 7 studio albums and considering that someone knows at least 20 of his most popular hits, we can conclude that on his albums he probably won't discover anything new that will make him a Phil fan. 

I'm not a jazz fan. Sometimes I even played for a while from youtube some playlists of old jazz and I enjoyed it. But of course... it's probably 'not' jazz since jazz wasn't discovered until Miles Davis killed 'fake' jazz with his discovery of modal jazz. 

I also learned in life that by 'knowing big amount of music' didn't make anyone better at understanding it or hearing it, so I decided long time ago that I will not torture myself with crap that everybody else love or pretend to love.


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2015)

That which distinguishes jazz from classical is presumably the fundamental reason.

We all like/dislike various genres/oevres for our own idiosyncratic reasons.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> Sure, maybe I am snob, but that won't make any jazz music better to me.
> To say that I have 'not listened enough' is just your opinion. I've listened and heard a hundreds and hundreds of jazz music in my life.


Oh well, then you're deaf. Because it's like saying that Mozart, Machaut, Wagner, Ravel and Kurtag made the same music.
You don't need hundred of recordings to hear the fact that there are wide differences between styles, it's possible to make a list of five records to see that.



nikola said:


> But of course... it's probably 'not' jazz since jazz wasn't discovered until Miles Davis killed 'fake' jazz with his discovery of modal jazz.


Miles himself played bebop, hardbop and cool before playing modal (that was not his "invention"). And he certainly didn't think that what he did before was fake.


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2015)

albertfallickwang said:


> Jazz music is an extension of classical music methinks.


Methinks otherwise, but feel free to expound! :tiphat:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> he was much more versatile and talented musician and composer (and he still is) than great majority of jazz musicians. Yes, that's my opinion.


I like Morricone, but an opinion is based on something that one knows.
Or it's like me pretending to dismiss the work of Tesla or Einstein without the knowledge to do it.
Have you heard of that Imam that few days ago said that the earth is stationary and does not rotate around the sun?
He considers it an opinion.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I like Morricone, but an opinion is based on something that one knows.
> Or it's like me pretending to dismiss the work of Tesla or Einstein without the knowledge to do it.
> Have you heard of that Imam that few days ago said that the earth is stationary and does not rotate around the sun?
> He consider it an opinion.


The lie that something bad is good is fact in music only if you're tone deaf. Since I know I'm not tone deaf, Morricone is to me better musician than most of jazz musicians. But, since you believe that I'm deaf, than your opinion must be a fact too if you're not tone deaf. So, it seems it's all just a matter of taste and our personal sensibility considering music and what we like.

But you're premise is wrong, you see. You just want to force me to like jazz and it's quite useless, so just because you don't like my opinion about jazz, you must use at least minor ad hominem to prove that I certanly must not hear it properly. I hear it quite well. I still don't know why do you think that I must like it!?

I did say that there IS jazz that I actually like quite a lot. I didn't say that all jazz is crap or that many jazz musicians are bad. I know that there are some great jazz musicians and great jazz music, but most of the jazz I heard I found tedious and annoying and it's maybe interesting on mathematical level, but for experience it's not even there. 
I simply don't like it. It's not holy grail of my opinion. I even heard some newer jazz that I did like quite a lot, but it's in great minority. Most of what I heard I didn't like. 
I don't see why is that a problem. The problem is that I strongly state my opinion as objective? Oh well... I always do that.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> The lie that something bad is good is fact in music only if you're tone deaf. Since I know I'm not tone deaf, Morricone is to me better musician than most of jazz musicians. But, since you believe that I'm deaf, than your opinion must be a fact too if you're not tone deaf. So, it seems it's all just a matter of taste and our personal sensibility considering music and what we like.
> 
> But you're premise is wrong, you see. You just want to force me to like jazz and it's quite useless, so just because you don't like my opinion about jazz, you must use at least minor ad hominem to prove that I certanly must not hear it properly. I hear it quite well. I still don't know why do you think that I must like it!?
> 
> ...


