# Do you enjoy listening to Jazz?



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

The question was posed on another thread, so I decided to ask it:

Do you listen to jazz?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Yes.....................


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2015)

Some, not as much as in the past. Names to conjour with: ROVA, Billy Bang, Anthony Braxton, Charles Brackeen, David Murray, Art Ensemble of Chicago, Jazz Doctors, Tony Williams...


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I used to listen to Jazz quite a bit more, as I had a friend who was heavily into Jazz. His influence was responsible for me having built a fairly significant Jazz collection on LP. I have only reacquired a few of these albums on CD and my listening time nowadays is vastly dominated by Classical, but I still like Jazz.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Other: I used to dabble in jazz a little bit. Some of it is kinda pleasant instrument-noodling, and I don't mind some jazziness in non-jazz music, but I'm not a huge fan of the almost completely improvisatory nature of "real" jazz. Composition would seem to be clearly superior to improvisation, IMO.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I voted other because I don't have a favorite genre. But I do have hundreds, maybe over a thousand jazz albums. So that's more than a bit of jazz.


----------



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

Yes, but with certain parameters - I tend to avoid Trad/Dixieland, early Swing/Big Band, Hot Club or works from any era which feature electric guitar prominently unless it's the high-octane rock/fusion stuff like Inner Mounting Flame-era Mahavishnu Orchestra or the dense funk of Miles Davis' 70s output. 

My collection, which is modest in size compared to my classical and rock stuff, pretty much centres around Ornette Coleman, Thelonious Monk, Miles Davis, Cecil Taylor, Charles Mingus and (post-mid 50s) Duke Ellington.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

I voted "some." 

I'm not sure if the intent was to include vocalists in the mix. If we're counting recordings by Ella Fitzgerald, Nina Simone, Billy Holiday, Dinah Washington, etc., I would change my vote to "a lot."


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2015)

brotagonist said:


> I used to listen to Jazz quite a bit more, as I had a friend who was heavily into Jazz. His influence was responsible for me having built a fairly significant Jazz collection on LP. I have only reacquired a few of these albums on CD and my listening time nowadays is vastly dominated by Classical, but I still like Jazz.


I think I got my interest via my brother; likewise my interest in rock.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2015)

Dim7 said:


> Other: I used to dabble in jazz a little bit. Some of it is kinda pleasant instrument-noodling, and I don't mind some jazziness in non-jazz music, but I'm not a huge fan of the almost completely improvisatory nature of "real" jazz. Composition would seem to be clearly superior to improvisation, IMO.


Mmmmmmm.... noodles.....nice....


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Dim7 said:


> Composition would seem to be clearly superior to improvisation, IMO.


Nah, scratch that IMO. It's a FACT!


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Can't say I ever got "free" jazz. And, I don't like "lite" jazz. But, I listen to everything else from ragtime to modern. My favorite is hard bop. I never get tired of the formula when it's done well.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Dim7 said:


> Nah, scratch that IMO. It's a FACT!


You were right the first time. Opinion, not fact.


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

jazz is unlimited

from New Orleans blues to Afro-cuban jazz,
and from gypsy jazz to free jazz
I like everything and everybody

the great Louis, Paul Whiteman in Gershwin's Rhapsody in blue,
Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman my favourite with his magic clarinet,
Dizzie Gillespie, Thelonious Monk, Miles Davis, John Coltrane,
Tito Puente, Herbie hancock, Chick Korea, Pat Metheny etc etc etc

For you






and this






and this, although is more in the blues area, but it's so cool


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

I voted a lot

Though I don't have a favourite genre


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Sure I do, right now in the background: Soft Swinging Jazz with the Joe Newman quartet featuring the inimitable Shirley Scott on Hammond B3 organ, yes she was a very groovy chick! Next up the excellent voice of Mr Joe Williams! (With the Mel Lewis/Thad Jones Jazz Orchestra!)

/ptr


----------



## Tedski (Jul 8, 2015)

cwarchc said:


> I voted a lot


I only voted once. :lol:


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Responding to "Do You Enjoy Listening to Jazz," sure. It is my favorite genre.

Having said that, I don't actually listen to it that much anymore because I like it too much. I have recordings that go from 78s and big band/small combo recordings from the '40s to the crazy stuff in the '70s. I dropped out of music altogether back then just to clear my head, so my collection doesn't have much after that.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> Having said that, I don't actually listen to it that much anymore because I like it too much.


This does not seem logical, you would rather spend your life listening to things you like less? Maybe jazz is your calling. What if Beethoven or Ellington or (insert great composers name here) quit doing their music because they "liked it too much"?

In regards the OP - I like a lot of jazz, and am often blown away by some of the musical ideas, but as music most of it leaves me lukewarm. There are some exceptions. I enjoy playing it (though I'm no pro at jazz improvisation) more than listening to it.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I voted "a bit" assuming that's marginally less than "some." 

I came into jazz through that most inexplicably reviled of genres, fusion, because it is very close to the progressive rock that had ripped me away from classical for nearly a decade. Starting with the Miles Davis fusion period, through Weather Report, Return to Forever, Mahavishnu Orchestra and 1970s Herbie Hancock to an extent. 

When fusion started to degrade into "smooth" jazz, I lost interest, but in the last decade revived my interest a little into more traditional jazz. I wanted to know how Miles Davis got from "Round About Midnight" to the space alien he became in later years. So I got into 1960s Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck, early Herbie Hancock (I love "Cantaloupe Island"), that sort of thing. I do listen every once in a while, but I have to be in a certain mood for it. I usually prefer instrumental to vocal jazz and usually the less swing the better for me. I don't know why, but I think swing is like rubato. Too much seems distasteful.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

tdc said:


> This does not seem logical, you would rather spend your life listening to things you like less? Maybe jazz is your calling. What if Beethoven or Ellington or (insert great composers name here) quit doing their music because they "liked it too much"?


Thanks for the encouragement. But it's kind of an obsession, so I only take it in small doses.


----------



## Heliogabo (Dec 29, 2014)

I listen to jazz a lot, and I don't have a favourite genre.
I could say that my collection is composed by 45% classical, 45% jazz, and 10% classic rock, blues, funk, flamenco, tango and other popular music.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2015)

I don't have much jazz of any mainstream type in my collection. I have some Barber, Bilk and Ball...






and putting this on again reminds me how much I enjoy listening to it!

_Midnight in Moscow_ was one of my favourite records as a child; I have some jazz/rock such as Bruford.

I don't seek it out, though if it's playing in a bar, I'm not going to walk out.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

I like that kind of jazz that people don't consider to be 'TRUE' jazz... and that is Glenn Miller, Louis Armstrong... probably some swing, dixie, etc. 
I don't care for cacophony from Miles Davis or most stuff from Coltrane... ok, I do like stuff like "My Favorite Things" or "Equinox", but jazz is mostly to me tedious noise with everlasting tones without meaning or purpose. I also don't like smooth jazz and not even smooth jazz from guys like Coltrane... it all sounds pathetic, but not in a good way.
I like music with some form, structure and good ideas. Formless jazz to me is not even music... it's just bunch of tones pretending to be music. 
To me such jazz is great like an idea and it's like something that tends to be something really great, but in 99% of the cases it just simply isn't. 
On the other hand I didn't hear enough of jazz. I've heard here and there brilliant and fun jazz music, but I was never enough interested to swim through the sea of **** to find something that I will like.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

I've never previously heard the phrase "true jazz".


