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

161–170 of 235 posts

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#161

Post by cynicalkane »

CodeMage wrote: post #148
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 s…

A lot of people teach music theory as a kind of musical analysis. This is wrong, both as a practical matter and a historical one--for instance, harmonic theory was first exposited by Hugo Riemann well after the classical period was over, and voice-leading by Fux long after the death of Palestrina, the greatest of the 'voice-leaders'.

Analyzing music makes about as much sense as analyzing food. You can't describe musical deliciousness, you just taste it, and certain talented people can make new kinds, so long as they are well versed in the ingredients. That's what music theory is--being able to think about ingredients, so you can create and/or execute musical recipes.

I hope that analogy wasn't too silly.

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#162

Post by pguerin »

Glide wrote: post #72
sp332 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ok I've done Lindy Hop for like 5 years now and I think I sort of understand the meaning behind that statement. When you dance to music you really, really need to listen to the music and where it goes. I notice that good dancers listen to the music and change what they're doing accordingly. If the music is high energy, they dance with high energy. If there is a break in the music, they hit it a break in the dancing (…

True! I tried salsa and hated the music! After I tried lindy hop and loved it! I also like classical music but what I hate at the radio is the tone of the radio guy (boring and try to say stuff I don't understand)... less talk more music! People do like classical music in movies, right?

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#163

Post by tjr »

bpyne wrote: post #140
wfarr wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really quite the generalization. Some forms of jazz are very much like that, yes; however, there are many forms of jazz, particularly focusing on those from 1910-1950, which are very structured in form and don't really lend themselves to being "self-indulgent". It'd be like me saying that all rock is talentless because it's all just a "fuck the man" wall of distortion. Yes, there's some rock music that's like…

I read a book on Duke Ellington in which he expressed concern for the emerging BeBop style's destruction of Jazz. It seems like he foresaw the move from structured, dance-able music to explorative music as isolating the music from the larger population. It's interesting that I didn't understand his opinion until just now. I'm still not sure I agree with it, but I can see how making music less dance-able could turn of…

Whatever bebop did to "destroy" the jazz that came before it very likely would have happened anyway. The big band jazz of the sort Ellington was best known for was dying out, primarily for financial reasons, and an increasing number of people who wanted to dance along with music were dancing along with rock rather than jazz.

But, looking back at the big picture that even Ellington couldn't see at the time, I don't think that bebop destroyed jazz at all; it was the next evolutionary step, just as Ellington's jazz was a step beyond Dixieland-style jazz.

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#164

Post by pguerin »

crux_ wrote: post #156
dan_sim wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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.

> Music is entertainment and emotions. If that's the case, then I'd say that in WWF vs music, WWF wins every time! I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you think all post-renaissance painting is shit, too.

WWF? World Wrestling Federation? haha

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#165

Post by tjr »

fnid2 wrote: post #11
snitko wrote: post #3

It's not the problem of lyrics vs words in the first place. It's a problem of lack of musical education. Give a person a guitar or a piano and within a year she starts paying attention to the composition and performing skills. And her tastes may change dramatically too. So in a sense, I consider "listening to words" not as an alternative point of view, but rather a lack of musical training. Sure, words may simply be…

I didn't start listening to lyrics until I was in my mid twenties and I have no musical talent or education. When I heard The Beatles Imagine was banned in some places, I thought, "Why? It's just a song." And then years later I actually listened to it and understood. One of my girlfriends told me, "I've started listening to jazz, I really like it!" So for her birthday, I got her "Kind of Blue" and she hated it. Shock…

http://www.jazzoasis.com/methenyonkennyg.htm

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#166

Post by CodeMage »

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…

Isn't it important to define success conditions before throwing around words like "failure"? Usually it's considered two or more people "fail at conversation" if they don't manage to:

1) understand what others are trying to convey

2) make others understand what they're trying to convey

Even given that definition, it's questionable whether the listener or the speaker failed, if the listener does not understand the speaker's language. Was it acceptable to expect the listener to understand it?

Without going into any further details, my point is that I think your metaphor is inadequate, basically because it implies that the artist's intention is invariable to have his or her art appreciated by as many people as possible.

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#167

Post by Goladus »

The current market share of Jazz in America is mere 3 percent.

That doesn't mean most people don't like Jazz. It just means they don't tend to seek it out ahead of other alternatives. Jazz isn't associated with pop culture which is to say sex, relationships, and high school / college kids. But most people, should they find themselves in a space with a good jazz band playing, would enjoy it.

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#168

Post by mtalantikite »

dan_sim wrote: post #157
mtalantikite wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 light…

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 That's the main problem. Jazzmen are expecting their audience to make the show and only then, they will give them a show back. That should be the other way. Musician are there to make the show, then the audience connect with them and the show becomes a whole.

I don't know, I don't think it is. He and his band were killing it. Tons of energy, you couldn't help but want to get up. They were going to have a good time whether the audience wanted to or not.

But still, the demographic at a place like that is 50+, white, tourists, with disposable income paying a $35 cover ($65 on the weekend). It's $60 for a cheap bottle of wine. Young people just can't afford to be invested in it, so they go drink PBR on the LES and dance to Dam-Funk DJing.

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#169

Post by Goladus »

cynicalkane wrote: post #161
CodeMage wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

A lot of people teach music theory as a kind of musical analysis. This is wrong, both as a practical matter and a historical one--for instance, harmonic theory was first exposited by Hugo Riemann well after the classical period was over, and voice-leading by Fux long after the death of Palestrina, the greatest of the 'voice-leaders'. Analyzing music makes about as much sense as analyzing food. You can't describe musi…

The analogy isn't silly, it's very apt and I've used it before. The problem is that there's nothing wrong with associating analysis with music theory. Music theory is not merely analysis, but it's still an important component just as being able to identify the different spices in a dish is an important component of being a cook.

Re: Why most people don't like jazz

#170

Post by habitue »

crux_ wrote: post #156
dan_sim wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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.

> Music is entertainment and emotions. If that's the case, then I'd say that in WWF vs music, WWF wins every time! I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you think all post-renaissance painting is shit, too.

Visual art is distinctly different from music. It's possible to be entertained and feel emotion for visual art that is not a photorealistic depiction. Music, meanwhile, has certain rules that need to be obeyed in order for people to want to experience it. I'm sorry, John Cage might have some interesting concepts, but it's completely unlistenable. There are just some things that you cannot develop a real taste for.

Think about the culinary arts. It too is an art, but with even more restrictions on what can be done than music. "Experimental Chefs" can't just start dabbling in putting sawdust and latex paint in their dishes and still expect it to be eaten.

That being said, experimental musicians have the right to push the envelope and discover what the boundaries of taste are. Sometimes they'll fail, and sometimes they'll discover something interesting, but experimentation alone doesn't cause it to be good or bad.

Post reply on HN