I don't want to force you to like anything and I've no problem with strong opinions, in fact I find interesting opinions of persons that have said terrible things of music I like and I'm fine with that, if it's an informed and intelligent point of view. You can say whatever you want, but to say that "all jazz sounds the same" is a clear clue that you haven't listened a lot of it. And that means that your is not a strong opinion at all, it's just a disinformed one.
And to say that "i'm sure that Morricone is better that most jazz musicians" means nothing, I mean, "I'm sure" what does it means in the first place? What skills are you comparing and with who?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

In answer to Albert's question and using the TC community as a yardstick of appreciation of CM, I would say that jazz is probably the most popular non-classical music amongst CM lovers if the Jazz Hole and Non-Classical What Are You Listening To? threads are anything to go by. Of course, there are many music lovers who listen to classical and little or nothing else but that can apply to any kind of music. 

I happen to like jazz (or should say certain categories of it) as a separate entity but even if I didn't I think I'd still be able to appreciate the kind of creative cross-pollination which can occur when jazz elements are used in CM, especially in the early days of the jazz age when some composers such as Hindemith, Krenek, Ravel and Antheil used it to salt and pepper some of their work and others such as Gershwin and Weill used it more extensively.


----------



## Fox (Feb 20, 2015)

I don't dislike jazz music on purpose and I'm sure I don't dislike all jazz I just haven't heard Jazz that I would choose to listen to if I had the choice. Saying I dislike X and that is considered jazz music therefore I dislike all jazz music is like saying I dislike "classical music" because I have a tendency to dislike Wagner's music.

However I do think there is racism and elitism among some elements of the classical music world that either think of jazz as "black people music" or that they will not be considered a "true" classical music lover if they happen to expand their mind to other genres this doesn't just affect jazz but also country, rock, pop etc.

As for me I would love to get into Jazz but so far it just hasn't clicked for me.

Regards,

Fox :tiphat:


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I don't want to force you to like anything and I've no problem with strong opinions, in fact I find interesting opinions of persons that have said terrible things of music I like and I'm fine with that, if it's an informed and intelligent point of view. You can say whatever you want, but to say that "all jazz sounds the same" is a clear clue that you haven't listened a lot of it. And that means that your is not a strong opinion at all, it's just a disinformed one.
> And to say that "i'm sure that Morricone is better that most jazz musicians" means nothing, I mean, "I'm sure" what does it means in the first place? It's like a believer that say that God exists? What skills are you comparing and with who?


My opinion is strong no matter what you think about my opinion and my musical knowledge. 
And yes, my opinion means everything... to me. I don't think it should mean anything to you.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I have numerous jazz albums in my collection and I listen to them whenever I get the urge.

I think it would be more revealing to ask:

Why do many jazz music lovers dismiss classical music?


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> I have numerous jazz albums in my collection and I listen to them whenever I get the urge.
> 
> I think it would be more revealing to ask:
> 
> Why do many jazz music lovers dismiss classical music?


Because Jazz musicians think that classical musicians are robots/trained monkeys because they don't create their own music. They do have a lot of respect for the composers though. Please keep in mind that this is not my opinion.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> My opinion is strong no matter what you think about my opinion and my musical knowledge.


I don't even know what your opinion is, considering that you're saying that Morricone is better than most jazz musicians and I'm still wondering who are you thinking of and what skills are you considering. It's like saying that the Wright brothers were better than most impressionist painters. I mean, was Morricone better than Max Roach as a drummer? He was better than Gil Evans as an arranger? Better than Wayne Shorter as a composer? Better of Lenny Breau in chord melody? I don't even know what you're talking about.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Piwikiwi said:


> Because Jazz musicians think that classical musicians are robots/trained monkeys because they don't create their own music. They do have a lot of respect for the composers though. Please keep in mind that this is not my opinion.