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Manxfeeder said:


> Thanks for the encouragement. But it's kind of an obsession, so I only take it in small doses.


I am also fascinated and puzzled in equal measures by that you are saying. I hope you don't feel like I'm calling you out, but I would be interested if you'd take a little time to explain why it's obsessive in a way that needs to be controlled?


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Coltrane is smooth jazz too:





It's same old story. Jazz is like commercials on TV. Just because you haven't seen all commercials doesn't mean that you don't have a slightest clue what you will hear/see next. Jazz is everywhere... on raido, on TV, in cafe bars, etc. It's annoying muzak.

Just because I didn't hear all jazz doesn't mean I didn't hear enough. Jazz is just like commercials... it's everywhere. It's part of our culture and unfortunately we're not able to escape from that no matter how much we try. Of course, I didn't hear all jazz and I really don't want to.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> Coltrane is smooth jazz too:


that is smooth but it's not smooth jazz at all.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> that is smooth but it's not smooth jazz at all.


Yeah... you're right. It's probably smooth pop then.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> Yeah... you're right. It's probably smooth pop then.


Nope, those are sophisticated songs written by some great american songwriters (who sometimes don't have any relation with jazz) played by sophisticated jazz musicians. Smooth jazz means very simple music, often without improvisation just to make money.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

This is something that I like, but I don't know is it 'real/true' jazz:


----------



## Musicophile (May 29, 2015)

I voted "other" as I listen to Jazz a lot and it is my favorite genre together with classical, I just cannot decide which one I like more, I couldn't live without either one.

To the comment about "Smooth Jazz", that's truly elevator music that I've never encountered outside of some weird US radio stations (I assume it is produced exclusively for that market). Given that this genre name is now associated to this garbage, calling Coltrane "Smooth Jazz" is truly an insult.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

norman bates said:


> Kenny G. is smooth jazz.


Sure, Kenny G. plays Jazz . . . badly.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I listen to jazz, though not as much as to classical music. My favorite period is the 60s generation of modal jazz and early free jazz. Coltrane, Miles, Mingus, Ornette, Pharaoh Sanders, Sun Ra, Cecil Taylor. I have never really gotten into Parker, Gillespie or others of the bebop generation despite the best efforts of more knowledgeable friends to educate me. I'm also pretty clueless about jazz post-1980.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

isorhythm said:


> Gillespie or others of the bebop generation despite the best efforts of more knowledgeable friends to educate me. I'm also pretty clueless about jazz post-1980.


I don't know what you have listened of Gillespie but he has a surprisingly varied career.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Please keep to the original topic and be polite. Some posts have been deleted and others edited,


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I love jazz. 

Mostly post bop, fusion, avant-garde, ECM ('chamber jazz'?), jazz-metal.

I hate smooth jazz and the wimpy fusion of the 80's (we used to call it 'fuzak'). 

My music listening tends to be almost equally split between classical, jazz and prog. Not much else floats my boat.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I voted for 'no way - I don't enjoy jazz'; though it would have been more accurate to vote for 'I listen to some jazz'. I wish the option had omitted the 'no way'.

I don't generally enjoy modern jazz, or tunes that have been 'jazzed up'. I do like traditional jazz and ragtime, though - but I don't often seek it out to listen to. There is practically no genre of music that I out-and-out hate, and I respect tremendously the musicality of jazz musicians and their skill at improvising.

But the truth is, I don't *'really enjoy'* jazz. When we went to a Helen Shapiro concert some years ago - I remembered her from my pop music teens - and she spent half the time singing jazz, I was disappointed.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Never listen to it, so I guess not.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I'm not a jazz fan, but I like ragtime & traditional jazz: music which is not, on reflection, *all that * jazzy. 
Is there a point when jazz became incontrovertibly *Jazz*?


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> I'm not a jazz fan, but I like ragtime & traditional jazz: music which is not, on reflection, *all that * jazzy.
> Is there a point when jazz became incontrovertibly *Jazz*?


Same here, I like ragtime and I like swing and dixie. That is real music to me and really great music. Modal jazz, free jazz etc. only became asylum for talentless musicians and I don't care for how long Miles Davis can noodle. That kind of jazz didn't evolve for more than a half of the century and it's still played today because you don't need a talent to play it. There's no any real and meaningful idea behind those annoying noodling. And unfortunately, THAT is jazz they call the real jazz. To me it's not jazz at all. It's just bunch of tones thrown together.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> Same here, I like ragtime and I like swing and dixie. That is real music to me and really great music. Modal jazz, free jazz etc. only became asylum for talentless musicians and I don't care for how long Miles Davis can noodle. That kind of jazz didn't evolve for more than a half of the century and it's still played today because you don't need a talent to play it. There's no any real and meaningful idea behind those annoying noodling. And unfortunately, THAT is jazz they call the real jazz. To me it's not jazz at all. It's just bunch of tones thrown together.


Ingelou has expressed a perfectly legit opinon about the music.

But your post shows a lack of knowledge about the genre. Swing music and dixieland are considered real jazz exactly as the modal stuff. And Coltrane and Miles Davis have played a lot of other things before modality. Davis studied music at the Juilliard, he played music with classical influences (with classical composers like Gunther Schuller), he played hard bop, he played a lot of things that required a lot of knowledge. Coltrane studied with one of the most legendary jazz teachers (Dennis Sandole), learning the program of eight years in half the time.

Saying "there's no any real and meaningful idea" or "you don't need any talent to play it" is not an opinion, it contradicts the facts


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> Ingelou has expressed a perfectly legit opinon about the music.
> 
> But your post shows a lack of knowledge about the genre. Swing music and dixieland are considered real jazz exactly as the modal stuff. And Coltrane and Miles Davis have played a lot of other things before modality. Davis studied music at the Juilliard, he played music with classical influences (with classical composers like Gunther Schuller), he played hard bop, he played a lot of things that required a lot of knowledge. Coltrane studied with one of the most legendary jazz teachers (Dennis Sandole), learning the program of eight years in half the time.
> 
> Saying "there's no any real and meaningful idea" or "you don't need any talent to play it" is not an opinion, it contradicts the facts


I know people who don't consider dixie and swing to be real jazz and they are listening mostly only jazz.

Also, being able to hear that something sucks doesn't have much in common with 'knowledge'. You don't need to have faculty to be able to hear that something is good or that it's not good. To have knowledge about all jazz may be interesting for someone who like jazz, but that is only a bunch of informations that won't make you like something that you don't like.

It's not against the facts to say that there is no real or meaningful idea. I am not tone deaf and I can tell you with 100% of certainty that most of modal and free jazz is there only for posturing. It's fake. That doesn't mean that there are no good modal or free jazz. It means that great majority is simply not good even though it pretends it's something special. 
Saying 'you're an ignorant' is not an argument. Even "your taste (hearing) sucks" would be a better argument.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2015)

nikola said:


> I can tell you with 100% of certainty that most of modal and free jazz is there only for posturing. It's fake.


