This is not a SFW instance. NSFW communities will be tagged, and efforts will be made to keep SFW communities clean, but proceed at your own comfort level.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Improvisational jazz: “bro it’s been 84 measures of discordant shit, just resolve the damn thing already and play the root of the chord!”
edit:
Roses are red, violets are blue, some people have autism doodliotoodat mmbat goodatgooctmapanda macamapandiddle patmaksboodliodoo dimpaoacmapaway choopamadampakampa shittlybittly gampapawakombucha shoodleeooowasasaampandaweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee dittlyittlybimbopadooooo oooooo oooooOoooooooOooOOoOOooooo chamimbamamdapaweeeee
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.
This is honestly unrelated to my point but I’ll entertain it anyways.
We don’t have to pretend tho.
https://youtu.be/Kr3quGh7pJA
Jazz borrows from western music theory but has its OWN theory.
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.
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.
It is literally the core principle of modern ethnographic musicology. 50 years ago there were people claiming that eastern microtonality was a savage aberration.
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.
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!”
edit:
Roses are red, violets are blue, some people have autism doodliotoodat mmbat goodatgooctmapanda macamapandiddle patmaksboodliodoo dimpaoacmapaway choopamadampakampa shittlybittly gampapawakombucha shoodleeooowasasaampandaweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee dittlyittlybimbopadooooo oooooo oooooOoooooooOooOOoOOooooo chamimbamamdapaweeeee
Smooth jazz is better 🖕