You must log in or register to comment.
So, what you are saying is, I need to make a jazz band that does 30 second songs.
Punk jazz
Grindcore jazz!
Not bad, I kinda dig it
I feel like this is the image that kills the meme
Your welcome 🤗
All music is made better by adding blast beats!
A jizz band
Jizz is already a musical style, its what those aliens play in the cantana in star wars.
That’ll be John Zorn’s band Naked City. Try their album Torture Garden, featuring such tunes as Jazz Snob Eat Shit
Sounds like it can be up to 59 seconds long and still work.
“It’s like, we get it, you can blow a trumpet. Wrap it up, Elton John!”
Oh yes, Elton John, famous trumpet jazzy.
(Love the good place, just watched that episode)
Smooth Jazz yes, but when there’s improvisation I tend to nope right out. Smooth jazz, big band, ragtime - all play the same way each time but for different focus (like big band/swing is for dance).
The only time I’ll tolerate improvisation jazz is while eating dinner when it’s socially acceptable to ignore the music and leave when done eating.
Improvisation can be really good when you get someone talented who’s actually applying music theory (many jazz musicians do this).
But when you get avant-garde, the whole point is basically about throwing music theory out the window. It’s supposed to be radical/deconstructionist/post-modern, but personally I think it sounds like crap.
Some people think I’m being snooty when I say this, but it sounds like dadaism on a saxophone. Some people claim to like it that way, but I’m pretty certain they’re just saying that to be edgy.
Philosophically, it’s the jazz equivalent of noise metal.
People listen to music for different reasons. Sometimes it’s to be entertained, sometimes it’s to experience something else.
If you really understand music theory, you’ll see that it’s a science, with math at its core. The art is in how the science is applied.
If a painter forgets the color wheel, they won’t be able to mix colors to get what they want. They’ll wind up with a bunch of browns when they wanted greens and purples. If they forget the fundamentals like lines and forms and negative space, they’ll end up with shapeless blobs.
I mean I guess some people like abstract art, and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend music theory is just some relic of colonialism. It isn’t eurocentric to believe harmonious and rhythmic music sounds better than music that isn’t.
I’m gonna straight up disagree here. All your points are mislead. There’s math in music, but music isn’t just math.
A quick example. If you listen to contemporary GenZ music, you’ll notice a ton of extremely happy songs, that are in minor scales. This usually trips classically trained musicians because, well, major = happy, minor = sad, was the science for the past 400 years. However, this is not a natural imperative, it was a cultural quirk of western musical tradition. Contemporary pop, is doing away with it as younger composers and producers experiment with modal theory and unorthodox rhythmical structures and find wild commercial success with younger audiences.
Then you have some young bands like Angine de Poitrine (of recent viral fame), that just flips over your arguments by making microtonal polyrithmic music that is perfectly scientific and mathematically organized yet it sounds alien. Music is art, get over it. If people likes it, science has no power over it. Music theory is, precisely, just some relic of colonialism.
There’s math in music, but music isn’t just math.
I didn’t say it was just math. I said the art is in applying the science. And that holds through all of your arguments.
you’ll notice a ton of extremely happy songs, that are in minor scales. This usually trips classically trained musicians because, well, major = happy, minor = sad, was the science for the past 400 years
No, the mood is in the application. That’s part of the art. The science is in how many microtonals are between notes on a scale. In western musical systems thats 12-12-6 (whole step - whole step - half step). There are other musical systems, but the science is still underlying.
Contemporary pop, is doing away with it as younger composers and producers experiment with modal theory and unorthodox rhythmical structures and find wild commercial success with younger audiences.
Again, that experimentation is in the application. That’s the art. The concepts they’re experimenting with: modal theory and rhythmic structures (whether orthodox or unorthodox) are the science. They can be described numerically. All the qualia which result from their application are the art aspect, but the building blocks of those qualia are quantitative and precise.
that just flips over your arguments by making microtonal polyrithmic music that is perfectly scientific and mathematically organized yet it sounds alien
The “alien” sound is the qualia; that’s an aspect of the application. In other words, the art. The microtonals and polyrhythmics are fundamentally mathematical, and thus a science.
There’s a lot you can do with baking. Even unconventional. But to deny that baking is science at its core, and an art in its application would be wildly ignorant.
Music is art, get over it.
I never said it fucking wasn’t, but there is a science underlying it. Get over it.
If people likes it, science has no power over it. Music theory is, precisely, just some relic of colonialism.
Some people like flat earth theory and being unvaccinated, are you saying science has no power over that?
Yes, people can like unconventional music. I never said they can’t. Convention itself is about application. Unconventional implies something about the art, or the application of the science. That doesn’t change anything about the underlying science.