Would you like to offer some supporting evidence for your opinion? Can you point to some specific examples of where musicians are 'posturing'? Since we don't need any special faculty, it'll be immediately evident to all of us. You'd also need to show that you've evidence for 'most' - so whilst a few single examples will be helpful, you'll need to do more besides.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> I know people who don't consider dixie and swing to be real jazz and they are listening mostly only jazz.
> Also, being able to hear that something sucks doesn't have much in common with 'knowledge'.


Sure, but to say that people like Coltrane or Miles Davis were talentless means to ignore the facts. It's perfectly legit to think that a lot of modal jazz is noodling (heck, I could agree on that more than what you think). But to say that people like them are talentless means basically that every beginner could take a saxophone and navigate through the changes of Giant steps (a composition I don't like particularly, but that's not the point) or compose a tune like Naima. That shows a lack of understanding, as does the idea that after Coltrane there's not being any other kind of development in the music.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

The OP was concerned with whether you enjoyed listening to Jazz. No matter what the reasons for one's answer, it is unacceptable under the ToS to start accusing others of ignorance or prejudice. Some posts have been edited.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Would you like to offer some supporting evidence for your opinion? Can you point to some specific examples of where musicians are 'posturing'? Since we don't need any special faculty, it'll be immediately evident to all of us. You'd also need to show that you've evidence for 'most' - so whilst a few single examples will be helpful, you'll need to do more besides.


I'm certainly not here to change anyone's taste or opinion. I'm here to state my opinion and I don't need to prove to someone else what I can clearly hear. You don't have my ears or my brain, so you obviously don't process the same sounds like I do.
I posted this yesterday and it shows everything that is wrong with jazz and there is much wrong with it:





90% of jazz I can hear today iz exactly that - dry, boring, formless, unimaginative, meaningless noodling that can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on..... you got the point. The way you feel when you read this 'on and on' that's how I feel when I'm listening to that terrible noise. 
Why would anyone listen to that, I don't have a slightest clue and thank God for that.

To me, THIS is real music:





It may be simple, it may have predictable form and some repetition of musical segments, but there's enough interesting variations and a little improvising to make it interesting and it has real musical credibility, character and meaningful melody structures.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> I'm certainly not here to change anyone's taste or opinion. I'm here to state my opinion and I don't need to prove to someone else what I can clearly hear. You don't have my ears or my brain, so you obviously don't process the same sounds like I do.
> I posted this yesterday and it shows everything that is wrong with jazz and there is much wrong with it:


anyway this is not modal, this is a bop tune. And it's not more formless than the second piece you've posted: both are based on the same identical form.
But I agree on one thing, a lot of jazz is overindulgent with extremely long solos (that does not mean that I consider that noise or this guy talentless, far from that). But I remember also that when I posted some more melodic stuff you dismissed it as "smooth jazz" (even if you like smooth melodic pop as the Abba). So you don't like noodling, you don't like melodic pieces (but you defended Kenny G. because he's hated by us jazz snobs).
I guess that whatever piece could be posted you would dismiss it with different or even opposite reasons. If the piece is simple you would say that there are no ideas; if the piece is complex you would dismiss as you've done with Lush life.
If I would post a free jazz piece you would dismiss it as formless; but if I would post a free jazz piece made by Morricone you would defend it just because Morricone can do no wrong. I mean, how is it possible to take your criticism in a serious way when you seem just interested in dismiss everything.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

The reality is very simple. Music is good or it sucks or somewhere in the middle. In the first video there is a bad music no matter what is it's name. In 2nd video we have great music. 
Yes, I do not like smooth jazz no matter from whom. That doesn't mean that there are not some great smooth jazz pieces. I actually love slow, dark and depressing music, but slow jazz in 95% fails to deliver that.
I love what Angelo Badalamenti did for Twin Peaks music and he made some weird sounding and great little jazzy numbers:









But he is talented musician unlike many overrated noodlers. He actually made that kind of jazz that would be great if it existed in such creative form, but you can't replicate talent for composing music.

Norman, you're always simply repeating what I told before to prove something, but you don't prove anything. It's like you really enjoy to run in circles with me while not really saying anything at all in the end except many things about how you perceive my taste or what are my intentions for saying this or saying that. 
It's really neverending story and if you want that it will probably be neverending story, but there is no point in such conversations.

There is a lot of jazz music that is really worthless to me in every sense. There is also a lot of jazz that I would enjoy to listen to, but mostly that is not jazz that most of the jazz lovers consider it to be 'real jazz'. I don't care for albums like 'Kind of Blue' or 'Love Supreme'. Considering listening experience they don't offer anything to me and you really can't change that. You're trying always to find failure in my words, so you can convince yourself that my reasons for disliking that music are completely wrong. 
No, they're not wrong.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> The reality is very simple. Music is good or it sucks or somewhere in the middle. In the first video there is a bad music no matter what is it's name. In 2nd video we have great music.
> Yes, I do not like smooth jazz no matter from whom. That doesn't mean that there are not some great smooth jazz pieces. I actually love slow, dark and depressing music, but slow jazz in 95% fails to deliver that.
> I love what Angelo Badalamenti did for Twin Peaks music and he made some weird sounding and great little jazzy numbers:
> 
> ...


There's actually a lot of stuff with that kind of atmosphere. Miles Davis did it too.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> There's actually a lot of stuff with that kind of atmosphere. Miles Davis did it too.


It's possible, but from what I heard from Miles Davis I maybe to some extent liked 1 or 2 pieces and that's it.
To me it's not important only style, but what atmosphere it brings, what is the main melodic idea and how it develops. In most jazz even if they have some great idea at begining they kill it during the performance so in the end they also sound like everything else that I don't like in jazz. 
I do like improvisations, but it seems that in jazz they often tend to go in very tedious and predictable direction.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Yes, in moderation, and nothing wilder than say Miles Davis.

Actually my favourite jazz is the laid-back songs by female vocalists (from Ella and Billie to present day stars like Stacey Kent and Diana Krall). Not sophisticated, I know.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

My young adulthood was dominated by rock and 20th Century classical. As I got into my 30s, I was drifting musically. Rock had come to a stagnation, with the death of punk/new wave, and I lost touch with it. I was still listening to the classical I knew, but a friend was heavily into jazz, so this became my major music right into the '90s, when the friend passed on. Jazz was kind of a transitional music for me, helping me up from rock to a deeper appreciation of classical. Left to my own devices, I started becoming interested in broadening my base in classical, which meant common practice, an area I had had only superficial exposure to. By 2000, I had become hugely stuck on classical of all periods, suffered a musical holocaust as a result (I think I over-reacted to the avant garde obsession of my younger years and wanted to make up for not having paid enough attention to common practice), and eventually managed to put it all together—which is where I have been for the past decade or so.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2015)

nikola said:


> I'm certainly not here to change anyone's taste or opinion. I'm here to state my opinion and I don't need to prove to someone else what I can clearly hear. You don't have my ears or my brain, so you obviously don't process the same sounds like I do.
> I posted this yesterday and it shows everything that is wrong with jazz and there is much wrong with it:


The Daniele Scannapieco isn't my cup of tea either, but it does not, in my opinion, show 'everything that is wrong with jazz'. But as you quite perceptively observe, we don't have the same ears...


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

I voted that I didn't like jazz (ducks quickly) but some of the immoderate slagging off of the genre that I've read in this thread leads me to *want* to like it rather than puts me off listening to it.

