i've noticed a few people on here who seem to dislike jazz...may i offer some comments?

like any other category of music, there are those who do it well, and those who don't. similar to how there are tortoise-y bands, and ex-y bands, and fugazi-y bands, and danielson famile-y bands, there tends to be a small number of bands who are truly unique and innovative, and then there are countless spin-offs who graze the pastures past the dirt. there are those who can copy well, and those who can copy badly.

when it comes to jazz, i tend to make the distinction between "old" and "new": these days it seems to me like jazz is a lost cause, and i see no reason to even bother with it. when i am trying to pick a radio station (which is rare), the best choice is often old jazz--but if it's modern, i usually opt for silence. this is true with any latter-generation stuff...the rock that everyone avoids on any corporate radio station is just as bad. it can be decent, it can be listenable, it can be alright--but just as no-one wants a "decently" cooked steak, or a "decently"-operating car, or "decent" plumbing, why would anyone bother with "decent" music? i realise that all of this is bent on subjective taste, but aren't there some things that could be agreed upon as certain crap? like, the thousandth version of a theme that was composed in 1929?

i like artie shaw, and the dorseys. i do not like this modern, public wenking which passes for "jazz". i do not like a bunch of boring noodling that is supposed to be "free", and yet "structured" to the degree that jazz is--to me, the desire to do that defies logic. but to me, the old stuff wasn't doing that, it was just simple little songs that sounded pretty neat, played by people who loved traveling around and playing music, without caring about making a statement. but these old timers who sit around talking about what "jazz is supposed to be"...sitting in a folding chair, wearing a slightly-askew hat, eyes staring off into space, reaching into the air and spitting as they shout things that end with "yeah!" ...whatever.

blues, classical, it all follows this pattern (classical even more so, because it's fucking ancient compared to anything else).

am i the only person who wishes that it were possible to hear what kind of music regular people were making when classical started up and continued on? or what music in ancient greece must have sounded like?

i realise that one could say this for any kind of music--that lots of what is available is boring. but yet, i'd rather listen to a fourth-generation john coltrane spinoff than, say, dave matthews. so if there are still lesser evils, then why do i tend to write off about 90% of all the jazz i hear? has anyone else ever noticed this same tendency?

god, i am so bored,
jet.

do you consider don cab to be new jazz? i kinda think of some indie bands as being jazz (tortoise kinda treads into what i consider jazz territory, too). or, if they're still around, lozenge are/were kinda on the jazz tip, i thought, and in a pretty cool way. an "avant indie" kinda way maybe. my main issue with most jazz is that it has horns in it. i tend to hate horns. i also hate violins, just for the sound the instrument produces, almost always, but i think the trumpet is possibly the single most annoying instrument to me.

i like tweaky rock music. i think polvo rules. i think they are plenty jazzy for me. but in general, if it doesn't have an acoustic drum kit, an electric bass, and a couple guitars, i tend to not give a shit about it. *mostly*. debussy's piano stuff is an absolute exception to this generalization, though i can totally listen to it thinking of how it would translate to electric strings. well, i think it would, i've yet to try.

but yeah, in general, i like the idea of the freedom in jazz, and the fact that it's possibly gonna be different every time, that kinda stuff. the fact that good jazz usually involves outstanding musicianship. it's just i tend to not like the instruments used. and as far as why i don't listen to more jazz-fusion stuff, where it *is* electric guitar and bass and stuff, i don't exactly know. i don't really feel like going down that road. i already know john maclaughlin can play circles around any guitar player i really like. but yet i'd still pick slint or polvo over him any day, and pick them (in part at least) because i'm dazzled by their musicianship and songwriting. like older 90 day men stuff, too. indie jazzy something-or-other..i don't know exactly where that line is drawn, between "jazzy" and "too jazzy".

classical, i'm generally very put-off by the sound of an orchestra. blues, i understand blues as being something that people would love for the tone of it and/or the emotion of it, and/or you can drink to it or dance to it or whatever... to me though, pentatonic minor is in the "been done to death" category, and the song structures of most of the blues stuff i've heard tend to bore me to no end. i like curveballs, and the unexpected, and odd stuff that seems smooth and seamless, though it's actually really bizarre if you dig into it.

but yeah, i'd say don cab is a good indie rock jazz band, and they tread right along the line of "jazzy" versus "too jazzy" (that wanking sound that you were talking about, i think) and sometimes are on the right side and sometimes on the wrong. but on the whole, it's nice that they tread the line, rather than bore me to death.

i guess i do tend to like medieval-sounding music, guitar stuff anyways. although it's not electric.

and as far as wanting to hear older music in general, it's such a tough call. i guess it'd be good in the sense that it would make for a better-informed understanding of more modern stuff. but on the other hand, it might introduce a new influence into my playing that i don't necessarily want to introduce. hrm... hrm... lyre music... ehhhhh, i dunno.

something neat i would have thought was more modern, the raking of the guitar strings behind the nut...i'm pretty sure Les Paul did it in the intro section of the song "men at work", a looooong time ago. so it's always interesting for me to find out something is a lot older than i thought it was. jazz can be good for that. les paul was pretty amazing in the songwriting and playing aspects of his work, but i think (not sure) as mary ford's singing became more a part of it, it kinda turned more into music for my grandparents than for me?

yeah, that just reminded me how glad i was to hear leadbelly for the first time.

big band. what about big band? on new year's, a guy from new york told me i need to listen to more big band if i fancy myself a drummer. if it wasn't for all those damn horns.

