Why do I hate jazz ??
- Thread starter Jean de la croix
- Start date
Credits / Disney Jazz Volume I: Everybody Wants To Be A Cat / Various Artists – TIDAL Even Disney loves Jazz
Here is a short excerpt of an interview of B.B. King reflecting on the master of time and space:
Note, B.B. King was 12 in 1937, Lester Young's first recording was in 1936.
Note, B.B. King was 12 in 1937, Lester Young's first recording was in 1936.
Last edited:
It is true that free-form jazz, for example, may be hard to accept for most listeners. I've faced the same issue! However, the genre of Jazz is so wide and diverse, there will surely be something you find for yourself out there. Myself, I enjoy the classics - Coltrane, Davis, Redding...
For "audiophiles", jazz is challenging because so much of it was not recorded to "audiophile standards". As a result, many miss out on some of the most exciting music ever laid on record! A few examples...
Charlie Christian recorded live at Minton's in 1941, by Columbia student Jerry Newman on a portable Acetate recorder:
Lester Young recorded broadcast from 1941 (his solo starts at 3:08, but the preceding trumpet and guitar solos are exciting as well):
Also check out the recordings of Bill Savory: https://jazzlives.wordpress.com/tag/the-savory-collection/ and https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/arts/music/17jazz.html
Some great moments recorded in studio as well suffer from sub-par quality (in light of today's standards): Illinois Jacquet, 1946
Lester Young and Nat King Cole, recorded in 1942 (during the recording ban) in a music store (https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/remembering-l-a-s-first-great-record-store-wallichs-music-city/)
Here are Loren Schoenberg's liner notes on this recording (from the Mosaic Box Set - Classic 1936-1947 Count Basie And Lester Young Studio Sessions):
"This is one of the most poetic and profound sessions that Young ever made. There is no precedent for it in jazz. In mood, it follows the 1938 Kansas City Six session and similarly points to Miles Davis' 1959 Kind of Blue in its use of space and its Zen-like, meditative mood. Bassist Gene Ramey once remembered a particular stylistic phase of Young's: "[He had] a very spacy sound at the end of 1933… [he would] play a phrase and maybe lay out three beats before he'd come in with another phrase." Nowhere on disc is Young's telepathic communication with his bandmates heard to better advantage.
And it isn't just Young's playing that amazes; Nat Cole unleashes a barrage of singular pianistic devices that call into question the whole notion that "modern" jazz piano began with the appearance of Bud Powell and Thelonious Monk a few years later. There are phrases that expand the barline, harmonies that stretch towards atonality, some of them quartal, and an overarching even rhythmic flow that owes much to Young. Cole's trio had for years been incorporating Young's solos and phrases into their arrangements. The key to Cole's approach here is abstraction, a quality to be found in his two major influences, Earl Hines and Art Tatum. They rearranged music in a similar fashion as Picasso reordered representative painting — any facet of the tune's harmony, rhythm or melody could be suddenly emphasized and elaborated upon, throwing the other two elements into new shapes. Cole does this at the drop of a hat, anticipating the ebb and flow of Young's lines; Young, in turn, responds to Cole's prescience. It fell to Red Callender to play a steady, swinging bass rhythm to ground things, something he knew how to do for Young, having been in the band that Lester co-led with his brother, drummer Lee, throughout their 1941—42 Los Angeles residency. No previous recording of Young gave him the opportunity to stretch out and cast his mesmerizing spell as this one did. Since there was a recording ban in place at the time, producer Norman Granz recorded the session as a personal memento, so deeply did he love these players. He wisely decided to use 12" discs, affording the musicians an extra two minutes to play, and they made the most of every second."
