Jazz... I don't get it

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Jazz... I don't get it

Post  sil on Tue May 17, 2011 2:18 am

If I am truly honest I don't really get it.
Maybe people, like me, who are not very used to listen to jazz like more easily vocal jazz than, for example, just swing without singing or, I don't know, free jazz (free jazz gave me headache whenever I tried to listen to it... but eventually I liked Ornette Coleman ). I think Billie Holiday is well liked by a lot of people including me.
I like Bill Evans' Waltz for Debby.
Jelly Roll Morton is great (not that others aren't).
Sometimes I like this and sometimes I like that, but I never like anything (except Billie Holiday) for a long time enough or in the most sincere emotion to say I REALLY like this, I dig it.

Why don't most of people like jazz?
Do you need to know music theory to really enjoy it? Suspect
Are we just simpletons and enjoying this music is not at our hand? cat
I guess is nothing about that.
Like Mourinho would say... ¿por qué? clown

sil

Posts : 371
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  pinhedz on Tue May 17, 2011 10:03 am

If you like Jelly Roll Morton, you probably would like much of the jazz from the 1920s and 1930s.

I tried listening to jazz from the oldest to the newest, starting from the time of the 1st world war. Much of my favorite music was from the period 1926-1942. I was surprised to find that many jazz fans dismiss the music before the late 1940s, claiming that jazz did not mature until after the 2nd world war.

For my part, I found it difficult to accept the changes in harmonic language and and attitude that I heard in the 1950s and 1960s. Coincidentally, it was in the 1950s that jazz stopped being popular, and became a music genre for a small audience of hep-cats and elitists.

We had a number of threads on the old ATU addressing this issue, and I asked a number of questions about what jazz people considered good after 1960-1970.

One of those threads was the be-bop thread: http://acrosstheuniverse.forummotion.com/t156-definition-of-bebop

Another was the harmolodics thread (about Ornette Coleman): http://acrosstheuniverse.forummotion.com/t235-there-s-got-to-be-more-to-harmolodics

And the jazz in the 1970s thread (Tiny Montgomery explains what's good): http://acrosstheuniverse.forummotion.com/t105-jazz-in-the-1970s

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  pinhedz on Tue May 17, 2011 10:12 am

Back in 2008 I was thinking I didn't get it, and we had this exchange of posts:


Pinhedz
Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:09 pm

You know those people that don’t get it, and they say things like “That’s not music--that’s just noise.”? I’m not one of them, of course. I always play it safe by saying “I’m reserving judgment for now.”

I’m not talking about “wrong" notes, which go way back to the '40s or earlier; I’m hep to wrong notes.

But there was something that started in the 60s--the earliest example I can point to is Jimmy Giuffre’s “Free Fall”--a kind of screaming, squealing sound. Giuffre was banished from recording for a long time after “Free Fall.”

John Coltrane, on the other hand, went even farther than Giuffre and was able to keep on recording. He had more players in his group than Giuffre, so there were multiple instruments screaming all together, as if they were trying to out-squeal each other.

John Coltrane outgrew chord changes and steady rhythm; he said that such things constrained him. There’s no question the new sound was unconstrained.

In HiFi/Stereo Review, Joe Goldberg wrote: “After the Ascension disc, and now this [Meditations] I cannot be scoured or scraped any more ... I feel only that I am being wildly assaulted, and must defend myself by not listening.”

Needless to say, I’m still reserving judgment, but when I read opinions like Goldberg’s I can sure enough relate.


Stan54

I have a very low tolerance for screeching "noise" music. But, that said, the difference between the good the bad and the just plain ugly is definitely there.

I think an analogy to modern art works. There are amateurs (like, oh... um... me) who have no training and only the most marginal understanding of what's really going on in the best paintings by artiats like Pollack (for one example) or Kandinsky (for another).

Or maybe poetry. The difference between e.e. cummings and some guy who abandons spelling and punctuationa and arranges lines in a random manner.

Or, I don't like hard rock music much at all; the same guitar solos over the same simutaneously hyper macho yet testicularly challenged vocals, BUT I regularly listen to Led Zeppelin who i enjoy enormously. It you think "Led Zep" you usually thing "guitar solo over screaching vocals" and yet if you listen there's SO much more going on.