Jet,

I think the general dislike of jazz by many can largely be attributed to much of the same reasoning as most folks' dislike of classical. I feel that reason is that, initially, it is a 'scene' that is unfamiliar and 'foriegn' to many whom already have a 'family' in whatever rock genre or 'scene' they feel a part of and are comfortable with.

Initially where do you start in gaining an appreciation for either? The radio will, more likely than not, not capture the interests of discriminating rock fans any more than a good jazz or classical fan. The criteria for finding and choosing jazz or classical is different from rock, and involves learning a whole new 'history' and/or taxonomy from what the serious rock devotee is used to.

A common example in classical is: You're interested in a certain composer; what compositional piece do you begin with? What conductor? Which performer(s)? What location? What criteria will provide a 'better' experience than the others? This can only be frustrating to a neophyte.

Also, with jazz and classical - there seems to be a general disdain in the rock world for any formal music which may require an academic or 'disciplined' background. This approach must seem to many to be in opposition to a major ideological motive in rock, which emphasizes 'freedom from structural rules' irrespective of the fact that 98% of rock songs are based in structural forms that are quite established and often quite ancient or primitive. The perceived 'formality' of both jazz and classical must be off putting to many who feel a formal background is unnecessary to fully express one's self musically.

As far as your feelings toward newer jazz is concerned. I agree that jazz took a turn for the worse, and I can point out where it is. When rock became an entreched popular music form, the music business promoted the idea that 'all things must rock' - hence folks like Tony Bennet, Stan Kenton, and even Arthur Fiedler making 'rock' albums. When jazz took a major turn to incorporating rock elements, and then further watering it down with an 'adult contemporary' element - you end up with the Steve Winwood equivalent of jazz. This occurred more or less around 1962-66, and resulted in everyone from Martin Denny to Julie London, Miles Davis and Herbie Hancock being put in a position to 'rock' and hopefully be 'with it' enough to sell to the kiddies who were rushing to buy more goddamn Beatles records. Though much of the creeping rock influence in jazz was voluntary, I don't think the results are all that great, but occaisonally surprise. As Zappa said "Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny". The idea of purity is long gone though, and it is simply absorbed into other styles or rehashed.

I don't mind listening to a variation on a song from 1929 that was done 1000 times. If the performer or arranger can bring new vitality to a song that they feel emotionally or spiritually connected to, and do it well - I will enjoy it. The problem with 'Caravan' wasn't that it was done so often - as it was done so often horribly. I have versions of Caravan that cook, and will be timeless for their originality and fire.

I am particularly annoyed by the 'token' appreciation that jazz and classical recieves. Just cause a person owns a copy of 'A Love Supreme', 'Kind of Blue' (I fucking hate Miles Davis too, but that's another rant), or Beethoven's 5th, which sits on the shelf collecting dust; they suddenly attain some sort of 'refinement' becuase they 'listen to jazz' or classical. This is the same kind of total bullshit Rolling Stone magazine pulls when they list their '500 Greatist Albums of All Time' only to feature 'A Love Supreme', two Sinatra ablums from his peak, and Ella Fitzgerald's 'Sings Standards' albums as the only non-rock listings. To be that fucking arrogant to assume that there is so little outside the pantheon of rock music... And these are the four albums pointed to "for rock fans who might want people to think they're a little more well rounded".....sickening.

This is the same irritation I experience anytime someone starts in about Coltrane. He was pretty damn good, but there were many contemporaries that were as good if not better. Personally, I think Eric Dolphy was a thousand times more interesting and innovative than Coltrane. His is a name that goes mostly forgotton, it seems, by all but the most versed jazz fans.

Same thing with Stan Kenton. He was a major force in the shaping of 'west coast jazz' and 'progressive' big band jazz in the 50's. Now he is not so well remenbered as the Dorseys or Goodman, even though his influence in terms of musicians and 'styles' he brought to the fore was greater and occurred after the formers.

My distinction, as I said earlier, from the 'old' to 'new' is about 1966. For you, it sounds a bit earlier - maybe 1949? Either way there is greater material out there than what pop history often touts. Same thing ultimatly with rock.

As interested as you may be to hear popular music from the era of Haydn and Mozart, or ancient Greece. I am curious as to how music of the 20th century will be regarded 300+ years from now. I envision Zappa being preeminent and the Beatles being regarded at a pop-culture fad. Thing was 300 years ago, mass media didn't exist. Imagine a time when every band was a local band and every scene was local - until someone went travelling....