Charlie Christian recorded live at Minton's in 1941, by Columbia student Jerry Newman on a portable Acetate recorder:
Lester Young recorded broadcast from 1941 (his solo starts at 3:08, but the preceding trumpet and guitar solos are exciting as well):
Also check out the recordings of Bill Savory: https://jazzlives.wordpress.com/tag/the-savory-collection/ and https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/arts/music/17jazz.html
Some great moments recorded in studio as well suffer from sub-par quality (in light of today's standards): Illinois Jacquet, 1946
Lester Young and Nat King Cole, recorded in 1942 (during the recording ban) in a music store (https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/remembering-l-a-s-first-great-record-store-wallichs-music-city/)
Here are Loren Schoenberg's liner notes on this recording (from the Mosaic Box Set - Classic 1936-1947 Count Basie And Lester Young Studio Sessions):
"This is one of the most poetic and profound sessions that Young ever made. There is no precedent for it in jazz. In mood, it follows the 1938 Kansas City Six session and similarly points to Miles Davis' 1959 Kind of Blue in its use of space and its Zen-like, meditative mood. Bassist Gene Ramey once remembered a particular stylistic phase of Young's: "[He had] a very spacy sound at the end of 1933… [he would] play a phrase and maybe lay out three beats before he'd come in with another phrase." Nowhere on disc is Young's telepathic communication with his bandmates heard to better advantage.
And it isn't just Young's playing that amazes; Nat Cole unleashes a barrage of singular pianistic devices that call into question the whole notion that "modern" jazz piano began with the appearance of Bud Powell and Thelonious Monk a few years later. There are phrases that expand the barline, harmonies that stretch towards atonality, some of them quartal, and an overarching even rhythmic flow that owes much to Young. Cole's trio had for years been incorporating Young's solos and phrases into their arrangements. The key to Cole's approach here is abstraction, a quality to be found in his two major influences, Earl Hines and Art Tatum. They rearranged music in a similar fashion as Picasso reordered representative painting — any facet of the tune's harmony, rhythm or melody could be suddenly emphasized and elaborated upon, throwing the other two elements into new shapes. Cole does this at the drop of a hat, anticipating the ebb and flow of Young's lines; Young, in turn, responds to Cole's prescience. It fell to Red Callender to play a steady, swinging bass rhythm to ground things, something he knew how to do for Young, having been in the band that Lester co-led with his brother, drummer Lee, throughout their 1941—42 Los Angeles residency. No previous recording of Young gave him the opportunity to stretch out and cast his mesmerizing spell as this one did. Since there was a recording ban in place at the time, producer Norman Granz recorded the session as a personal memento, so deeply did he love these players. He wisely decided to use 12" discs, affording the musicians an extra two minutes to play, and they made the most of every second."
Last edited:
Because you don't have a turntable?I am well aware that this title here is a bit provocative and maybe even a bit inappropriate. I'm not trying to alienate the community, but I really want to understand what nobody has been able to explain to me yet...
When I say that, people always try to make me listen to jazz pieces to show me that it's not that I don't like them, it's that I don't know the right ones. But nothing helps. What is it about jazz that makes me appreciate classical music so much and jazz music or any "jazzy" piece so little? I should mention that the feeling I get from this music is the same for gospel, negro spiritual etc. Any ideas?
To illustrate a little, I was playing a video game and in a tavern there was this music (see below) that immediately horrified me. I don't know if it's really jazz, but there's this haunting and plaintive side that I find absolutely unbearable.
Thank you for your possible answers and please try to understand and explain rather than trying to convince me that I do like jazz (if you can!)
I probably said this already.
But why should w care that you hate jazz,? Just keep walking.
Why Should I endeavor ro ascertain would music you love and give my opinion. Many members post music that I don't care for. As a general rule I exercise my right to remain silent.
Of course you have a right to express your opinion. But why do the members have to 3xplain it?
But why should w care that you hate jazz,? Just keep walking.
Why Should I endeavor ro ascertain would music you love and give my opinion. Many members post music that I don't care for. As a general rule I exercise my right to remain silent.
Of course you have a right to express your opinion. But why do the members have to 3xplain it?
Republicoftexas69
Well-Known Member
Let me offer this.
The thing I REALLY like about jazz is it's capability for INSTANTANEOUS improvisation.
Look throughout the history of, at least, Western music. Starting with the baroque (maybe even earlier) and into the classical periods, MOST ALL of the composers were dealing with - maybe fighting with - improvisations within the LIMITS OF STRICT FORM. Look at all of Bach's "variations", be them Contatas; Fugues: Variations; etc. Look at most of the classical concerto's for a primary instrument, where the composer left a few minutes in a movement for the artist to improvise - if they wanted to. I'll bet that Beethoven, and especially Mozart would have LOVED to sit in with a modern jazz trio/quartet - Wolfgang would have TOTALLY been in his element.