I don't know, if you take people like Ellington, Mingus, Charlie Parker, Bill Evans, Herbie Nichols and many others they had a huge respect for classical music and they use it for their inspiration. Many studied with classical composers (Dave Brubeck with Milhaud, Andrew Hill with Hindemith etc) And they respected also the players. Davis was a huge fan of Benedetti Michelangeli for instance.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I don't dismiss jazz, but I don't enjoy most of it as much as classical music. In general I don't even enjoy it as much as a lot of pop or rock - but I quite like some. I like a lot of things that are influenced by jazz or somewhat jazzy - but pure jazz is generally not my thing. I think one of the main reasons is the constant soloing and noodling in most jazz, it is impressive from a technical standpoint, but I find that approach to music a little boring after a while. There are some great things I've come across here and there by guys like Jobim and Ellington, and the musicality of people like Montgomery, Reinhardt and Corea. But I still haven't warmed to a lot of things that many rave about. I'm not crazy about most Miles Davis or Coltrane and I dislike most fusion. I've never heard any free jazz I enjoy.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

norman bates said:


> I don't know, if you take people like Ellington, Mingus, Charlie Parker, Bill Evans, Herbie Nichols and many others they had a huge respect for classical music and they use it for their inspiration. Many studied with classical composers (Dave Brubeck with Milhaud, Andrew Hill with Hindemith etc) And they respected also the players. Davis was a huge fan of Benedetti Michelangeli for instance.


I think you misread my post. I explicitly said that they do have a lot of respect for classical composers, just not the musicians.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I listen to a reasonable amount of Jazz, mostly pre 1960 and contemporary artsy fartsy stuff ( :lol: ), a quick tally of my record database say that 8½% of it is designated as "Jazz" or jazz related!

/ptr


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

[Mine's 9% jazz, 17% rock and 10% world/ethnic.]


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I don't dismiss Jazz, just not fond of it. Some jazz is pretty good. I once collected about 7 LPs of Tom Scott and the LA Express. Really liked his jazz.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I love Miles Davis, but not much else.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

After some jestful comments about free jazz on one of the posts here and remember my childhood days where my biological dad dismissed jazz music as "black music" I am just curious why so many classical music lovers dislike jazz music?

Why do so many classical music listeners dislike country or bluegrass? Why do so many dislike rock or pop? Hell... why do so many dislike opera, choral music, lieder, medieval and Renaissance music?

Personally, I quite like jazz. I'm not overly fond of "free jazz" but I do listen to Ornette Coleman, Eric Dolphy, late John Coletrane and Charlie Mingus from time to time. I tend to prefer Bop (Miles, etc...) and older jazz as well as jazz or "torch song" vocalists like Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday, Helen Merrill, etc...


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Bias against saxophones? Improv solos not enough like cadenzas? I don't know, as I love both jazz and classical. All I can tell you is that certain parts of jazz music just don't push the right buttons for some listeners.


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2015)

brotagonist said:


> Why do many jazz music lovers dismiss classical music?


If I had to suggest a single likely reason:
Although CM has a place for improvisation, it is essentially a music of prior composition; it is composed PRIOR to performance. The raison d'etre of jazz is that of improvisation; the prior composition is mainly to provide a platform for the _in-the-moment composition_ of improvisation. 
So, for a jazzhead, CM lacks the very purpose, the very essence of what they are looking for in their listening.

(Based on decades long interviews with a a jazzhead musician!!) :tiphat:


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I don't even know what your opinion is, considering that you're saying that Morricone is better than most jazz musicians and I'm still wondering who are you thinking of and what skills are you considering. It's like saying that the Wright brothers were better than most impressionist painters. I mean, was Morricone better than Max Roach as a drummer? He was better than Gil Evans as an arranger? Better than Wayne Shorter as a composer? Better of Lenny Breau in chord melody? I don't even know what you're talking about.


