Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why most people don't like jazz

dyske.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 235 posts

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#141

Post by nerme »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #129
swannodette wrote: post #61

The state of music commentary on this thread is low enough to be insulting and pretty much validates the article. I find it humorous that a website that draws people dedicated to abstract thought can have such a mediocre understanding of music and music history. Do yourself a favor, find a piece of music that you think you don't like. Sit down and listen to it 50 times without distraction so that you know all the cha…

The state of music commentary on this thread is low enough to be insulting and pretty much validates the article. This seems rather contrary to the kinds of talk normally heard on HN. It's quite typical for us to take ourselves as developers to task when we build an application that users fail to appreciate, or have difficulty in using. How is it, then, that when listeners fail to appreciate the greatness in some pie…

Phil·is·tine (fĭl'ĭ-stēn', fĭ-lĭs'tĭn, -tēn') n.

1.

A member of an Aegean people who settled ancient Philistia around the 12th century B.C.

2.

a. A smug, ignorant, especially middle-class person who is regarded as being indifferent or antagonistic to artistic and cultural values.

b. One who lacks knowledge in a specific area.

Dude, there is a WORLD of a difference between a computer application that is made for the purpose of doing business and a work of art...

Art is about communication. Art is a conversation.

Do you expect, when having a conversation with someone, that it is going to be a one-sided affair, where the other person is completely responsible for the outcome of the interaction, and you, yourself, have no bearing nor responsibility on the course of events?

Is someone "failing" at conversation because they are speaking to you in Korean and you don't understand it? Is that their fault? Or is it yours? Is one person failing and the other person triumphantly succeeding in this situation?

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#142

Post by mtalantikite »

sp332 wrote: post #43
dan_sim wrote: post #27

I'm a musician myself who used to play jazz. The problem with jazz is that is considered by the people who listen to it like "pure art" when it is just a style of music. Jazz (and classical) is elevated higher than other form of music and music teachers will expect a good musician to play jazz. If jazz lovers would stop thinking at themselves as "higher educated" and jazz would go back to the people who want enjoy a…

Wynton Marsalis says "When the music stopped being about dancing, people stopped listening." I never completely bought it, but I like the sentiment anyway :-)

I went out to see Roy Haynes/Roy Hargrove the other night, and he basically said the same thing on stage. Looking out into an audience of mainly dead silent white people, he said something to the extent of:

'I remember when I was playing in Spain some years back with Joe Henderson and Chick Corea, and man the audience gave us no love back. But at the end of the concert a couple thousand of them all put up their lighters or candles in the air, and that was how they showed their appreciation. I don't care for that, put those lighters away. Back in the day people would get up and shout when they felt the music. You guys need to give it to us on stage so we can give it back to you, it goes two ways."

I think one of the main reasons "jazz" has fallen off is the price of it and the audience it therefore attracts. $35 for 45 minutes of music and a drink minimum at some crammed club like the Village Vanguard or Blue Note only attracts tourists and people with disposable income.

I remember going to see Jack Dejohnette with Danilo Perez at the Blue Note, and most people I heard talking had no idea who they were -- they were all NYC tourists. The Blue Note is like the Disney Land of Jazz, complete with a gift shop upstairs so you can buy keychains.

It is nice, though, to see young guys like Chris Dave, Marcus Strickland, or Robert Glasper going out on tour with Mos Def or Erykah Badu, and then in turn drawing young people that normally would be listening to only hip-hop back out to their gigs. There is still some hope yet that people won't be priced out of the music and young people will start being introduced to it again.

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#143

Post by prewett »

tjr wrote: post #118
prewett wrote: post #75

The reason why I don't like jazz is that my ears can't find any pattern to it. There's no melody, except at the beginning and end of the piece, so the notes just sound random. So to me the music is largely indistinguishable from noise. Once I discovered that jazz is apparently about the chords it made more sense. (The notes appear to be unimportant as long as everyone is in the same chord)

Those seemingly random notes are improvisation. Depending on the arrangement and/or preferences of the individual player, yes, those notes may be based on the chord progressions... or based on a particular scale or mode ("modal jazz")... or pulled together from a catalog of memorized melodic fragments... or some combination of all of the above. In general, players who are also proficient composers tend to be the best…

I agree, the random notes are improvisation. But improvisation can also be done with non-random-sounding notes: Mozart's variations on "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" are very impressive. The difference being that with Mozart you can still hear a melody. You'd have to be really good to do this on the fly in a solo, though, which is probably why a lot of the great jazz bands practiced beforehand (it wasn't strictly improv)

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#144

Post by anigbrowl »

swannodette wrote: post #61

The state of music commentary on this thread is low enough to be insulting and pretty much validates the article. I find it humorous that a website that draws people dedicated to abstract thought can have such a mediocre understanding of music and music history. Do yourself a favor, find a piece of music that you think you don't like. Sit down and listen to it 50 times without distraction so that you know all the cha…

What you say is true. But how you say it reminds me of heroin junkies' syringe aesthetic. No insult intended; rather an observation of how people favor different paths to the common destination of a satisfying endorphin experience.