So, why did I say i don't like it? Well. lack of knowledge and experience, primarily .... now I wish I could withdraw my vote until I am better qualified to comment (Hangs head in shame!)


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I voted that I didn't like jazz (ducks quickly) but some of the immoderate slagging off of the genre that I've read in this thread leads me to *want* to like it rather than puts me off listening to it.
> 
> So, why did I say i don't like it? Well. lack of knowledge and experience, primarily .... now I wish I could withdraw my vote until I am better qualified to comment (Hangs head in shame!)


A very sensible response, as there is such a huge amount of diverse music that falls under the genre known as jazz, spanning an entire century.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> Yes, in moderation, and nothing wilder than say Miles Davis.
> 
> Actually my favourite jazz is the laid-back songs by female vocalists (from Ella and Billie to present day stars like Stacey Kent and Diana Krall). Not sophisticated, I know.


I love it and it seems to me that a lot of those singers are often overlooked (besides Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan and few others). Maybe because their music it's often in a grey area between jazz and pop but not exactly in neither of the two genres. It should be called american lieder but one would think of Samuel Barber and Ned Rorem.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

The only time I listen to jazz is when it is piped in at a dentist's office or store, and then I am pleased because it is much better than the carp normally piped into places. Once upon a time (in the vinyl days) I actually got into Tom Scott and the La Express and had a collection of about eight albums, also bought an album of Shelly Mann and His Men and one Jean-Luc Ponty album which was on the jazzy side (even saw him in concert once). Beyond that, I was never a jazz enthusiast.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I don't like much jazz, but still, I remember with pleasure the days when Chris Barber was a fixture on British Television; his trumpeter was the late great Pat Halcox, and a few years later, I taught Mr Halcox's son in the early 1970s - this boy was scarily clever, a champion swimmer, and as big as a twelve-year-old when he was only eight. It was my first year of teaching, so he was utterly memorable, and though he took some handling, the boy was basically very nice, as were his parents. (He went on to become a cardiologist.)

So for his sake, I have just listened to his father playing the :trp:!


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I voted that I didn't like jazz (ducks quickly) but some of the immoderate slagging off of the genre that I've read in this thread leads me to *want* to like it rather than puts me off listening to it.
> 
> So, why did I say i don't like it? Well. lack of knowledge and experience, primarily .... now I wish I could withdraw my vote until I am better qualified to comment (Hangs head in shame!)


I must admit that I don't understand this type of mindset. It's like if you'll learn some theory about jazz you will start to like it? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. Are you just trying to be nice and don't want to displease anyone on this board? What is the point about going against yourself simply to please everybody else? 
For example, I don't need anyone here to like me.

If I will have more knowledge about music that I really can't stand I certainly won't start to like it, so that logic isn't actually logic at all.
I'm listening to music that I like or love because it moves me emotionally or it intrigues me in some way with it's musical ingenuity. If I love some music, I'll probably be interested to know more about it. If I find any music horrible, I can actually only enjoy then in reading reviews that are making fun of that type of music. It may not be nice, but I'm just honest.

It seems that people here like to make fun of smooth jazz. There are many people who love smooth jazz and it's certainly better than some awful 'real' jazz noodling, but it seems it is perfectly fine to simply in disrespectful manner make fun of smooth jazz.
And then they think they're better than me in some way... should I only say 'lol'!?

So, if there is a belief that we can make fun of everything, but not about some sacred musical cows, we're really not objective then in any way. 
We can make fun of music only if everybody (or at least majority) on this board agrees with that, right? If we don't agree with person who doesn't like what we like, we will say that that person is offending us, that the way that person expresses his/her opinion is wrong, etc. 
Hypothetically, I can say that it is offensive to me when members here say that Kenny G sucks or that he is making music only for money. Kenny G could be a great person who is saving puppies from collapsing buildings or he could help old ladies to cross the street, but no... you must make fun of the guy and you must think that his motives for making music are wrong. That would make any puppy very sad. 
I believe that there is also a name for such behavior.

I also don't believe in fake humility while talking about music (and that's what some members are expecting from me), because I always stand behind my opinion. what you call "immoderate slagging" is just an honest opinion from a guy who heard many types of music in his life and who don't like 90% of the music he heard and can't pretend that he likes it. I hate 99,999% of metal.. I've heard some interesting stuff from Metallica, but overally, I think it's infantile genre for kids who are drawing female boobies, swords and worms in skulls in their school notebooks. 
I also don't like rap and hip hop and I think it's music for insecure kids who want to be kewl and accepted by other insecure kids, so they will seem tough and gang like. There is other music I also find horrible.
So, in reality, I like.. I actually LOVE some of jazz way more than some other genres, but unfortunatelly, not many people consider dixie or swing to be real jazz even though it is. That's why I say that I don't like many of jazz. In reality I don't like lack of any talent, not jazz itself. I think jazz is in it's essence very innovative and brilliant music destroyed by many awful musicians. Jazz is one of the most important (if not the most important) genres that is invented in last century. Without jazz majority of the music that I like would not sound the same. 
There is really no any reason for anyone to feel offended because of my opinions. That's just my taste, my opinion and yes, I stand behind it.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> but unfortunatelly, not many people consider dixie or swing to be real jazz even though it is.


But in what world do you live? I've never encountered a single person who thinks that Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman, Count Basie, Lester Young, Louis Armstrong, Pee Wee Russell or Jelly Roll Morton aren't real jazz musicians.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

It seems that there are types of jazz fans you haven't met yet.


----------



## Chipomarc (Jul 18, 2015)

Dabble in jazz too long and you will end up just like Sun Ra did


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> It seems that there are types of jazz fans you haven't met yet.


Do you know jazz fans who think that someone who is improvising on a swing rhyhtm on a blues influenced harmony is not jazz?
If someone would say something like that, he doesn't even know what makes jazz... jazz.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

"Hi, I'm a fan of classical music. Mozart, Haydn and Bach weren't classical composers."
Who doesn't know people like that.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

nikola said:


> There is really no any reason for anyone to feel offended because of my opinions. That's just my taste, my opinion and yes, I stand behind it.


I don't feel offended by your opinions ... but by the same token the way that opinions are expressed can persuade or not. I tend to listen to informed opinion that is considered and balanced and be careful about paying much attention to those opinions that are not


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2015)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I don't feel offended by your opinions ... but by the same token the way that opinions are expressed can persuade or not. I tend to listen to informed opinion that is considered and balanced and be careful about paying much attention to those opinions that are not


Quite. It's not a matter of being 'offended' by others' opinions, as wishing to engage in a reasoned analysis of opinions with which one disagrees. Nikola votes for "I listen to a bit of Jazz" and on that basis is prepared to express fairly rugged 'opinions' about jazz as if reporting universal fact. For example:




> In most jazz even if they have some great idea at begining they kill it during the performance


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Quite. It's not a matter of being 'offended' by others' opinions, as wishing to engage in a reasoned analysis of opinions with which one disagrees. Nikola votes for "I listen to a bit of Jazz" and on that basis is prepared to express fairly rugged 'opinions' about jazz as if reporting universal fact. For example:


Well, sure! But there are exceptions:





But I don't know why I always must end up listening to some boring or annoying jazz when I'm in some club or when people share videos of jazz.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

nikola said:


> Well, sure! But there are exceptions:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Basically you like the pop kind of Jazz instead of the 'intellectual noodling" kind. The kind of jazz that's full of pop patterns and hooks, endless melody and no thematic development.