I see Morricone as brilliant composer. He is capable to say very much with only few tones sometimes. He can combine harmonies in special way. Am I subjective in your opinion? I'm ok with that.
In jazz I can hear many times too many tones and still, there is no magic and there is not some general idea what those tones should represent. There is no any melodic construction that would go beyond "look how great I can play" mentality. Those tones are just simply there, but they don't say to me anything. 
And I will say it again... I'm not saying that all jazz is bad, but I'm saying that I heard too big amount of typcially bad and tedious jazz. 
Something like this I even find very interesting, but I don't know is it because of keyboard, but it's not that typical jazz noodling sound... at least not to that great extent:









Sometimes to hear a small amount of jazz can be nice, but listening to hours of jazz and realizing that it's all 'the same of the same' can be really annoying.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Modern Jazz Quartet used classical especially Bach as a jumping point and Miles Davis was listening to Stockhausen during his On the Corner sessions.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

I happen to love jazz. More than 50% of my music collection is jazz. And jazz really opened me up to the wider world of music -- all sorts of music, including classical.

That said, I don't have any problem with people who love classical but HATE jazz. The obverse is also true. 

Fortunately for me, there are a lot of people who dig both -- and lot of other genres too. I like that because they happen to have tastes similar to mine. And that's cool for me.

But there's no right and wrong here. It's just what you dig. That's it. You like steak. I like oranges. He likes green beans. She likes pecans. It's all nourishment, right?




I guess I don't feel like I need to be an "evangelist" for any musical genre -- especially in relation to the others.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> I see Morricone as brilliant composer. He is capable to say very much with only few tones sometimes. He can combine harmonies in special way. Am I subjective in your opinion? I'm ok with that.


No, I can agree on that. But you're pushing well beyond that saying "he's better than most jazz musicians". Saying something like that needs real comparisons between pieces, musicians, styles, a real analysis and good arguments.



nikola said:


> In jazz I can hear many times too many tones and still, there is no magic and there is not some general idea what those tones should represent. There is no any melodic construction that would go beyond "look how great I can play" mentality. Those tones are just simply there, but they don't say to me anything.


Without considering that nebulous "there's no magic", It's becoming more clear that you don't like the kind of music influenced by Charlie Parker, who believed that music is first of all rhythm. So yes, if you don't like that kind of idea you could not like players like him, Sonny Rollins or Coltrane. But still, there's a ridicolous amount of melodic jazz. Saying that "there is no melodic construction" means exactly that you don't know a lot of the genre.
is this not melodic or just a display of chops?





This?





This?





This?





This?





This?





I can continue like forever.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

dogen said:


> If I had to suggest a single likely reason:
> Although CM has a place for improvisation, it is essentially a music of prior composition; it is composed PRIOR to performance. The raison d'etre of jazz is that of improvisation; the prior composition is mainly to provide a platform for the _in-the-moment composition_ of improvisation.


Oddly, this is exactly what appeals to me about classical music and what I find to be a deficiency of jazz. I like the idea of a composer, someone who is especially trained in and has the knack for creating music, to set down his ideas. Performers/interpreters then perform this music and I can be sure of hearing what my musical guru wants to tell me.

Jazz often sounds rehashed to me, since it is based on improvised reworkings of the same material. I have heard many live recordings over the years, by people such as Dolphy, Jarrett and countless others and it all sounded a lot the same. I, as a listener and customer (buying albums), felt cheated, since they just kept on pumping out new albums of the same stuff, as if every performance of a different night was supposed to be a new thing.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> No, I can agree on that. But you're pushing well beyond that saying "he's better than most jazz musicians". Saying something like that needs real comparisons between pieces, musicians, styles, a real analysis and good arguments.
> 
> Without considering that nebulous "there's no magic", It's becoming more clear that you don't like the kind of music influenced by Charlie Parker, who believed that music is first of all rhythm. So yes, if you don't like that kind of idea you could not like players like him, Sonny Rollins or Coltrane. But still, there's a ridicolous amount of melodic jazz. Saying that "there is no melodic construction" means exactly that you don't know a lot of the genre.
> is this not melodic or just a display of chops?
> ...