I also agree with your 90% statement. This generally holds true, and can probably be applied to all styles of music, consumer goods, movies, literature, retaurants, etc....

these days it seems to me like jazz is a lost cause, and i see no reason to even bother with it

Rock and roll could have been killed when Dion and the teeny boppers flooded the music. Somewhere some folks were treating the music proper and soon enough there was a British invasion and salvation for an entire era.

Jazz is. Many jazz musicians and fans would disagree that the thousandth cover of "A Night in Tunisia" was one too many. They might talk about the shitty mode blahbeddy blah or how lazy it was or something that even I could comprehend, but it has been passed down and retold so many times that even "Stepping Stone" could use a few more bands to cover it. Well, maybe not.

Without Charlie Parker we would have no rock to roll ah-bout. I bet there would be no Don Cab, or Fugazi, Minor Threat, Travis Tritt, Janet Jackson, or Enrique Iglesias. See it makes no sense logically to think about these people never existing as we know them, but trying to distinguish good jazz and bad by using the terms free and modern and like or dislike is the ultimate load of crap.

As my motivational guru told me, these are just reasons. You should simply choose what you want. If you write off 90% of jazz or think that blues might hold some sort of place in this world of evolving music, you are due for a shockwave of truth.

If one could even comprehend what 90% of all jazz is, they would probably not be writing about it in this forum. If you sort of like blues and think it might somehow relate to indie rock you are half way there. I guarantee there would have been no indie rock without blues. Yes, people still do it today. They play jazz and blues at this very moment. They play covers that have been done a thousand times, but they ain't ignorant to what came before.

Luckily some "jazzy" or "too jazzy" rock groups lace this style in their music to keep the teeny-bopping-Dion-shitgrin from taking over your soul. Yous gots lots of listening to do. Don't be an MTV show and just dismiss. Get on the bus, come in for the big win.

I conclude that 90% of indie rock is shit. Have a blessed day.

P.S. geiginni is like a mirror for myself. I see my statements as loosly based on actual knowledge. I just added that last sentence about 90%, to reflect back to the user, but all I really accomplished was proving my own ignorance. Gee, America is great ain't it?

damn dood, you smoke a lot of weed, don'tcha!

Good question....and odd....since your post came at 4:20....

Hmm.....

dawg, you don't even know how hard it was to time that right.

Since my enrollment in jazz band is paying for my entire semester (community college...), I've been listening to quite a bit of jazz.

In my jazz improv class we have to keep a listening log, and right there between Wes Mongomery and Pat Metheny, if put American Don.

Here are some of my qualms with jazz at this point, i may or may not grow out of them.

1.) The fundamental element of jazz is improvization, which i define as performing and composing at the same time. This however doesnt take into account the fact that most improvizations are simply "licks" that have be practiced and memorized depending on what key/progression which is used. This is especially true with those working with standards, simple 1/5 progressions, min7/maj7, you memorize what works and play it. So the entire concept of improvization is nearly void. Most performers are playing the same thing every night, albet subtle variatiations, but essentially the same runs. Thats essentially what Don Cab is doing, and I would not even go so far as to say that their songs are more pre-conposed to so-called "true jazz".

2.) White people have to business playing jazz. Period.


I do however love many jazz recordings, especially the period from Be-Bop (Charlie Park, Dizzy Gillepsie) and the response to Be-Bop, Cool Jazz (which Miles Davis started). And I really admire the way Duke Ellington composed music, writing parts for the individual people, his drummer was also a badass.

I'm pretty much obligated to have respect for Miles Davis, since he played huge rolls in the creations of three differant types of jazz; Be-Bop (he was Charlie Parker's replacement), Cool Jazz, and Fusion, which alot of people dont know he was involved in. Most people think that was when he sold-out. Adapting to the times is hardly selling out.

Anyway, I'm sure pretty much everyone on this board knows this information, just felt like having a little say.


Has anyone heard of the David Craig Group? I've seen them perform twice, David Craig is an amazing bass player (and leads the band), they also have a blind drummer who is one of the best i've seen.


Good thread by the way...

Peter Brotzmann's "Machine Gun" is more devastating than any metal I've ever heard. I think all rock musicians should own that album, just for inspiration. I like a lot of stuff from the height of the German free jazz era. Some of that stuff is really pretentious, emotionless and shallow, though. So I've had to pick and choose.

Watching (good) free improvisers is loads of fun!

Danm wrote:Thats essentially what Don Cab is doing, and I would not even go so far as to say that their songs are more pre-conposed to so-called "true jazz".

That's the point with Don Caballero (and now Battles), their songs are not improvised at all... the genius lies in the structure and their ability to recreate that structure on a regular basis.

Danm wrote:White people have to business playing jazz. Period.

Ah, come on, that's junk. In these days white people have just as much of a right to play jazz music as black people do.