The "real" jazz introduces a composed head, and then works with it to see where they can go with the initial idea, much like Classical music, except it does this via improvisation. The pop kind of Jazz (like in the vid) does a hook, and then another hook, melodic line, hook, melodic line etc.

Well, if you like it - knock yourself out, I got no prob with that. Personally I just yawned at the vid for like 20 secs, then closed it and saved it for my "play before bed" playlist. Thanks for that


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

nikola said:


> It seems that there are types of jazz fans you haven't met yet.


I know many jazz fans, I post regularly on a couple of jazz forums, including Fuze-zone.com (dedicated to jazz about as far from Dixie and Swing as you can get) whose members would still consider Dixie and Swing to be legitimate jazz.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> Basically you like the pop kind of Jazz instead of the 'intellectual noodling" kind. The kind of jazz that's full of pop patterns and hooks, endless melody and no thematic development.
> 
> The "real" jazz introduces a composed head, and then works with it to see where they can go with the initial idea, much like Classical music, except it does this via improvisation. The pop kind of Jazz (like in the vid) does a hook, and then another hook, melodic line, hook, melodic line etc.
> 
> Well, if you like it - knock yourself out, I got no prob with that. Personally I just yawned at the vid for like 20 secs, then closed it and saved it for my "play before bed" playlist. Thanks for that


Now, you are are the proof that many people don't consider good jazz to be jazz. If it's 'pop kind of jazz' it's not real jazz then, right? 
Classical music is also based on melodies and hooks and not on endless noodling. There is no development in jazz you're talking about. There's nothing remotely similar in such noodling with classical music which is mostly based on melodies and variations of main melodies and developments of main melodic ideas. 
What jazz noodle is doing is that they start composition with some hook and then they start to noodle and after few seconds they start to sound like all other jazz noodlings. So all that noodlings is actually same, boring and meaningless in it's core. 
It seems that you are trying to give to such noodling completely false characteristics, so you could make those sound more artsy? Sorry, but that doesn't work to me. 
Jazz noodling is not music. It's just a bunch of thrown tones together. No matter what they play, they can't go wrong because what they do is always wrong. Noodling in jazz world is sanctuary for talentless musicians who can't compose anything meaningful. They're not musicians and artists. They're technicians on their instruments just like typewriter lady who can type fast is not an artist. She is technician.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Nikola, talking of classical music have you ever heard the names of Gyorgi Ligeti, Edgar Varese, Anton Webern, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, Brian Ferneighough, Iannis Xenakis, Elliott Carter, Tristan Murail, Olivier Messiaen, Penderecki, George Crumb, Pierre Schaeffer etc? Because when you say "There's nothing remotely similar in such noodling with classical music which is mostly based on melodies and variations of main melodies and developments of main melodic ideas" I was thinking of them (and many others).


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Webern's music is noodling (or non-developmental if you prefer)? That's a new definition I've never heard of...


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Webern's music is noodling (or non-developmental if you prefer)? That's a new definition I've never heard of...


And you will not hear it from me obviously.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

norman bates said:


> And you will not hear it from me obviously.


Okay, so how is the music of Webern and the other composers you listed (many of whom he has nothing in common with) comparable to Nikola's stereotypes about some jazz being "noodling"?


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> Nikola, talking of classical music have you ever heard the names of Gyorgi Ligeti, Edgar Varese, Anton Webern, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, Brian Ferneighough, Iannis Xenakis, Elliott Carter, Tristan Murail, Olivier Messiaen, Penderecki, George Crumb, Pierre Schaeffer etc? Because when you say "There's nothing remotely similar in such noodling with classical music which is mostly based on melodies and variations of main melodies and developments of main melodic ideas" I was thinking of them (and many others).


Yes, I know some of them and the point of my post was to emphasize that jazz noodling doesn't have anything in common with classical music even if we would disregard obviously melodic composers like Grieg, Dvorak, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, etc. I don't think that you can some carefully designed music from Ligeti compare with jazz noodling that simply happens on place while playing most of the time. I don't have anything against good improvisations, but most of the time jazz has long and tedious improvisations and that's not art or music to me. I can also thrown a bunch of tones together and even I wouldn't consider that to be a music. 
Even Stockhausen doesn't make music that would be anything remotely similar to philosophy of jazz noodling.

And have you heard about 'mickey mousing' in music? It's somethng they often did in very old movies to emphasize some scenes, especially action scenes. That's what film composer John Williams is doing most of the time. I'm not fan of it, but it's also music that doesn't rely on melody or some firm structure. It simply follows the film scenes. It still doesn't have anything common with jazz noodling just because it's formless.
Many classical pieces can be formless, but they are carefully composed and they always have a story to tell. Many music doesn't have strict pop form, but it still doesn't have anything similar to jazz noodling.

In the end it all comes down again to talent. What's not to like about Ligeti's 'Lux Aeterna' for example? Ok, maybe it's not everybody's cup of tea, but it's brilliant piece of work tha evokes many emotions. Or his piano composition 'The Devil's Staircase'. I believe there's a big difference between that guy who noodle at nightclub in video I posted and what Ligeti and some other composers are/were doing.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Okay, so how is the music of Webern and the other composers you listed (many of whom he has nothing in common with) comparable to Nikola's stereotypes about some jazz being "noodling"?


None of the works - norman bates' or nikola's - actually involve noodling.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Okay, so how is the music of Webern and the other composers you listed (many of whom he has nothing in common with) comparable to Nikola's stereotypes about some jazz being "noodling"?


I suspect that his idea of "melody and variation" does not fit exactly the tone rows used by Webern. 
And certainly "melody and variations" does not have anything to do with concrete music, noise or electronic music. Xenakis? Schaeffer? 
And talking about noodling, I wonder what Nikola would think of Sorabji's nocturnes (for a coincidence I've mentioned exactly the nocturnes in another topic) or Ives's Concord sonata and other similar things.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I suspect that his idea of "melody and variation" does not fit exactly the tone rows used by Webern.


Yes, but the motifs and melodies Webern draws from his tone rows are presented as an ongoing process of variation. What's your point?

(As an aside, why do people use the term "tone row" to back up the most absurd red herrings and non sequiturs? The use of serial technique does not mean that the music is comprised of tone rows any more than Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is comprised of major and minor scales.)



norman bates said:


> And certainly "melody and variations" does not have anything to do with concrete music, noise or electronic music. Xenakis? Schaeffer?


Depends on the electronic music of course. One could refer to the more traditional pitch-based pieces by composers such as Babbitt. It is true that your other examples are not related to traditional formal structures, but they don't bear any resemblance to the stereotypical "noodling," either.