Anyway... I think the same is true for avant garde noise music. The best is made by a sax player who could, if he chose to, pull up a chair and sit in with the Paul Whiteman Orchestra, no problem.

Perhaps then, it is a matter of ALL musical styles having 1% to 3% really good stuff and the rest dreck of one order or another. But in some styles the lesser stuff is still listenable where in others it's not.

I love Ascension, but not all the time.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  pinhedz on Tue May 17, 2011 10:15 am

Then I decided that maybe jazz was long over, and we had this exchange of posts:

pinhedz
Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:34 am

Uzi said the last jazz record of any kind was "Quasar" by the Jimmy Giuffre 4 (1985).

But I figured it was "Journey, Man!" by Jack Walrath and Hard Corps (1996).

But Herbie Hancock's latest came out in 2007--does that count?


Hosni

Uzi is a tosser. The last jazz album clearly was New Traditions in East Asian Bar Bands by John Zorn, put out on his Tzadik label.


pinhedz

At least that confirms that no new jazz has come out since the mid-1990s.


pinhedz

I just ordered this one from 2008. I'm optimistic that it might be jazz (even if dated jazz), I've got my fingers crossed (it has tunes by Elvis, The Duke, and Kermit):

http://www.amazon.com/Ballroom-Jack-Walrath/dp/B001ERJSLU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1267013549&sr=1-1

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  pinhedz on Tue May 17, 2011 10:30 am

At one point I got the notion that the so-called "jazz" of the modern era was not jazz at all, and demanded a new label:

pinhedz
Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:36 pm

'Tis often said that the Baroque era ended with the death of Bach in 1750. But there were composers who clung to the Baroque in music composition until 1800, and even a bit later.

Isn't the situation the same with jazz? It stopped being mainstream pop music when it was replaced by R&R in the 50s, and after the early '70s, I don't think the "sounds-like-jazz" test for judging new music as being jazz works any more.

Not that there isn't music recorded after the mid-70s that sounds like jazz-there's lots of that--but it only sounds like jazz because it's backward-looking. Some looks back to the '20s and 30s, some looks back to the '50s and '60s.

There is also lots of music--and some of it really good stuff--recorded after the early '70s that is called jazz and is not backward-looking, but for me it doesn't pass the "sounds-like-jazz" test.

I just think we need a new label--no big deal. We wouldn't want to put Mozart and Beethoven in the"Baroque" section just because we couldn't come up with a new label, would we?


pinhedz

Knowing how meticulous Bob Dylan fans are about sorting, ordering and filing their music collections, I thought I'd bring this proposal to the attention of the new arrivals.

This crisis of categorization is almost as acute as the problem of where to file Bob Wills.


Hosni

Never fear, it lives on in the form of dance floor friendly "acid jazz"




pinhedz

Yeahbut--I believe Cantaloupe Island was recorded by Herbie Hancock in 1964. Do you see the problem?


felix

pinhedz wrote:where to file Bob Wills.
Under the X in Texas (or as Hank Wangford used to put it - under the eggs in Tesco's). Know what you mean - is he country? or is he jazz? or is he swing? or is he dance? or ... what?


TinyMontgomery

pinhedz wrote:I just think we need a new label--no big deal. We wouldn't want to put Mozart and Beethoven in the"Baroque" section just because we couldn't come up with a new label, would we?
So basically you'd prefer to call Bach a Baroque composer only, Brahms a Romantic composer only and not call all of them composers of 'classical music' for the sake of continuity?

I think that every kind of jazz has to be backward-looking by definition. Most artists know much about the tradition they're a part of. The 'sounds-like-jazz' test is irrelevant from that angle and I think that a new label would add even more confusion.

The basic dichotomy in jazz music has been existent since the days of Sinatra swing vs. Basie swing (at least!). R&B/RnR became the new Sinatra swing (swing as pop music). While jazz music turned towards Bebop and many other kinds of jazz most of the older traditions survived (ask your local Dixieland band). We may have a post-bop vs. new streams debate nowadays but it's nothing new. We had a neo-classicism vs. classicism debate in the 80s, a fusion vs. trad debate in the 70s, a mod jazz vs. free jazz debate in the 60s etc.