Are you trying to seduce me with these jazz pieces? 
When I say 'melodic construction' I don't mean all those corny pastiche pieces you posted right now. Such music is boring to me and puts me to sleep just like Diana Krall songs. I don't like it and I never will. 
It's also one of the many reasons why I don't like jazz. It has that vibe of faking emotions. It's smooth for the sake of smoothness and utterly unchallenging for listening. All these videos are like the manifestation of term 'generic' to me. 
You could at least send me something like this, so at least the begining would probably intrigue me:





To me smooth jazz is probably the most corny thing in music ever. It's even more corny and more fake than Modern Talking or Barry Manilow ballads. That doesn't mean that there are no great easy listening jazz, but this are simply not good examples and they show exactly why I don't like even such jazz.

You think that someone should be something like musical 'god' to say that Morricone is one of the best of the best? I guess that if you can't hear that, there is no school or skills that you can have that will make you understand what great in music actually is. It would be like to expect after all education about colors that daltonist person would now be able to see colors. Yeah... sure. 
To me, this are real emotions... I can feel something... heaviness, sadness, soul... yes, it's pathetic music, but it's not generic jazz snooze:









It doesn't need to be pathetic... this is also melodic:


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

I like Jazz, especially Charles Mingus. However, the majority of my collection is devoted to CM and if I had to choose between the two, I would go with the latter. As for more modern Jazz, I find it somewhat 'empty'. Perhaps someone might be able to 'correct' me, but I've yet to find any contemporary Jazz that is as gritty, passionate, and full of humanity as Mingus. Mingus' music is about 'life', and he said as much himself. His music is lucid and expressive in a way that contemporary Jazz isn't—at least to my ears. I expect more out of music than—gee, these guys can really play! I suppose that when your benchmark is J.S. Bach, not just any old thing will do.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> Are you trying to seduce me with these jazz pieces?
> When I say 'melodic construction' I don't mean all those corny pastiche pieces you posted right now. Such music is boring to me and puts me to sleep just like Diana Krall songs. I don't like it and I never will.


Two of those "generic" pieces are two of the best compositions of the Ellington's orchestra. The previous page you were saying that you liked Ellington (and Glenn Miller! :lol, but now Warm valley is corny. That says more about you than about the music.



nikola said:


> It's also one of the many reasons why I don't like jazz. It has that vibe of faking emotions. It's smooth for the sake of smoothness and utterly unchallenging for listening.


Like Mozart or Haydn?
But if you prefer I can post a ton of jazz that is not smooth at all:











nikola said:


> To me smooth jazz is probably the most corny thing in music ever. It's even more corny and more fake than Modern Talking or Barry Manilow ballads. That doesn't mean that there are no great easy listening jazz, but this are simply not good examples and they show exactly why I don't like even such jazz.


so, Glenn Miller it's okay but Ellington at his best (played by fantastic musicians like Paul Desmond, Ed Bickert or Johnny Hodges) is "the most corny thing"? Yeah, sure


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> Two of those "generic" pieces are two of the best compositions of the Ellington's orchestra. The previous page you were saying that you liked Ellington (and Glenn Miller! :lol, but now Warm valley is corny. That says more about you than about the music.


Great! So we learned today something about me!



norman bates said:


> Like Mozart or Haydn?
> But if you prefer I can post a ton of jazz that is not smooth at all:


Only a ton? I'm sure you can post a megatons of jazz!



norman bates said:


> so, Glenn Miller it's okay but Ellington at his best (played by fantastic musicians like Paul Desmond, Ed Bickert or Johnny Hodges) is "the most corny thing"? Yeah, sure


I didn't pay much attention to something that I don't like, so there is no 'so'. 
Yes, those pieces you posted are corny smoothness. I don't like it. I hope you will forgive me. After all, I have really bad taste about music as you see, so I believe we can end this conversation.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> I didn't pay much attention to something that I don't like, so there is no 'so'.
> Yes, those pieces you posted are corny smoothness. I don't like it. I hope you will forgive me. After all, I have really bad taste about music as you see, so I believe we can end this conversation.