Music theory is, precisely, just some relic of colonialism.
That’s a wildly ignorant statement, since many cultures have their own musical systems. Music theory isn’t just western notation, and if that’s how you’re thinking of it then you’re the one with the colonized mindset.
By quantitatively analyzing microtonals, rhythm, meter, and tempo, a musical work from any musical system can be understood by its fundamentals. This says nothing about the art or the expression or the qualia or people’s preferences, because those are all aspects of the application of those fundamentals. But that doesn’t change the fact that the fundamentals themselves are intrinsically mathematical and scientific.
Wow, so many words to say so little. Jazzists forgot nothing, if anything they are usually the most classically trained musicians you can find. It bears nothing with your asinine tangent. Just like in art, avant garde jazz musicians and dadaist painters were usually the technical cream of the crop of their fields. If it is a matter of taste, leave it at that. But it has nothing to do with knowing music theory and prescriptivist notions of what music is or ought to be.
Just because you didn’t understand anything that I said doesn’t mean I said little.
Jazzists forgot nothing, if anything they are usually the most classically trained musicians you can find.
I never claimed otherwise. But if you don’t understand what avant-garde is, just say so. Because you’re honestly embarrassing yourself at this point.
It bears nothing with your asinine tangent.
- It’s not a tangent, it cuts straight to the core of what this argument is about.
- Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it asinine.
Just like in art, avant garde jazz musicians and dadaist painters were usually the cream of the crop of their fields. If it is a matter of taste, leave it at that.
I’m not arguing about taste. People can like avant-garde if they wish. They can like dadaism, sure. You can go see Yoko Ono live in concert, I’m not stopping you.
But what you don’t seem to understand is that there is a philosophical movement underpinning both avant-garde and dadaism. That philosophy is the deconstructionism of post-modernism. And it made the claim that because western musical notation originated in the west, that it’s associated with colonialism, and therefore an anti-colonialist movement should reject western-style music.
The error in that reasoning is, as I’ve pointed out multiple times, that “music theory” ≠ “western musical notation”. And you can continue digging in your heels while trying to conflate the two, but it doesn’t make you any less wrong.
But it has nothing to do with knowing music theory and prepcistivist notions of what music is or ought to be.
Dadaism and avant-garde were specifically about rejecting systematized conventions which were common in western styles of music. In order to reject something, you need to know what you’re rejecting. So no, it doesn’t “have nothing to do with knowing music theory.” Knowing music theory is at the core of the argument we’re having.
Also, music theory isn’t prescriptive. Nowhere in music theory is there a claim that “this is what ‘good music’ is, and this is what ‘bad music’ is.” That’s a fucking caricature detached from reality. It’s closer to musical critique.
Music theory is descriptive, and the fact that you don’t understand that makes it abundantly clear that you don’t know anything about it. You’re literally pulling a dunning-kruger.
The art is in how the science is applied.
No, the art is how you express yourself. The theory is just “the way most people in a culture do it because other people in this culture like it”. There is certainly some biological reasoning behind it that is common across cultures, but it’s a fairly small part of music theory. Consider a simple question like “why are dissonant chords considered dissonant?” and it can lead you down a path of discovery.
It isn’t eurocentric to believe harmonious and rhythmic music sounds better than music that isn’t.
It absolutely is eurocentric to enforce western music theory as some holy book that separates good music from bad music. It’s a tool that helps you write music that sounds good to a western ear. But a lot of good music can disagree or break the norms of western music theory.
Hey you’re fighting the good fight with your really great replies to the ignorant replies you’re getting, more power to you.
I’ve seen some dumb takes on Lemmy but “science of music theory is western eurocentric colonialism” is a new low bar.
“science of music theory is western eurocentric colonialism” is a new low bar.
It is literally the core principle of modern ethnographic musicology. 50 years ago there were people claiming that eastern microtonality was a savage aberration.
You’re continuing to conflate “music theory” with “western notation.”
Music theory itself is far more expansive than that, and the fact that you’re pretending that only western notation counts as music theory is extremely problematic, and also the source of the disconnect.
Music theory has a history, and you seem to be completely ignorant of it.
This is honestly unrelated to my point but I’ll entertain it anyways.
But let’s not pretend music theory is just some relic of colonialism.
We don’t have to pretend tho.
Jazz borrows from western music theory but has its OWN theory.
It isn’t eurocentric to believe harmonious and rhythmic music sounds better than music that isn’t.
Are you proposing experimental jazz doesn’t have rhythm and harmony?
Music absolutely doesn’t need to have western rhythm and harmony to be enjoyable.
I thought it sounded poorly at first, but when I took a class from an experienced Jazz improvisation instructor I was able to build a deeper appreciation for the sound.