It's a futile discussion if you ask me. Labels are good to get a grip because life will become too confusing without them. However, they should be thought categories and nothing else. Is 'Sketches of Spain' a jazz record? Is 'Picasso' a jazz tune? Is Zorn a jazz musician? Was Gillespie? It doesn't matter too much to me, really.


= ANDY =

Personally I think of jazz more as a way to approach music rather than as a strictly defined genre.

A lot of pop-genres can easily be defined by a set of characteristics on which most people in general will tend to agree.
A serious discussion on this board about the differences "rock 'n' roll" & "soul" would probably not lead to heated debates.
And still, those genres are much more a like than record such as Birth of the cool, Brötzmanns' Machine Gun or Headhunters are alike.

I would say that jazz is a large field, mainly a side-branch of popular music, often intrumental - even vocals are often used more instrumentally than in other branches of popular music -with an outspoken tendency toward improvisation and innovation.


TinyMontgomery

Great post, andy!

The 'side-branch of popular music' I don't agree with. But apart from that...great post!


= ANDY =

I'm not sure if 'side-branch' is exactly what I mean.

I would say that jazz has a more specific fanbase - if you can speak of a fanbase for an entire 'genre' - than most other forms of popular music.
People that aren't really all that much into soul, may still like James Brown, Aretha Franklin or Diana Ross. People that don't like pop may still like some stuff from ABBA or Madonna, you don't have to be rap-fan to appriciate some stuff Eminem did, etc.

At least nowadays, this doesn't really seem to be the case for anything related to jazz except maybe for "smooth jazz" and "lounge". Whenever I'm talking about jazz with people who are not into it, basically all they say is 'I really don't know anything about it (and usually they add: but I don't like it, it's making me nervous)'.

A non-jazz fan couldn't probably hum a single Miles Davis-tune, while you don't have to be a big rock-n-roll fan to be able to hum an Elvis or Beatles-tune.

Which is basically why I called it a side-branch - it's father apart from other pop-music genres than those genres are apart from each other.

Not sure if that makes sense?


pinhedz

=ANDY= wrote:Personally I think of jazz more as a way to approach music rather than as a strictly defined genre.
I think Jelly Roll Morton would agree. There are recordings of him demonstrating that one can play opera arias and overtures in a manner that turns them into jazz. But I'm not sure this means jazz is not a genre.

Anyways--I see that I went badly astray when I wrote my original post. I started out trying to say "Jazz is dead!" hoping that such an outrageous statement might start a fight (It was very slow
here at the time). But somehow I got derailed and ended up fretting about categories and labels. But, you have to expect that from a pinhed.

So what do you think--is jazz dead?


TinyMontgomery

Hell no! It doesn't even smell funny as far as I'm concerned!


TinyMontgomery

Hillbully Trifle wrote:A non-jazz fan couldn't probably hum a single Miles Davis-tune, while you don't have to be a big rock-n-roll fan to be able to hum an Elvis or Beatles-tune.
Which is basically why I called it a side-branch - it's father apart from other pop-music
genres than those genres are apart from each other.

Not sure if that makes sense?

I don't think that jazz is a part of the 'popular music' tradition at all.
True, it is based on the blues like most American pop music but I tend to think of it as a different musical tradition altogether (there has been some crossing over, notably in early and (yuk!) Scandinavian jazz).

And there actually is a jazz album for jazz haters: It's called 'Kind of Blue'.


pinhedz

But jazz took over popular music in the 1920s, and continued to dominate (as swing) in the 1930s and 1940s. It wasn't until the 1950s that it went into serious decline as popular music.


= ANDY =

Yeah, I was also more refering to the origins of jazz when I called it a side-branch of popular music. Of course, it all depends on what exactly one means with 'popular music' - a very broad term which may mean many different things depending on the time and place you are talking about.
Basically I think that I meant that it's fundementally not classic, orchestrated music: in the use of instruments, band line-ups, basic tune-structures it's much closer to popular genres than to classic music.

What makes it a stand-out in popular music is that most jazz-players - like most players of classic music - are well-schooled whereas the average blues or rock - guitarist is usually self-thaught and fairly ignorant when it comes to music theory.