Anyway I'm still trying to reconcile that "I like more something like Glenn Miller type jazz" (who did very smooth and unchallenging light music, and by the way, a lot of the most famous Morricone themes are smooth and unchallenging too) with the fact that you now find some of the best compositions of Ellington played by great and much more sophisticated musicians as "corny".


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> Anyway I'm still trying to reconcile that "I like more something like Glenn Miller type jazz" (who did very smooth and unchallenging light music, and by the way, a lot of the most famous Morricone themes are smooth and unchallenging too) with the fact that you now find some of the best compositions of Ellington played by great and much more sophisticated musicians as "corny".


Morricone's compositions mostly have strong and unique themes and they sound distinctive, so to say that they're not challening and for me to understand your statement I should try to hear music from your ears what I really would not like to. His compositions are original.. just like Brahm's 'Lullabye'. You hear it and you know what composition it is. They don't sound like hundreds of other compositions what I find to be the case with jazz many times. 
I didn't say that Ellington is bad. You came to that conclusion based on what? One composition you posted here? 
This is his composition that I like:





I also like some of other jazz stuff and probably his stuff too, but I don't know why do you want me to repeat myself over and over again. You like jazz much more than me and that's fine.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> Morricone's compositions mostly have strong and unique themes and they sound distinctive, so to say that they're not challening and for me to understand your statement I should try to hear music from your ears what I really would not like to. His compositions are original.. just like Brahm's 'Lullabye'. You hear it and you know what composition it is.


That's also true for some of the pieces I've posted. In fact, Daydream, Warm Valley and Lament are standards played thousands of times, because of their memorability.



nikola said:


> I didn't say that Ellington is bad. You came to that conclusion based on what?


Based on the fact that about two of the most successful and beloved compositions of his orchestra (warm valley and daydream) you have said: "corny pastiche", "boring", "I don't like it and I never will" "utterly unchallenging", and "generic".


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> Based on the fact that about two of the most successful and beloved compositions of his orchestra (warm valley and daydream) you have said: "corny pastiche", "boring", "I don't like it and I never will" "utterly unchallenging", and "generic".


If I said that, then I'm right.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I have several friends that like classical, mostly from before the 20th century. With a few exceptions of certain artists, they are not jazz fans. They specifically point to the improvisation aspect as not being to their taste. They like pretty tightly composed music.

The vast majority of my classical listening is 20th century, contemporary, 21st century, etc. Very little is from pre-20th century, and I do like jazz. 

I am not sure that my love for 20th century and later classical, and my friends' love for pre-20th century classical has anything to do with our differing views on jazz, but I suspect it might. 

My jazz tastes tend to also be modern and progressive. Most of it is post 60's, even more specifically from the early 70's and later. I am not a fan of free jazz, and I hate 'smooth jazz'.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> If I said that, then I'm right.


"I didn't say that Ellington is bad. You came to that conclusion based on what?"
It seems that you have some problem of memory or coherence, I don't know :lol:


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> Oddly, this is exactly what appeals to me about classical music and what I find to be a deficiency of jazz. I like the idea of a composer, someone who is especially trained in and has the knack of creating music, to set down his ideas. Performers/interpreters then perform this music and I can be sure of hearing what my musical guru wants to tell me.
> 
> Jazz often sounds rehashed to me, since it is based on improvised reworkings of the same material. I have heard many live recordings over the years, by people such as Dolphy, Jarrett and countless others and it all sounded a lot the same. I, as a listener and customer (buying albums), felt cheated, since they just kept on pumping out new albums of the same stuff, as if every performance of a different night was supposed to be a new thing.