And furthermore, what on earth is Messiaen doing in your list? His music is very traditionally melodic.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> but most of the time jazz has long and tedious improvisations and that's not art or music to me.


most of the time of the few things you know about the genre. I mean, it's my favorite genre, I've listened for a long time and I still consider myself hugely ignorant about it and you who can't even make a proper distinction between modal, bop, cool, smooth, swing and dance music talk like you know everything. And you wonder why people think you're misinformed.



nikola said:


> I can also thrown a bunch of tones together and even I wouldn't consider that to be a music.
> Even Stockhausen doesn't make music that would be anything remotely similar to philosophy of jazz noodling.


well try to listen few minutes of this:





or this:







nikola said:


> Many classical pieces can be formless, but they are carefully composed and they always have a story to tell. Many music doesn't have strict pop form, but it still doesn't have anything similar to jazz noodling.
> 
> In the end it all comes down again to talent. What's not to like about Ligeti's 'Lux Aeterna' for example? Ok, maybe it's not everybody's cup of tea, but it's brilliant piece of work tha evokes many emotions. Or his piano composition 'The Devil's Staircase'. I believe there's a big difference between that guy who noodle at nightclub in video I posted and what Ligeti and some other composers are/were doing.


Sure there's a difference, anyway Ligeti loved what you call jazz noodling. Maybe he wasn't as brilliant as you and he thought that maybe there was something to understand after all.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but the motifs and melodies Webern draws from his tone rows are presented as an ongoing process of variation. What's your point?


I'd be curious to know if a person who reduces a century of music to "jazz noodling" and "talentless" would define those of Webern as "melodies".



Mahlerian said:


> Depends on the electronic music of course. One could refer to the more traditional pitch-based pieces by composers such as Babbitt. It is true that your other examples are not related to traditional formal structures, but they don't bear any resemblance to the stereotypical "noodling," either.
> 
> And furthermore, what on earth is Messiaen doing in your list? His music is very traditionally melodic.


don't take me wrong, he's one of my favorite composers but often his music sounds a lot like noodling (or at least I guess he sounds like that to the ears of a person who reduces the century to "jazz noodling", again). But I could change him with Wagner if you prefer!


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> most of the time of the few things you know about the genre. I mean, it's my favorite genre, I've listened for a long time and I still consider myself hugely ignorant about it and you who can't even make a proper distinction between modal, bop, cool, smooth, swing and dance music talk like you know everything. And you wonder why people think you're misinformed.


I pray to God when I will be properly informed one day that jazz noodle will stop to suck!



norman bates said:


> well try to listen few minutes of this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those are way more intriguing and musically challenging pieces for listening than this:




or this earlier 'favorite':







norman bates said:


> Sure there's a difference, anyway Ligeti loved what you call jazz noodling. Maybe he wasn't as brilliant as you and he thought that maybe there was something to understand after all.


Well, nobody is brilliant as I am, right!?

Actually, you know how americans like to say "LET'S ROCK"... jazz fans could start to say "LET'S NOODLE".


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I forgot about mentioning a funny detail. Messiaen used to improvise A LOT on the organ.





here you go! Noodling! And he was certainly the only one (I can't remember the name of another french composer who was famous for his organ improvisations). And Bach?

Now we can repeat on and on: "classical music" and use this expression to dismiss the whole genre.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

nikola said:


> Those are way more intriguing and musically challenging pieces for listening than this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I kind of agree with nikola about this guy


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I forgot about mentioning a funny detail. Messiaen used to improvise A LOT on the organ.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I never dismissed whole genre. That's just your interpretation of my lack of tolerance for bad part of jazz. 
And once again how can you hear similarity between this organ improvisation and jazz noodling?
This is more like one big TA-DAH with atonal moments. I like it to certain degree. 
I'll play that to girls when I bring them to my castle. It's not exactly Barry White, but it will probably work on 1 of 500 of them.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> I never dismissed whole genre. That's just your interpretation of my lack of tolerance for bad part of jazz.


That's my interpretation of your bad attitude. 
Whatever argument I or anyone else would bring to prove that your generalization is just that (you have defined noodling "kind of blue" for god's sake, Miles Davis who had a "less is more" approach and sounds certainly much more restrained than most of the pieces I've posted above: Messiaen improvising, Ives, Sorabji) you would just keep repeating "jazz noodling" or occasionally "smooth jazz" and "talentless". Or invent preposterous contrapositions with imaginary people who think that swing is not real jazz. Even if I still remember you defining Ellington's music as horrible smooth jazz (by the way, Lush life too is a piece of Billy Strayhorn, his closest collaborator).
If you wanted just express your lack of tolerance for over indulgence, you would have said just that. But you're still repeating that "jazz noodling" (even if you're the first to admit that you have a superficial knowledge of the genre) represents the vast majority of the genre.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I'd be curious to know if a person who reduces a century of music to "jazz noodling" and "talentless" would define those of Webern as "melodies".


Fortunately, definitions do not depend on the opinions of those who don't know what they're talking about.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

^^^ is a Moderator allowed to suggest that another poster doesn't know what they're talking about? :devil:

Well said, sir!


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> That's my interpretation of your bad attitude.
> Whatever argument I or anyone else would bring to prove that your generalization is just that (you have defined noodling "kind of blue" for god's sake, Miles Davis who had a "less is more" approach and sounds certainly much more restrained than most of the pieces I've posted above: Messiaen improvising, Ives, Sorabji) you would just keep repeating "jazz noodling" or occasionally "smooth jazz" and "talentless". Or invent preposterous contrapositions with imaginary people who think that swing is not real jazz (even if I still remember you defining Ellington's music as horrible smooth jazz (by the way, Lush life too is a piece of Billy Strayhorn, his closest collaborator).
> If you wanted just express your lack of tolerance for over indulgence, you would have said just that. But your keeping repeating that "jazz noodling" (even if you're the first to admit that you have a superficial knowledge of the genre) represents the vast majority of the genre.


I'm not repeating anything. I'm just replying to your assumptions about my motives for saying what I'm saying. I never said that you need to agree with my views on some of jazz or that you should even like my views on jazz. 
"Kind of Blue' was album that's most popular and if I remember correctly I read somewhere it was somethng like begining of modal jazz. After first few listenings of that album I was suffering how awful it was to listen to that and I couldn't understand what is the point and why I can't hear that heavenly beauty that people are talking about. Then I realized.... I am an idiot because I believed that there may be problem in me. Now I know that problem is in everybody else.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Fortunately, definitions do not depend on the opinions of those who don't know what they're talking about.


Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. I didn't hear any true fact from you so far. I can hear music. Other people, like you, must read if it's good or they're not able to say anything about it. 
So, tell me, ain't that sad?
I also don't talk to other people on this board about you. I am talking to you about you. I'm not passive agressive and immature person.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

It's really hilarious that some people still believe that ad hominem is valid argument. You all told on this topic more about me than about jazz. I don't talk about you guys.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

nikola said:


> Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. I didn't hear any true fact from you so far. I can hear music. *Other people, like you, must read if it's good or they're not able to say anything about it.
> So, tell me, ain't that sad?*


Sure.

Doesn't have anything to do with me personally, though. I trust my own ears before anything else. I also believe that my ears are imperfect and won't be able to catch everything that everyone else's can. Those things don't have to be considered mutually exclusive.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

nikola said:


> After first few listenings of that album I was suffering how awful it was to listen to that and I couldn't understand what is the point and why I can't hear that heavenly beauty that people are talking about. Then I realized.... I am an idiot because I believed that there may be problem in me. *Now I know that problem is in everybody else*.


Gosh! Its astonishing that such a genius, such an exemplar of critical judgement and good taste could have been overlooked for so long. How could such expertise be overlooked?