Kind of blue is indeed an album that's fairly popular among people that aren't jazz-affectionados at all, but I believe its impact outside of jazz is still rather limited.
It's still an album you have to listen to with some attention to get to know it - it's not something you are going to hear over and over on the radio.


pinhedz

When I say popular music, I essentially mean the Hit Parade, Top-40, or whatever the equivalent is depending on time and place.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  pinhedz on Tue May 17, 2011 8:59 pm

Andy chipped in, too.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  sil on Tue May 17, 2011 9:38 pm

Andy, when I read you wrote some people say "jazz makes me nervous" I thought of what I wrote "free jazz gave me a headache"... it didn't really gave me a headache, it made me nervous. Early jazz is easy listening compared to later jazz, I think. I like that post you wrote about jazz having a more "defined" fanbase. That's what I meant.

I have a place at home where I leave the albums I really like and another place for the rest. The jazz "packet" is always moving from one place to the other.

Pinhedz, thank you for reposting that.
Were you trying to put a new label to modern era jazz so you could say "I like jazz" without a "but"? tongue
You know, I just want to listen to jazz to say "I like jazz" (just kidding)

sil

Posts : 371
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  pinhedz on Tue May 17, 2011 11:34 pm

guacamayo wrote:
Were you trying to put a new label to modern era jazz so you could say "I like jazz" without a "but"? tongue
I think my reason was that I was applying LongJohns "sounds-like-jazz" test. Jazz from the 1930s sounds like it evolved from the jazz of the 1920s, swing and 50's jazz sounds like it evolved from the jazz of the 1930s, and the "sounds-like-jazz" test works all the way through Charlie Parker, John Coltrane (some of it), Miles Davis and Bill Evans.

But after that, I feel like jazz did not change any more. There is new music, but it doesn't sound like jazz. I would call John Zorn classical.

Not that there isn't music recorded after the mid-70s that sounds like jazz-there's lots of that--but it only sounds like jazz because it's backward-looking. Some looks back to the '20s and 30s, some looks back to the '50s and '60s.

There is also lots of music--and some of it really good stuff--recorded after the early '70s that is called jazz and is not backward-looking, but for me it doesn't pass the "sounds-like-jazz" test.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  TinyMontgomery on Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:09 am

pinhedz wrote:Not that there isn't music recorded after the mid-70s that sounds like jazz-there's lots of that--but it only sounds like jazz because it's backward-looking. Some looks back to the '20s and 30s, some looks back to the '50s and '60s.

There is also lots of music--and some of it really good stuff--recorded after the early '70s that is called jazz and is not backward-looking, but for me it doesn't pass the "sounds-like-jazz" test.

I think that the "sounds-like-jazz" test is one of these perfectly subjective arguments LJ is (in)famous for.

Early Kansas City Jazz didn't pass the "sounds-like-jazz" test at all if you asked a band from New Orleans.

Bebop definitely didn't pass the "sounds-like-jazz" test in its day.

Mod Jazz, Free Jazz, Fusion didn't pass the "sounds-like-jazz" test and many contemporary musicians who claim to be
making jazz music don't pass it either.

At every fork in the road it's up to you whether you open up the concept of jazz for the new music or if you don't.
There have always been musicians who claimed to play jazz while many of the jazz purists just shook their heads.
Personally, I have massive problems with calling the pile of rubbish rolling down from Scandinavia over the last 20 years or so "jazz" but
quite possibly because a) I don't like that kind of music and think it couldn't hold a candle to what I'd consider to be jazz; b) it just doesn't pass the "sounds-like-jazz" test for me. In my book Gulda playing Bach might pass the test, Nils Landgren probably never will.