I personally feel it’s something that can grow on you the more you try to connect with what idea or emotions the musician may be trying to convey. Especially since that’s what the musicians are trying to do when picking up on each other’s signals while playing.
If they’re able to “pick up on other’s styles while playing” then they understand music theory enough to do that.
That falls under “improvisation while understanding musical theory.”
My criticism of avant-garde was different, not directed as a blanket statement about all jazz improvisation.
For avant-garde there are some stylistic elements you can pick up on such as a sense of things falling apart or even distress based on the way something is being played. The other musicians may add their own ‘voice’ in on the story good or bad.
It can still be a compelling story being conveyed but it’s not necessarily something you’d put on when you’re intending to relax.
To each their own.
I think of more avant garde stuff as a whole different category: like you’re tired of just listening to good music and now you want something weird and interesting that may fail but definitely tried.
You know like a rough indie video game or movie that might not be the most fun but tries to communicate something (to varying degrees of success).
Edit omg reading on, this thread turned into a whole thing. Music people…
Yeah, I mean it’s perfectly valid if you want to listen to avant-garde. No one’s stopping you.
My whole point is that the whole point of avante-garde is to reject musical conventions. That’s not an opinion, it’s literally what avant-garde is.
There’s a philosophical argument to be had about what defines music, and how does it differ from noise or sound?
Some people might say dadaism counts as music, others might say it doesn’t. And that depends on your definition of music.
I’d put it this way:
Does an audio recording of a construction site count as music? Or is it just noise?
Mind you, one can edit the recording and rearrange it into something musical. However, doing this would require an understanding of rhythm, tempo, meter, pitch, harmony, etc. These are the fundamentals of music theory which I describe as a science because they’re mathematics at their core, purely quantitative and descriptive.
They tell you nothing about how to use those concepts together to create “good music.” They simply define the components of music itself. How they’re arranged is up to the artist, and that whole range of expression is the art side of music.
One could argue that music doesn’t need to be melodious or harmonic or rhythmic or any of that. But if that’s the case, then how is it different from noise? Does that make the unedited construction site audio “music”?
I would argue that but I have a very broad interpretation of music and art in general and don’t actually care that much about categories.
I mean that’s valid, I’m not claiming that music has to be defined a particular way, even though if I were personally to define it I would probably include certain characteristics that distinguish it from noise. But I’m not claiming my personal definition is the only valid one.
The whole point of philosophy is to dig into ideas a little further than we ordinarily do. People can have different opinions, and that can stimulate good discussion. At least, as long as people don’t resort to bad-faith argumentation by misrepresenting someone else’s argument or taking other cheap shots like that.
What I mean is, although you say you don’t care about categories, do you consider the sound of a construction site to be music? If so, that’s fine, and I’m curious what your definition of music is. And if not, then I’m curious how you distinguish between noise and music. Is there any defining characteristic that places a collection of sounds squarely in one camp or the other, or is it entirely ambiguous?
For me all art is about communicating (feelings or thoughts that are hard to convey straightforwardly), and when I think about music I think of it as an art form that’s about communicating using sound waves. Typically this is done by producing waves using instruments and techniques that sound good when we process them. 99% of what I consider music and listen to falls in that broad category.
I don’t really think of construction sites as music, no. But I’m open to that lens.
Hypothetically, I can imagine an ear and a mind that would listen to the sound of a construction site and hear music. They would be able to interpret the different sounds symbolically and put together a story about what’s being constructed and what kind of a day had been had as a sort of working class opera.
It’s a bit of an absurd example and of course I can see how it’s not actually music in the music theory sheet music type of way. But if someone tells me their asonorous mixtape is music, then I’ll believe them that it’s music. It might not be good or even legible, but it’s some sort of attempt at communication.
This reminds me of the question: what’s the difference between work and play? Is it just that you’re compelled to do one for money? Does a game have to be fun? Does work have to be for money? I believe all of the same components can be said to fit into either of these two categories.
I suggest giving Keith Jarrett’s Koln concert a listen.
It’s the first piece of jazz I’ve ever been able to sit down and listen to from start to finish.
Sounds about right.
Improvisational jazz: “bro it’s been 84 measures of discordant shit, just resolve the damn thing already and play the root of the chord!”
This happened to me the first time I listened to BADBADNOTGOOD.
Got through most of an album and thought “whoah, I’ve been listening to jazz for ages”.
Tried some other jazz and thought “Hmm, maybe not”I’m no expert, but I think badbadnotgood is jazz fusion so that makes sense.
And keep looking for jazz you might like. It grows on some of us, over time.
Absolutely, I’m constantly on the lookout for new music. While the music I listened to as a teen had definetly ingrained in me my tastes I have noticed there’s a time and a place for most music.