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Sure.
> 
> Doesn't have anything to do with me personally, though. I trust my own ears before anything else. I also believe that my ears are imperfect and won't be able to catch everything that everyone else's can. Those things don't have to be considered mutually exclusive.


Sure... that still doesn't mean that just because I believe that some segments of some music are crap makes me complete ignorant. Even if I would know all history about jazz I would still not like what I don't like. 
I know people who were bragging that they are playing few different instruments and they were still not able to recognize the big part of same melody in Zaz' 'Je Veux' and in 'Happy Together' from Turtles. 
I believe that there's no theory or knowledge to save such people from being obviously tone deaf. Theory about music is just a bunch of informations and music exist not because of theory, but because of experience while listening to it.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> I'm not repeating anything.


well, of your very elaborate criticism of the genre it would be interesting to see how many times you've repeated "jazz noodling". I don't think that there's much more than that actually.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Gosh! Its astonishing that such a genius, such an exemplar of critical judgement and good taste could have been overlooked for so long. How could such expertise be overlooked?


I don't know. Make a monument of me and kneel in front of it for hours. After many hours you're probably realize that I'm not always dead serious about everything I say.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> well, of your very elaborate criticism of the genre it would be interesting to see how many times you've repeated "jazz noodling". I don't think that there's much more than that actually.


Maybe we should count how many times I said it. We should also count how many times you were talking about me instead about jazz. I'm pretty much sure you would win in that battle.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

nikola said:


> Sure... that still doesn't mean that just because I believe that some segments of some music are crap makes me complete ignorant. Even if I would know all history about jazz I would still not like what I don't like.


I absolutely agree on this even if personally I've changed ideas on many things in time, I've been proven wrong a lot of times by experience (just to name a composer I've mentioned: for a long time I didn't know what to do of Webern's music, now I can't stop to listen his music).
But maybe you would realize that to say "almost of jazz is noodling, but with few exceptions" or something like that is not exactly true. You would probably find that in jazz there's a huge diversity very far from this narrow idea you seem to have, and maybe you could even start to like some of that stuff.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I absolutely agree on this even if personally I've changed ideas on many things in time, I've been proven wrong a lot of times by experience (just to name a composer I've mentioned: for a long time I didn't know what to do of Webern's music, now I can't stop to listen his music).
> But maybe you would realize that to say "almost of jazz is noodling, but with few exceptions" or something like that is not exactly true. You would probably find that in jazz there's a huge diversity very far from this narrow idea you seem to have, and maybe you could even start to like some of that stuff.


I can certainly agree with that to some extent. Sometimes we don't like something at first and later we become crazy about it. We change, our perception changes etc. I was like that some 20 years ago... I heard something and I didn't like it. Later I started to love it. Today it is slightly different. I am more grown up. When I listen to something I don't tend to disregard something or to praise to the sky before I listen to it more times. 
I do like improvisations sometimes, but it's not secret that I'm pretty much bigger sucker for melodies. Not necessarily in sense that I would like only some simple and predictable melodies. That's why I'm not fan of blues and some folk music.

On the other hand from classical music probably my most favorite piece ever is 'Adagietto' from Mahler. I also like what Michael Nyman is doing with music.... it's almost like he's playing with it and discover some interesting patterns that he combines. He may sound sometimes too much mechanical, but there's something very seductive in his so called 'minimalistic' music.

To me personally I like Morricone the most because of brilliant melodies he can deliver and all spectrum of emotions he can evoke in me. I'm not so much obseesed with certain styles. I know when I hear something does it tell something for me. I like mostly specific artists and groups and not so much genres. There are people with talent and without talent in many genres and that's why I can enjoy in some of classical music, jazz, country-folk-pop-rock, etc. 
I like when some composition can have some story and feelings in it... or when it can intrigue me with it's playful combination of tones. 
Unfortunatelly, considering jazz improvisations, especially modal/free jazz, that was never my thing. I would always more enjoy 'The Entertainer' composition from Scott Joplin than some long free jazz improvisations. From jazz, I could say that I like something like Henry Mancini soundtrack to 'Breakfast at Tiffany's'. A lot of catchy jazz there like it was made for me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oq0KBtzvdNA#t=161

I guess it's more lounge music than REAL JAZZ


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

nikola said:


> I can certainly agree with that to some extent. Sometimes we don't like something at first and later we become crazy about it. We change, our perception changes etc. I was like that some 20 years ago... I heard something and I didn't like it. Later I started to love it. Today it is slightly different. I am more grown up. When I listen to something I don't tend to disregard something or to praise to the sky before I listen to it more times.
> I do like improvisations sometimes, but it's not secret that I'm pretty much bigger sucker for melodies. Not necessarily in sense that I would like only some simple and predictable melodies. That's why I'm not fan of blues and some folk music.
> 
> On the other hand from classical music probably my most favorite piece ever is 'Adagietto' from Mahler. I also like what Michael Nyman is doing with music.... it's almost like he's playing with it and discover some interesting patterns that he combines. He may sound sometimes too much mechanical, but there's something very seductive in his so called 'minimalistic' music.
> ...


Yes pop, lounge/ easy listening that swings, more then "REAL JAZZ".

To me this isn't Muzak, there's clearly some craft involved in the album.

So you like this kind of "jazz" better and dislike Davis/ Coltrane - okay. Why don't you just listen to your kind of jazz and call it a day?


----------



## Musicophile (May 29, 2015)

Wow, can't believe this is still going round in circles.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> Yes pop, lounge/ easy listening that swings, more then "REAL JAZZ".
> 
> To me this isn't Muzak, there's clearly some craft involved in the album.
> 
> So you like this kind of "jazz" better and dislike Davis/ Coltrane - okay. Why don't you just listen to your kind of jazz and call it a day?


Probably because there is a thread where I can say that I don't like and why I don't like it. 
And that Henry Mancini work is certainyl not only kind of jazz I like. Like I mentioned in some earlier posts, I like dixie, swing, I like that dark jazz Badalamenti made for Twin Peaks. There are many different kind of jazz that I like.
I only don't like jazz that you guys find to be great and to be "REAL JAZZ" that is actually to me fake jazz just like those who play it. Some stuff from Coltrane even I like, but not much of anything from Davis.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

nikola said:


> Probably because there is a thread where I can say that I don't like and why I don't like it.
> And that Henry Mancini work is certainyl not only kind of jazz I like. Like I mentioned in some earlier posts, I like dixie, swing, I like that dark jazz Badalamenti made for Twin Peaks. There are many different kind of jazz that I like.
> I only don't like jazz that you guys find to be great and to be "REAL JAZZ" that is actually to me fake jazz just like those who play it. Some stuff from Coltrane even I like, but not much of anything from Davis.


Okay, cool.

You don't like much Davis, other people do. Now that that's settled.

Yes I like Jazz. Personally I don't listen to a lot of Free Jazz, so if anyone wants to recommend anything go ahead. It's probably been my second most listened to genre (specifically 50's and 60's and some modern Jazz) and I love Jazz on the guitar.

I've been reading an interview with a certain Black female Jazz musician, and she was complaining about how modern "college white kids" (white musicians aged 30-40 which she says are great technicians) are ruining the scene by over-intellectualizing it and neglecting the essence or "soul" of Jazz. Pretty interesting - does anybody who follows the scene have an opinion on that?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> I've been reading an interview with a certain Black female Jazz musician, and she was complaining about how modern "college white kids" (white musicians aged 30-40 which she says are great technicians) are ruining the scene by over-intellectualizing it and neglecting the essence or "soul" of Jazz. Pretty interesting - does anybody who follows the scene have an opinion on that?