TinyMontgomery

Posts : 89
Join date : 2011-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  pinhedz on Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:11 am

TinyMontgomery wrote:Early Kansas City Jazz didn't pass the "sounds-like-jazz" test at all if you asked a band from New Orleans.
Gunther Schuller explained that in his attempt to define "swing." He said that in Kansas City dotted rhythms were played in the ragtime manner--which is to say they were played the way dotted rhythms are written--while Louis Armstrong played the same rhythms as triplets. The way Louis played dotted rhythms is considered by classical musicians to be laziness that becomes a bad habit. But Schuller (who knows a classical thing or two) said it made Louis swing, and Louis made the Kansas City musicians sound jerky.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  pinhedz on Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:14 am

TinyMontgomery wrote:Personally, I have massive problems with calling the pile of rubbish rolling down from Scandinavia over the last 20 years or so "jazz" but quite possibly because a) I don't like that kind of music and think it couldn't hold a candle to what I'd consider to be jazz; b) it just doesn't pass the "sounds-like-jazz" test for me.
Isn't it mostly just dixieland imitation, or are they doing something else now?

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  TinyMontgomery on Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:57 am

pinhedz wrote:
TinyMontgomery wrote:Personally, I have massive problems with calling the pile of rubbish rolling down from Scandinavia over the last 20 years or so "jazz" but quite possibly because a) I don't like that kind of music and think it couldn't hold a candle to what I'd consider to be jazz; b) it just doesn't pass the "sounds-like-jazz" test for me.
Isn't it mostly just dixieland imitation, or are they doing something else now?

I think it doesn't sound like Dixieland at all. It's some kind of ambient music or simplified rock idioms with a trumpet or a trombone player leading the pack. The two reasons they call it jazz seem to be a) the instrumentation (trumpet, trombone); b) the fact that no-one is singing.

Listen to Nils Landgren or Nils Petter Molvaer - you'll know what I mean. I think Jan Garbarek was one of the founders of this "nu jazz" movement.

TinyMontgomery

Posts : 89
Join date : 2011-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  pinhedz on Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:07 am

TinyMontgomery wrote:Listen to Nils Landgren or Nils Petter Molvaer - you'll know what I mean. I think Jan Garbarek was one of the founders of this "nu jazz" movement.
Now I see--you're talking about something "nu."

I was thinking of this:



It passes the "sounds like" test, but has nothing remotely "nu."

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  pinhedz on Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:36 am

I think this is Austrian rather than Scandinavian.

Not groundbreaking, but I think I'd go to hear it:


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  Guest on Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:24 am

Now I like this much




and this


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  pinhedz on Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:04 am

If you like it, is that the same as to get it? geek

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  Guest on Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:46 am

hehehe I thought of that question when I sent my previous post in this thread. Now I have the answer... I don't know why I've been blessed with wisdom this evening... scratch
If it is a sincere liking the answer is yes (there are likings that are like "it pleases me but I could be doing something better").
A different thing is to know what's going on. I liked Mulholland Drive a lot but I didn't really know what was going on in the movie. I liked it and I got it. "Getting it" is a more subtle knowledge than knowing what's going on, it's like meeting what you already met in some other life (I'm being pretentious on purpose... the ridiculous part is just a nature's gift).


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  pinhedz on Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:11 am

asdf wrote:Now I like this much
It's hard to fathom now, but when "Take Five" was first released, some critics said that it could not be considered JAZZ, because jazz is always in 4/4 time. Rolling Eyes

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  Guest on Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:32 pm

I've just read there's a version with lyrics.

Won't you stop and take
A little time out with me
Just take five
Stop your busy day
And take the time out
To see if I'm alive

Though I'm going out of my way
Just so I can pass by each day
Not a single word do we say
It's a pantomime and not a play

Still, I know our eyes often meet
I feel tingles down to my feet
When you smile, that's much too discreet
Sends me on my way

Wouldn't it be better
Not to be so polite
You could offer a light
Start a little conversation now
It's alright, just take five
Just take five


Too good to be by Bob, right? tongue


I found this


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  pinhedz on Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:21 pm

How about this?


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  woo on Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:13 am

.


Last edited by woo on Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:43 am; edited 1 time in total

woo

Posts : 2344
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  Yakima Canutt on Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:53 pm

The young people today, smoking dope and shaking to the grooves of America, New Riders of the Purple Sage, Montrose, Loggins & Messina etc., sometimes don't delve deeply in the Sound of Juzz Music, because the BIGG Band Style Jezz is fine but is past the sell-by date and is belonging like in the Time Warp scenes of THE SHINING movie where Nicholson gets schnakered in the yestenyear watering hole, and they might try Bebop Style Jozz, but that which coming from the Charles "Vulture" Parker or Doozy Gilettepie School, well a lot of that shit is irritating twiddly squawk-squawk junkie bilge. And "Free Jazz" is really a lot of bullshit, if we're to be honest. It's OK for couple of minutes but if you see a hole concert of that shit then you likely to go all Whitney Houston and shit.