The thing is, there are many kinds of jazz.
Smooth jazz? Cool.
Cool jazz? Sweet.
Progressive jazz? Alright!
Avant-garde? Err…
“You just ain’t never had it done right.”
Old musician’s joke “Do it once, it’s a mistake; do it twice, it’s jazz.”
This poster jazzes.
“Repetition legitimises”
"Jazz isn’t dead. It just smells weird. "
~ Frank Zappa
Joined! Love jazz. Been trying to learn jazz guitar for the last 10 years. In phases, granted. This time around I’ve stopped caring about scales and have embraced voice leading and chromaticity. Finally starting to get it, I think. Also, there’s this amazing channel on YT: things i learned from barry harris
Oh! Guitar is my second fave instrument. I’m no player but I dig Charlie Christian and Johnny Smith the most. Check them out if you’ve not come across them yet.
If my mind wanders away from it then back, I lose track and get annoyed, but it’s likely because I wasn’t paying attention and lost the plot a bit.
Jazz speaks in a way. If you drift from it a bit, you lose the conversation.
Every genera has a really really great few moments but those are only temporary and you are left only with a yearning for more and depression.
I think folks are just listening to the wrong jazz!
Here’s a few modern jazz or jazz fusion song recommendations from me worth checking out:
‘Ramen! Yes!’, ‘XYZ’, and ‘Balloon Pop’ by Hiromi’s Sonicwonder (also credited separately as Hiromi and Sonicwonder)
‘Desire’, ‘Knowledge’, ‘Prologue’, and ‘Fists of Fury’ by Kamasi Washington
and it’s bossa nova which I guess is technically samba not jazz, but I say close enough to still recommend ‘I Took the L’ by John Roseboro
Bonus recommendation if you’re open to heavy music (this is death metal jazz fusion!):
‘Eb (D#)’, ‘IQ69Exaltations,’ and ‘deBroglieNeverExisted’ by ByoNoiseGenerator
Like Classical, Jazz is not a casual musical language. It requires extensive knowledge by both the artist and the listener.
Edit: Getting some resistanc, which is more than fair. I was a bit flippant with this answer. Like most genres of music, when someone mentions it, people think of the style that they know most.
For me, jazz is best represented by BeBop, which MANY people are imagining when they think of dense, non-melodic jazz that they hate, and that’s what I was thinking of. To understand Bop, it really, really helps to understand the underlying music theory. Bird and Diz and Miles and Trane were doing some amazing things, that become even more amazing when you know the theory.
OTOH, if the mention of jazz calls up Big Band music, or the Smooth Jazz of the 90s, you wouldn’t need any more musical knowledge to enjoy those, any more than any other more popular music.
Those genres are legitimate jazz as well, as are others, and I am actually a huge Big Band fan, so I shouldn’t have been so dismissive.
I don’t know fucking shit about fuck and I still enjoy jazz longer than 30 seconds.
All yall need some Hiromi in your lives. Also some Snarky Puppy
Jazz gives you 30 seconds of “I get it” followed immediately by where is this song going and why am I being chased?
Nice one, though I prefer Philly Joe or Kenny Clark, but they’re from a different era.
Listening to a group just jamming in any genre is boring. Selecting the best parts and composing them into to a refined piece of music with a lot of deliberate thought behind it goes a long way towards creating something worthy of a listener’s time.
Oh man, I agree that sometimes jam sessions are boring, but I’ve heard many that are not.
You do you, but for me, some jams are just sublime, the longer the better in those cases.
For example -https://youtu.be/kAUs187IT4I
Norman Granz’ Jam Session #2 (1953)
Alto Saxophone – Benny Carter, Charlie Parker, Johnny Hodges
Bass – Ray Brown
Drums – J.C. Heard
Guitar – Barney Kessel
Piano – Oscar Peterson
Tenor Saxophone – Ben Webster, Flip Phillips
Trumpet – Charlie ShaversReal improv, real gone, man! :)
You’ve never been to a bluegrass jam, then. That’s a party, and there’re plenty of songs to go along with the tunes, too. The solos are short and go off, and then you’re back at it. A song or tune only lasts so long and there’s always movement to keep it alive(which is why I didn’t say old time fiddle music since it’s also very repetitive).
Jazz jams, as someone who swing dances, are generally incredibly meh. The core audience take themselves too seriously to create a fun atmosphere, and the solos all last waaay to long. They play for themselves, often to the point where even the band is disconnected from itself. My friend once played a recording of her friends at a jam for us to practice to and it was so bad that they weren’t even in time with eachother.
Go to your local bluegrass jam and relax. Playing music with others is really important.