In the last 100 years, "look" how jazz musicians have been able to take a "standard" composition and then each member of the group, in their turn - or collectively - "go their own way" - INSTANTANEOUSLY - making it their own - their emotions taking/maniupulating/weaving the piece into a new level. When you are blessed to sit in on such a performance, the level of virtuosity - LISTENING - COMPOSING - RESPONDING on the fly is transfixing. To begin to do this, the artists have to master not only their instruments but the piece; the other players; the mood; and THEMSELVES!
I have my limits - can't stand Bebop/Free Jazz - Those musicians are taking the genre beyond my comprehension.
GOD BLESS them all.
And think about - in their careers - how many times did Myles Davis/Bill Evans/Ella Fitzgerald play/sing xxx.... If you were blessed to here them, which version of the 436? they played/sung during their carreer did you hear? And remember, EACH VERSION was undoubtedly DIFFERENT.
The thing I REALLY like about jazz is it's capability for INSTANTANEOUS improvisation.
Look throughout the history of, at least, Western music. Starting with the baroque (maybe even earlier) and into the classical periods, MOST ALL of the composers were dealing with - maybe fighting with - improvisations within the LIMITS OF STRICT FORM. Look at all of Bach's "variations", be them Contatas; Fugues: Variations; etc. Look at most of the classical concerto's for a primary instrument, where the composer left a few minutes in a movement for the artist to improvise - if they wanted to. I'll bet that Beethoven, and especially Mozart would have LOVED to sit in with a modern jazz trio/quartet - Wolfgang would have TOTALLY been in his element.
In the last 100 years, "look" how jazz musicians have been able to take a "standard" composition and then each member of the group, in their turn - or collectively - "go their own way" - INSTANTANEOUSLY - making it their own - their emotions taking/maniupulating/weaving the piece into a new level. When you are blessed to sit in on such a performance, the level of virtuosity - LISTENING - COMPOSING - RESPONDING on the fly is transfixing. To begin to do this, the artists have to master not only their instruments but the piece; the other players; the mood; and THEMSELVES!
I have my limits - can't stand Bebop/Free Jazz - Those musicians are taking the genre beyond my comprehension.
GOD BLESS them all.
And think about - in their careers - how many times did Myles Davis/Bill Evans/Ella Fitzgerald play/sing xxx.... If you were blessed to here them, which version of the 436? they played/sung during their carreer did you hear? And remember, EACH VERSION was undoubtedly DIFFERENT.
If you get a chance you should checkout GordoncPeterson on the Dicl Cavet show. He runs through the different genres of jazz piano
The problem is not every musician is competent to execute the deferenl genres. Some of it is complex and acquired taste.
The problem is not every musician is competent to execute the deferenl genres. Some of it is complex and acquired taste.
Exactly - more accessible recordings like that are a great way to start one's Jazz journey. Then you can move on to some more flamboyant pieces of music...
What "Jazzified" records do you have in mind?One of my favorites right now is Dee Bridgewaters' Memphis. The standards are being done to death. The established artists get bored and want to do something different.
One division of jazz is the Bosa Nova. The Girl from Ipanema. I think a lot of people enjoy songs without even realizing they are jazz.
Having said that there really is no substitute for the classics. Some time ago I posted the .top 25 jazz albums
One division of jazz is the Bosa Nova. The Girl from Ipanema. I think a lot of people enjoy songs without even realizing they are jazz.
Having said that there really is no substitute for the classics. Some time ago I posted the .top 25 jazz albums
Last edited:
The Girl from Ipanema is an unforgettable piece of music. I will make sure to check out your list. Have you made such lists for other genres?
Yes I have. My list for Hard Rock was a little ill informed.
But it is not to worry. It was augmented by the members.it is noteworthy that Kind of Blue is a top seller worldwide. Despite his venture into fusion few would call it light jazz.
Similar threads