I feel the opposite. Jazz excites me because of the all the infinite variations on any given standard. Plus Miles Davis early fusion stuff is like whoa... opened my ears to all possibilities of the sonic canvas.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I love many different types of music. That being said, 90% of any music I listen to (including classical) engages my mind, but doesn't thrill me.

When I think of music that thrills, I think of every kind I listen to. So, about 10% of my CD collection, about the same percentage for jazz, rock, world, pop, county, folk, blues, show tunes, movie music, 20th century "classical", impressionist, romantic (maybe 15% here), classical and baroque contain tracks that reach me emotionally. The rest is some form of ear candy.

Still haven't found any contemporary classical, renaissance or medieval music that goes past the brain. But, I'm working on it.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Vesteralen said:


> I love many different types of music. That being said, 90% of any music I listen to (including classical) engages my mind, but doesn't thrill me.
> 
> When I think of music that thrills, I think of every kind I listen to. So, about 10% of my CD collection, about the same percentage for jazz, rock, world, pop, county, folk, blues, show tunes, movie music, 20th century "classical", impressionist, romantic (maybe 15% here), classical and baroque contain tracks that reach me emotionally. The rest is some form of ear candy.
> 
> Still haven't found any contemporary classical, renaissance or medieval music that goes past the brain. But, I'm working on it.


What? . . . What the hell did you just say?

I am serious, I don't understand your post.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I like music that is melodic. And jazz a lot of times goes away from being melodic in favoritism for complexity and speed. Also a lot of jazz is blues which is boring and repetitive to me.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

neoshredder said:


> I like music that is melodic. And jazz a lot of times goes away from being melodic in favoritism for complexity and *speed*. Also a lot of jazz is blues which is boring and repetitive to me.


Funny thing to say for a neoshredder....


----------



## aajj (Dec 28, 2014)

Many 20th century composers found jazz intriguing, as many jazz musicians (Charlie Parker, Coleman Hawkins and others) were interested in classical or modern music. Duke Ellington's compliment for good music was to call it "beyond category." He famously said, "There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind."


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

neoshredder said:


> I like music that is melodic. And jazz a lot of times goes away from being melodic in favoritism for complexity and speed.


try to open the links I've posted above, it's all melodic music (cool jazz actually, not "smooth jazz")



neoshredder said:


> Also a lot of jazz is blues which is boring and repetitive to me.


it depends, sometimes it's simple but often jazz musicians has done very complex things with the blues, to the point that sometimes it's difficult to realize that it's a blues. Something much more sophisticated than the idea of the blues one could have thinking of Stevie Ray Vaughan or Eric Clapton


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

All history of jazz lead to Kenny G and that means that whole jazz in it's essence was smooth


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2015)

I feel I'm predisposed to music that may be a blend of the two, or where you cannot tell or be sure whether it is music that is composed or improvised. An example from my experience would be the 70s King Crimson that created the likes of Fracture. Intense and hairy stuff.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Proof that classical musicians can play kickbutt jazz music:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Modern Jazz Quartet used classical especially Bach as a jumping point and Miles Davis was listening to Stockhausen during his On the Corner sessions.

_On the Corner_ wasn't exactly one of Davis' stronger efforts. _Sketches of Spain_ built upon Rodrigo.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Modern Jazz Quartet used classical especially Bach as a jumping point and Miles Davis was listening to Stockhausen during his On the Corner sessions.
> 
> _On the Corner_ wasn't exactly one of Davis' stronger efforts. _Sketches of Spain_ built upon Rodrigo.


I actually like On the Corner better than Sketches on Spain. In fact, I also love his Big Fun album too.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Dim7 said:


> Funny thing to say for a neoshredder....