But between Bebop and Free Jazz Period comes the greatest music regimen since Late Period Angry Urinating Beethoven. I am speaking of course about what some call POSST BOP (greatest with possbel exception of the Deep Deep Acid Dish Condo Dub Jungler Brickbeat Goose-Step tradition of East Anglia and Chipping Camden). What some call POSTBOPS moves beyond the shopworn formulas of the BIGG JIZZ BAND era without turning into annoying bullshit.

There were three outliers and roadblowers who became the patronized saints of the PostBop Skool -

sMiles Davis taught the children to chill the fuck out and easy on the fuckin squawking

John Coaltrain taught students to slip into the Mind's Mirror Eye or the far reeches of Andromeda Galaxy ( but tut, these two are 1 and the same one, natcher), basically to use Juzz Music to achieve alpha state of brainwaves, as practiced by the Ancient Limbless Monks of the Aoxomoxoastan Kush hinterlands, and other assorted mystic types. THIS ISN'T PIE IN THE SKYE FLIMFLAM, the trance states of noted gurus have been verified by Modren Mind Science at the Scripps-Howard-Plank-Mayo Instituten and elsewhere.

And the most challenging lesson came from pia nist Thefelonious Munk who taught enrolles to hit a bunch of random notes semi-regularly. No seriously tho, Munk was teeching how THERE ARE NO WRONG NOTES, only wrong crackersbusters. But the challenge of this lesson is that most aspiring Jozzers will free up and start hitting any willynilly non-wrong notes, but they end up actually hitting WRONG notes anyway. Munk or Dr. Stipeticschnausenkloss i.e. can't give you charts to show you how to find the RIGHT WRONG NOTES, you must listen to the INNER EAR, but only the chosen few will avoid the rongWRONG notes, the rest will be BETRAYED and humlated by treacherus inner ear.

Schnell, Sun Ra was basically more bitchin 'Ebony 'n' Ivory Keybar TickelMakker' /Ensembleh Ombudsman than Moink ... Sun Ra was both more melodik AND more OUT there ( reconciling two often contrary modes in tru Kris Kristofferson styel) but Sun Ra wasn't popular or influential enuff to be a top tier POST BOP James Madison, and Sun Ra wore a lot of funny clothes and yapped about the "Desitny and the Destined-Flea of HISstory, not MYstory which comes from the precision and dissipline of Egytian Space Aliens from Venus and Missersippi etc." and so some people didn't take him that seriously.

Eventually what we find is that the most best POSTBOP affectations are not too formulaic and not too bullshit, not too tonal and not too atonal, not too junky and not too monky, not too cheery and not too gloomy gus ... one might even find that this approach is achieving THE GOLDEN MEAN that Prince Buddha spoke of to Prudence and others, and that this is approach is sounds that are at uno with the pulse of life and really conshussness itself really if you think about. But you dont have to take my words for it, because also Whoopi Goldberg and LeVar Burton are agreeiing with me

OK OK, now you, THE SINGULARITY, are saying "hah this is the bill of goods I see you are hawking. Peddle this snake oil elsewhere and run your bounty across the other county."

So I will show Intermediate Level sounds from the PoasteBop algorithm:

Razz

Wool, this isn't Mountain Olympias, this is solid workhorse ToastBlop, but maybe actually not the best example because Joe Henderson is really more a HARD BOPPER than eL Pohst Bopster, so I will talk to Trumpee and retrun

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  senorita on Sun Aug 05, 2012 5:21 pm

What's the frequency Kenneth?


Last edited by senorita panties on Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:53 am; edited 1 time in total

senorita

Posts : 362
Join date : 2012-07-11
Age : 19
Location : makgadikgadi pan

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  pinhedz on Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:15 pm

woo wrote:Howabout this one?



Bob didn't write that. bounce

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  pinhedz on Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:05 pm

It's hard to believe these two klutzes were international stars Razz


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Jazz... I don't get it

Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:23 am


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum