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

Jazz in the 21st century: Playing outside the box

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: Jazz in the 21st century: Playing outside the box

#31

Post by Ericson2314 »

ap22213 wrote: post #5

I clearly know nothing about music, but why does it even have to be called 'Jazz'? Given those market numbers cited, it seems like it would be a very bad brand to be associated with your music. Having a son who's 12, and having recently had a bunch of pre-teens running around my house all going through the timeless ritual of identity crafting, I have gotten to listen to their music, watch their media, and hear their…

Many great answers here, but something that hasn't been mentioned yet is jazz as a method.

This isn't new. There's the oft-maligned Latin Jazz---one reason a lot of synthetic music that happened in Cuba, Brazil, and other such plays was more similar inputs---similar outputs development in parallel. Once you get recorded music + radio, and tourism in Cuba, there's more actual cross-pollination, but there's plenty of stuff before that.

As far as the method goes, obviously improvisation is a big part, but the big picture is Jazz is a social and live music. If Classical is a play, Jazz is a conversation at a Cafe. Sure people listen to recordings, but also classic trane records and others are a lot more sliced and diced than one might think. There's big band too, but what goes on at most schools is a bit suspect without the collectively authored head arrangements. Musically, we have the tradition of a preset harmony and, to a lesser extent form, is the "seed" for everything else, African rhythm, European harmony, and a bunch of unconscious idioms that would be hard to right down without lots of luck and pondering. [There's my cop-out. :)]

As a younger student, I and many others gravitated towards funk, because it's clear (though nobody said so explicitly) that that is the foundation for everything that's popular today (more than rock I'll jeer now that top 40 ate everything :P). The narrative of funk, if you will, is soul musicians' session players striking out of do their own more instrumental/dance focused thing. And those session musicians all had jazz backgrounds. So there's the historical connection, and musically it's largely a similar method, though more emphasis on premeditated groove and rhythm section in general.

Re: Jazz in the 21st century: Playing outside the box

#32

Post by Ericson2314 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #6
ap22213 wrote: post #5

I clearly know nothing about music, but why does it even have to be called 'Jazz'? Given those market numbers cited, it seems like it would be a very bad brand to be associated with your music. Having a son who's 12, and having recently had a bunch of pre-teens running around my house all going through the timeless ritual of identity crafting, I have gotten to listen to their music, watch their media, and hear their…

technique + theory != creativity There's nothing inherently creative about artistic technique. At best it gives you a way to express creativity. At worst it's a dead thing you keep repeating over and over because you can't think of anything interesting to say. Theories of art are a really good way to kill creativity. Music theory can become a huge set of if...thens... and unfortunately even talented people don't alwa…

This is the big trap in how art education is conceptualized. 'Thing is, if you can't follow the rules there's nothing interesting about you breaking them.

> At best it gives you a way to express creativity.

I'm more on board with this, but there's still the implication that creativity is fixed and just waking to break free. There are the old aphorisms about writing to think, and so one needs to learn music to wield the medium richly.

Also, I care about originality sure, but I also care about complexity. Take a bunch of absolute beginner and professionals, I bet a) the beginners improvisations are no more diverse between people (don't most of us all grow up awash in similar ambient music in this increasingly globalized world?) and b) each professional's improvisations (by and large) are have more variety.

Mathematically, I imagine some big state space of possible music, and everybody starts with some tightly scattered small subsets/topological balls/whatever, and then those grow, and maybe even spread a bit (so they don't completely grow together) with training.

> At worst it's a dead thing you keep repeating over and over because you can't think of anything interesting to say.

I do agree that all music education should involve at least one of composition and improvisation, preferably both, or otherwise there's risk of that. Not going to lie the archetype here is classical, but until decently through the 19th century actually there was more emphasis on improve and creativity in Europe too (even before modern cults of individuality! Contradictory as that sounds). So in some sense we need to recover what is lost.

> Music theory can become a huge set of if...thens... and unfortunately even talented people don't always get past that.

Hmm I think this is a broader failure of education that music theory just puts into stark relief. I think many people have trouble connecting everyday experience and intuition with learned rules. For example all of are hardwired with an immense amount physics intuition, and learning basic classical physics is basically cross-referencing with a few surprising axioms and math that one should have been already taught.

Yes, musical is cultural/learned and not innate, but my does it hack the brain and in deep and surprising ways (does visual art vampire-tap your emotions like major vs minor??). The unconscious knowledge here is both deep and abstract. Music theory done right should function a lot like linguistics, and there there should be a lot of "gosh darn that does explain it" moments. Only without introspection do the rules become worthless bureaucracy.

But I do need to rant about a personal gripe. Functional harmony is a funny thing because it arrived to Western music fairly late yet is already on it's way out. I sometimes have a weird disconnect as I feel I have more of an innate "in-cultural" understanding of it than many of my peers. I think when it was "trending" music theory education got more of a free pass, but now the inadequacies are in sharper relief. Mathematically, it's roughly a state machine, but no teaching even covers that. Furthermore the meaning/asethetic/whatever-you-wanna-call-it is not in the states but the transitions, yet everybody gets hyped up on the chords. We teach roman numeral analysis and voice leading, but don't get right to the point that it's the chord progressions that count the most. A chord out of context carries a lot less information.The skills you need to be a brilliantly competent session musician or a successful teacher are only distantly related to the skills you need to be an interesting and original music creator.

> The skills you need to be a brilliantly competent session musician or a successful teacher are only distantly related to the skills you need to be an interesting and original music creator.

Yeah but we don't exactly teach the first two either from the beginning do we :)

Re: Jazz in the 21st century: Playing outside the box

#33

Post by zhemao »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #30
analog31 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, likewise for classical music too. I'm pretty involved in my local music scene. Everybody I know who makes a decent middle class income from music, teaches. For one thing, there's reasonable demand. For another, it's a way for a performer fill your schedule with work during the hours when they pretty much can't be performing.

While, I'm incredibly grateful for the music education I've received [and still play at the age where many fellow amateurs increasingly don't [though time well tell whether I keep this up as I intend to]], the idea that the vast majority of artists primarily teach the next generation does carry the whiff of a Ponzi scheme.

Most of their students won't choose music as a profession, though.

Re: Jazz in the 21st century: Playing outside the box

#34

Post by mark_edward »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #30
analog31 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, likewise for classical music too. I'm pretty involved in my local music scene. Everybody I know who makes a decent middle class income from music, teaches. For one thing, there's reasonable demand. For another, it's a way for a performer fill your schedule with work during the hours when they pretty much can't be performing.

While, I'm incredibly grateful for the music education I've received [and still play at the age where many fellow amateurs increasingly don't [though time well tell whether I keep this up as I intend to]], the idea that the vast majority of artists primarily teach the next generation does carry the whiff of a Ponzi scheme.

This depends on what you consider to be the purpose of music education. A good portion of musical training could be for personal enjoyment, expanding horizons, resume padding, etc. so it wouldn't be necessary or even desirable hat everyone get employment.

Think of martial arts. The best way to make a living in it is to teach, but the vast majority of students aren't there to make a living of it in the future.

Re: Jazz in the 21st century: Playing outside the box

#35

Post by Ericson2314 »

mark_edward wrote: post #34
Ericson2314 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While, I'm incredibly grateful for the music education I've received [and still play at the age where many fellow amateurs increasingly don't [though time well tell whether I keep this up as I intend to]], the idea that the vast majority of artists primarily teach the next generation does carry the whiff of a Ponzi scheme.

This depends on what you consider to be the purpose of music education. A good portion of musical training could be for personal enjoyment, expanding horizons, resume padding, etc. so it wouldn't be necessary or even desirable hat everyone get employment. Think of martial arts. The best way to make a living in it is to teach, but the vast majority of students aren't there to make a living of it in the future.

Sure I'm fine with learning art not to be a full time professional, that's me after all. And if you going in wanting to teach, that's great too. I don't have a fully formed thought here, but more a gut reaction against a world where education and educators is always celebrated without any......sympathy that maybe these people rather be doing something else.

Re: Jazz in the 21st century: Playing outside the box

#36

Post by amagumori »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #30
analog31 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, likewise for classical music too. I'm pretty involved in my local music scene. Everybody I know who makes a decent middle class income from music, teaches. For one thing, there's reasonable demand. For another, it's a way for a performer fill your schedule with work during the hours when they pretty much can't be performing.

While, I'm incredibly grateful for the music education I've received [and still play at the age where many fellow amateurs increasingly don't [though time well tell whether I keep this up as I intend to]], the idea that the vast majority of artists primarily teach the next generation does carry the whiff of a Ponzi scheme.

if you're a classical musician you're going to either play in an orchestra, which pays OK, depending on the notoriety of the orchestra you get into...or you're going to teach, which pays better for the most part.

keep in mind that if you're a classical musician of professional-level skill, that means you've devoted your entire life and a shit ton of money towards the pursuit of getting good at one of the hardest skills on earth. i've been programming for 3 years now, and i've written a 3d renderer, all sorts of websites, fluid simulations, a photon mapping renderer, etc, etc..i still don't feel like i'm that great at programming, but i feel pretty confident in my ability to write programs that work and aren't ugly. after 3 years.

after 10 years of playing the violin you're pretty much a novice.

Re: Jazz in the 21st century: Playing outside the box

#37

Post by Ericson2314 »

amagumori wrote: post #36
Ericson2314 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While, I'm incredibly grateful for the music education I've received [and still play at the age where many fellow amateurs increasingly don't [though time well tell whether I keep this up as I intend to]], the idea that the vast majority of artists primarily teach the next generation does carry the whiff of a Ponzi scheme.

if you're a classical musician you're going to either play in an orchestra, which pays OK, depending on the notoriety of the orchestra you get into...or you're going to teach, which pays better for the most part. keep in mind that if you're a classical musician of professional-level skill, that means you've devoted your entire life and a shit ton of money towards the pursuit of getting good at one of the hardest skil…

I wonder whether instruments actually takes more time to learn, vs programming/computers being addictive AF and instrument practice (especially mechanical technique) being oh-so mind-numbingly boring when oh luck I could just noodle on that on 30 minutes later oops.

Re: Jazz in the 21st century: Playing outside the box

#38

Post by zhemao »

21echoes wrote: post #23
zhemao wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet, for some reason, they spend their time playing Jazz derivatives and covers or as studio musicians. Because that's the kind of music they like to play and know best. If they went to music school, jazz and classical are the dominant music styles that are taught. Also, you can make a pretty good living as a studio musician. It's much less risky than trying to sell your own albums as a solo artist. > Interestingly…

dead on. for more examples of what goes by "jazz" these days: Takuya Kuroda - Rising Son : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mUymaxWmMw Hiatus Kaiyote - The World It Softly Lulls : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqzFgkkQXWw Kamasi Washington - Changing of the Guard : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtQRBzSN9Vw Snarky Puppy - Don't You Know : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqY3FaZmh-Y Thundercat - Them Changes : http…

Nice list. Here are a few additions

Tigran Hamasyan - To Love: https://youtu.be/jPwUe8SFOow

Hiromi Uehara - Warrior: https://youtu.be/Xy8__IvtMOs

Kneebody and Daedelus - Drum Battle: https://youtu.be/LKq0Kv7GlgU

Re: Jazz in the 21st century: Playing outside the box

#39

Post by ap22213 »

zhemao wrote: post #15
ap22213 wrote: post #5

I clearly know nothing about music, but why does it even have to be called 'Jazz'? Given those market numbers cited, it seems like it would be a very bad brand to be associated with your music. Having a son who's 12, and having recently had a bunch of pre-teens running around my house all going through the timeless ritual of identity crafting, I have gotten to listen to their music, watch their media, and hear their…

> Yet, for some reason, they spend their time playing Jazz derivatives and covers or as studio musicians. Because that's the kind of music they like to play and know best. If they went to music school, jazz and classical are the dominant music styles that are taught. Also, you can make a pretty good living as a studio musician. It's much less risky than trying to sell your own albums as a solo artist. > Interestingly…

I love that quote. Interestingly, when I think of Miles Davis, subconsciously my internal memory goes to 'Tutu'. I can't say that I understand it or even enjoy it, but I would definitely describe it as art as it invokes something in me. As a child of the 80s, I get it in a very personal way that is different than what I get when listening to 'Kind of Blue'.

Re: Jazz in the 21st century: Playing outside the box

#40

Post by aczerepinski »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #30
analog31 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, likewise for classical music too. I'm pretty involved in my local music scene. Everybody I know who makes a decent middle class income from music, teaches. For one thing, there's reasonable demand. For another, it's a way for a performer fill your schedule with work during the hours when they pretty much can't be performing.

While, I'm incredibly grateful for the music education I've received [and still play at the age where many fellow amateurs increasingly don't [though time well tell whether I keep this up as I intend to]], the idea that the vast majority of artists primarily teach the next generation does carry the whiff of a Ponzi scheme.

I have mixed feelings on this. Students definitely shouldn't be taking on debt to study a profession that doesn't exist, and lower tier colleges that never ever produce professionals probably shouldn't be offering the major.

But I do see a place for the top conservatories, especially if we can find more ways for the programs to be very selective, and free. The music is beautiful and continues to evolve, and as long as the pursuit doesn't hinder everyone financially, it's a good thing to have going on in society.

I personally am not comfortable teaching music majors, but under the right circumstances I would be happy to teach electives to non-majors and kids. If you pay your dues and learn to really hear jazz, I truly believe it's one of the most intellectually and emotionally engaging experiences anywhere. I'd like to share that with people who aren't trying to make it their profession.

Post reply on HN