Yeah well I like my shred with melodies. Yngwie Malmsteen as an example of that. But I was actually referring to the tempo. Jazz songs can be played at over 200 BPM. I respect the style. It's just not my preference. This coming from someone that used to be in a jazz band.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

albertfallickwang said:


> Proof that classical musicians can play kickbutt jazz music:


She could certainly play, but this seems more a transcription than a improvisation


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

neoshredder said:


> Yeah well I like my shred with melodies. Yngwie Malmsteen as an example of that. But I was actually referring to the tempo. Jazz songs can be played at over 200 BPM. I respect the style. It's just not my preference. This coming from someone that used to be in a jazz band.


Malmsteen is IMO a great example of a player who doesn't play enough proper melodies. I remember watching a live performance of Far Beyond the Sun, he was so impatient to shred that he often wouldn't bother to play the main melody and instead would just play some meaningless random scalar runs or just goof around the stage.

I'm not an expert on jazz but almost all jazz I've heard has been more melodic and none of that was over 200 bpm, unlike a lot of metal I've heard. You probably just don't like the kind of melodies that are in jazz or the improvisatory structure.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Dim7 said:


> Malmsteen is IMO a great example of a player who doesn't play enough proper melodies. I remember watching a live performance of Far Beyond the Sun, he was so impatient to shred that he often wouldn't bother to play the main melody and instead would just play some meaningless random scalar runs or just goof around the stage.
> 
> I'm not an expert on jazz but almost all jazz I've heard has been more melodic and none of that was over 200 bpm, unlike a lot of metal I've heard. You probably just don't like the kind of melodies that are in jazz or the improvisatory structure.


200 bpm is normal in jazz. This is also quite normal at 320 bpm.






or this at 250


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

aajj said:


> Many 20th century composers found jazz intriguing...


The opposite is also true-many didn't care for it, for instance, Olivier Messiaen.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I hear them as 160 bpm and 125 bpm


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Dim7 said:


> I hear them as 160 bpm and 125 bpm


You heard it wrong. Quarter notes are (almost) always the standard in Jazz except for ballads.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I assume you jazz people hear the first movement of the Moonlight sonata as 1000000000000+ bpm but with veeeeery long note values.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> Also a lot of jazz is blues which is boring and repetitive to me.


I am not a blues fan at all. This is why I gravitate toward jazz from ECM and fusion.

Quite a bit of ECM jazz eschews blues and tends to incorporate classical. Much of the ECM catalog I previously mentioned is of this type.

Many of the classic ECM artists like: guitarist Ralph Towner (a trained classical pianist), guitarist Terje Rypdal (studied classical piano and trumpet as a child), bassist Barre Philips (studied bass with principal bassist with the SF symphony), Eberhard Weber, Keith Jarrett, etc have very little, if any, blues in their music.

The current ECM jazz has even moved further from being blues based.

Quite a bit of fusion also does not have too much blues.

Mahavishnu Orchestra, Return to Forever, Iceberg (Spain), Spaced Out (Canada), Counter-World Experience (German jazz-metal), Panzerballett (Germany), Octafish (Germany), ZAO (France) and many more are not based in blues.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Dim7 said:


> Malmsteen is IMO a great example of a player who doesn't play enough proper melodies. I remember watching a live performance of Far Beyond the Sun, he was so impatient to shred that he often wouldn't bother to play the main melody and instead would just play some meaningless random scalar runs or just goof around the stage.
> 
> I'm not an expert on jazz but almost all jazz I've heard has been more melodic and none of that was over 200 bpm, unlike a lot of metal I've heard. You probably just don't like the kind of melodies that are in jazz or the improvisatory structure.


The chordal structure may be too dense. I have no problem with improvisation. But jazz solos are different than rock solos. I guess it depends on the song. Some songs are more like rock and jazz fusion.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I love it when jazz blurs all genres of music together whether it be from blues, rock, soul, or classical.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Al Di Meola ftw.


----------