If I had to judge to the things I've listened I absolutely agree. I don't pretend that everybody should be a Mingus or Art Pepper or Albert Ayler and I have no problem with cerebral or complex music (some of my favorite musicians are Andrew Hill, Wayne Shorter, Herbie Nichols, Jimmy Giuffre, Eric Dolphy, Booker Little, Ran Blake and stuff like that) but when I hear the music of guys like (just an example) Kurt Rosenwinkel I can't help but think exactly that. A lot of recent music I've heard sounds complex, but in a academic and dry way, maybe I can appreciate certain things but often it leaves me cold. But maybe it's just that I don't know enough, anyway this is my impression and I know that there are other people who said a similar thing. Recently I've read an important italian jazz producer saying exactly the same.
Who is the singer who said that?


----------



## johnnysc (Aug 3, 2015)

I listen to jazz a lot. Mainly old school and mainly sax.....Hawkins, Hodges, Webster, Parker, Coltrane, etc.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Unfortunatelly, most of jazz was always to me over-intellectualized music, especially modal, free jazz and probably hard bop. It's like you must listen to it with your mind or intellect instead with your emotional response and I don't like that kind of music. I must feel it in some way or it has to intrigue me somehow. I noticed that many times people write the most and even many books about music that I don't like while about music that I like there's not so much to say. Music should primarily speak for itself. If it can't speak for itself, then you have to write a book about it, I guess.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

norman bates said:


> If I had to judge to the things I've listened I absolutely agree. I don't pretend that everybody should be a Mingus or Art Pepper or Albert Ayler and I have no problem with cerebral or complex music (some of my favorite musicians are Andrew Hill, Wayne Shorter, Herbie Nichols, Jimmy Giuffre, Eric Dolphy, Booker Little, Ran Blake and stuff like that) but when I hear the music of guys like (just an example) Kurt Rosenwinkel I can't help but think exactly that. A lot of recent music I've heard sounds complex, but in a academic and dry way, maybe I can appreciate certain things but often it leaves me cold. But maybe it's just that I don't know enough, anyway this is my impression and I know that there are other people who said a similar thing. Recently I've read an important italian jazz producer saying exactly the same.
> Who is the singer who said that?


Sorry for taking so long to reply... it was Virginia Mayhew.

You can find the book "Jazzwomen: Conversations with Twenty-One Musicians" on google.

That segment specifically is on page 224.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

nikola said:


> Unfortunatelly, most of jazz was always to me over-intellectualized music, especially modal, free jazz and probably hard bop. It's like you must listen to it with your mind or intellect instead with your emotional response and I don't like that kind of music. I must feel it in some way or it has to intrigue me somehow. I noticed that many times people write the most and even many books about music that I don't like while about music that I like there's not so much to say. Music should primarily speak for itself. If it can't speak for itself, then you have to write a book about it, I guess.


Not a comment I'd expect to read on a Classical music site.


----------



## Musicophile (May 29, 2015)

nikola said:


> Unfortunatelly, most of jazz was always to me over-intellectualized music, especially modal, free jazz and probably hard bop. It's like you must listen to it with your mind or intellect instead with your emotional response and I don't like that kind of music. I must feel it in some way or it has to intrigue me somehow. I noticed that many times people write the most and even many books about music that I don't like while about music that I like there's not so much to say. Music should primarily speak for itself. If it can't speak for itself, then you have to write a book about it, I guess.


I know it is probably pointless, but especially hard bop out of your list is music that is nothing but pure emotions: If it's well done, it swings like crazy. I can't listen to any good Lee Morgan or Horace Silver album without going into silly looking movements that makes my wife think I'm an epileptic. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing. This is just so much the exact opposite of what you're describing.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Musicophile said:


> I know it is probably pointless, but especially hard bop out of your list is music that is nothing but pure emotions: If it's well done, it swings like crazy. I can't listen to any good Lee Morgan or Horace Silver album without going into silly looking movements that makes my wife think I'm an epileptic. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing. This is just so much the exact opposite of what you're describing.


Well, my suspicion all along since Nikola entered this thread is that he hasn't really listened to much of this music. Some of my posts have been deleted by the moderator for pointing out his uninformed opinions, so go figure. To quote him, "...and probably hard bop."

He includes modal jazz as being too intellectual. Let's take the most famous example, which would be Kind Of Blue. Miles had some basic sketches which he presented to the musicians, and then they rolled the tape. The results were purely spontaneous. There wasn't a lot of intellectualizing and prolonged conceptualizing going on. Bill Evans stated this approach in his short essay for the album.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

I don't claim and it's not even my intention to claim that I know everything about jazz and all it's subgenres. I was never interested to know that much. When I don't like what I hear I will say that I don't like what I hear. I don't want to learn more about it.
Yes, there is some jazz that I do like a lot and like I said earlier, if there were no jazz, most of the music that I love would not sound the same. Elements of jazz are incorporated in many genres today. 
To me 'Kind of Blue' could be unfortunatelly one of the best examples why I don't like that kind of jazz. And yes, there were books and many texts written about that album and that is over-intellectualizing something that doesn't deserve such attention. That's my opinon.
The problem could also be in terms because when I hear something that I like it may have for some other ear too many 'pop' elements etc. so it's not probably 'real jazz'. 
Same with metal music which I truly can't stand. When I hear in metal something that is remotely good, I don't even consider it to be real metal even if it's something more melodic and creative from band like Metallica. 
To me metal is infantile screaming about demons, dragons and zombies while raping guitars at same time. Everything that doesn't suck that much in metal is hard-rock or something else to me. 
There is no need to take all that personal because there is many music out there that I can't stand from the bottom of my guts even though majority of people like to praise it. 
Bad music has many faces and it can disguise itself into something artsy-fartsy. I could be wrong of course. That's just my view on music.

So, I actually admire jazz, but the question is, do I admire REAL jazz or something that is not real jazz? 
Maybe the main problem in some jazz is that I don't find it enough creative, original and atmospheric, especially when they noodle. It all sounds same to me.

I do love something like this:








and I even don't know is this jazz, but I love it:





So, I do like improvisations, but I'm pretty much sucker for meaningful melodic bases and ideas that aren't destroyed in some neverending orgies on instruments. But there is big difference between guy like Badalamenti who is master of strong atmosphere and he doesn't think like jazz musician even though he is into some jazz while music of many jazz musicians I could only listen and experience from some mathematical point of view, but such music is not music to me... it fails to catch the meaning of music. 
The thing is that I don't like to trivialize music because if we trivialize it, everything is 'great' then and we don't do favor to such big art like music is then.
That doesn't mean that I'm more right than anybody else, but it means that I kinda don't have problem with stating my opinion and saying what I think about sacred music cows sometimes. 
I've heard a tons and tons of music in my life, but I'm still not guy who will in one day listen to 10 albums and pretend that I love and accept everything in music. No, I don't accept 90% of it. I hate it and I can't pretend that I like it. That doesn't mean that I'm not open to many different genres.


----------