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#145

Post by talvisota »

nerme wrote: post #141
CWuestefeld wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state of music commentary on this thread is low enough to be insulting and pretty much validates the article. This seems rather contrary to the kinds of talk normally heard on HN. It's quite typical for us to take ourselves as developers to task when we build an application that users fail to appreciate, or have difficulty in using. How is it, then, that when listeners fail to appreciate the greatness in some pie…

Phil·is·tine (fĭl'ĭ-stēn', fĭ-lĭs'tĭn, -tēn') n. 1. A member of an Aegean people who settled ancient Philistia around the 12th century B.C. 2. a. A smug, ignorant, especially middle-class person who is regarded as being indifferent or antagonistic to artistic and cultural values. b. One who lacks knowledge in a specific area. Dude, there is a WORLD of a difference between a computer application that is made for the p…

Where did you learn that? To me, art is about experiencing things, not "conversation". Art mostly just sits there to be seen or heard, and it will not care about my saying or thinking. Art may "talk" to me, but I can't talk to art.

To your language analogy: what if I invent a language of my own and try to use it anywhere, how much the failure of communication is divided between me and the receivers? Many times "art" seems to be exactly this. It's not "Korean", it's just some gibberish the artist came up with.

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#146

Post by bpyne »

Jazz not being in the limelight anymore is not really a fault of the music, the listeners, or the players. It's not an unhealthy turn of events either. I think it's as simple as a new generation has come up who wants to "have their say": they want to express their own take on life in their own way. Another generation will come along in 20 years and supplant them. It's a never ending cycle.

Jazz isn't anywhere near death judging by the number of internet radio stations offering it. Jazz musicians are still exploring musical boundaries. Admittedly there are fewer venues but you can still find them.

Another consideration is the influence Jazz had on the mainstream. Groups like the Dave Matthews Band embody the Jazz spirit very much.

What I'd like to hear more of is people from other cultures mixing Jazz into their own native music.

Jazz is, to me, about exploration.

NOTE: Edited the first sentence due to a blatant abuse of negatives.

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#147

Post by anigbrowl »

anon-e-moose wrote: post #132
aristoxenus wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you noticed how much more sophisticated Lady Gaga's music is than the rest of what's popular these days? Her popularity has nothing to do with that. It's the way she throws in catchy verbal chants and is equally brilliant at visual and personality branding. And she as a great name.

No, I have not. All of her songs sound the same to me, the repeated nonsense stuttering included. And I say this as a person who as listened to thousands of hours of techno/electronica/drum and bass.

Hit youtube and search for 'lady gaga acoustic'. You may be pleasantly surprised, as I was.

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#148

Post by CodeMage »

swannodette wrote: post #61

The state of music commentary on this thread is low enough to be insulting and pretty much validates the article. I find it humorous that a website that draws people dedicated to abstract thought can have such a mediocre understanding of music and music history. Do yourself a favor, find a piece of music that you think you don't like. Sit down and listen to it 50 times without distraction so that you know all the cha…

The funny thing about music theory is that the best musicians/composers always seem to break the rules. I've had some serious classes when I was younger and had more time, because I was genuinely interested. A lot of definitions were vague and/or rather complicated and were invariably followed (at some point) by a statement along the lines of "except that Mozart didn't really do it that way".

Not that I'm trying to say that analyzing music is useless -- far from it, it's always good to analyze and recognize patterns -- but it does put things in their perspective.

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#149

Post by dan_sim »

crux_ wrote: post #131
dan_sim wrote: post #27

I'm a musician myself who used to play jazz. The problem with jazz is that is considered by the people who listen to it like "pure art" when it is just a style of music. Jazz (and classical) is elevated higher than other form of music and music teachers will expect a good musician to play jazz. If jazz lovers would stop thinking at themselves as "higher educated" and jazz would go back to the people who want enjoy a…

So, to summarize in an only very slightly trollish way: - The problem with jazz is the people who listen to it. - Music isn't art, or at least it's wrong to appreciate it as such. - Jazz ought to be revivalist, not innovative. Suffice to say, I don't think I can agree...

- The problem with jazz is the people who listen to it.

Yes

- Music isn't art, or at least it's wrong to appreciate it as such.

Music is entertainment and emotions.

- Jazz ought to be revivalist, not innovative.

Things like free-jazz is not innovative. It is shitty musicians thinking that if they play "out" enough, they might get to the point that people feel they are geniuses.

Music is meant to be good to the ears.

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#150

Post by alaithea »

ajscherer wrote: post #135
swannodette wrote: post #61

The state of music commentary on this thread is low enough to be insulting and pretty much validates the article. I find it humorous that a website that draws people dedicated to abstract thought can have such a mediocre understanding of music and music history. Do yourself a favor, find a piece of music that you think you don't like. Sit down and listen to it 50 times without distraction so that you know all the cha…

Why in the world would someone spend 6-8 hours listening to a piece of music they dislike just so they can like it? If I already have thousands of pieces of music I enjoy listening to, why should I put any effort into liking even more music? I don't buy the article's conclusion that people should listen to jazz because otherwise they are "missing a huge chunk of what life has to offer". Everyone is missing out on a h…

> Why is a purposefully acquired taste superior to one that didn't require effort?

Some songs are instantly likable, often because they are simple and their hooks are easily grasped. I would compare them to children's songs. You know the tune and words, and may find it fun to sing along with once in a while, but as an adult, you're not going to get anything deep out of "Row Row Row Your Boat" over the long run. Enjoyment tends to decrease with time and exposure.

Other songs are not instantly likable, but as you get to know them, they reveal wonderful, joyous tidbits and layers, and your enjoyment grows with time and discovery. They are not so simple as to be grasped immediately; they must be learned and examined, just like any other advanced subject.

There is nothing wrong with popular, easy art, and it's not really a matter of acquired tastes being superior, just that acquired tastes can ultimately be far more rewarding to the individual, as they provide lasting, increasing reward in exchange for your effort and attention.

Post reply on HN