Why did rock never reach the heights, quality and variety of jazz?

Why did rock never reach the heights, quality and variety of jazz?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Kebvj2I9VXo
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Why did jazz never reach the heights, quality and variety of western art music?

Because rock was always primarily about the money and not about the art. Jazz never cared about appealing to the widest possible audience.

What do you mean "heights"?

But it did, in the form of progressive and math rock

This.
Even Frank Zappa, arguably the most advanced composer of rock music, was known to treat his music as commodity, or "product".

Rock surpassed jazz in all ways. Rock can actually write a sing, has balls, and doesn't hide lack of talent behind hours of aimless improvisation.

(You)

kek

>arguably the most advanced composer of rock music, was known to treat his music as commodity
Are you actually serious?

Because Rock is inherently a limited form.
Also Rock musicians rarely have the technical knowledge and skill of the best Jazz guys, so even if they had grand ideas, they lacked the chops to fully realise them.

progressive rock GOAT

these

Problem?

And Jazz lacked the grounding to bring it down to a relatable art form. It's why it will always remain an outsider genre.

Proof?

It did.
Multiple times

Talk out your ass some more, boy

>aimless improvisation

The Barry Miles biography of Zappa mentions his telephone conversations with record execs.
He would literally refer to his music as "product".

>Zappa, arguably the most advanced composer of rock music

Please tell me this is neo-post-irony

>Because Rock is inherently a limited form.
literally every single genre of music
but good job, pat on the back, so smart

>lacked the grounding to bring it down to a relatable art form

wtf does that even mean.

>outsider genre.

kinda, but not really. sure it never achieved the mainstream success rock did but jazz still has a pretty large and dedicated amount of followers and I think the real irony is that there are like, hundreds more if not THOUSANDS more jazz albums worth listening to than rock albums.

jazz is a genre that is almost twice as old as rock so it has a longer history and always will, also jazz artists are/were generally far more prolific than rock artists.

Have you not heard The Black Page?

can you name a rock artist who brought rock closer to the heights of jazz and classical than Zappa did?

How about context? And how about an interview instead of a biography? He talked about his album, describing it as a "product" on Nightmatch:
youtube.com/watch?v=Kebvj2I9VXo
So, what now? He just made jolly pop music for teenagers?

Of all shity pop/rock bands, you picked Ween lls

And of all people, Pierre Boulez chose Zappa to work with. You know, the one who you claim treated his music as nothing more than a product.

After Zappa (so not as significant), but Glenn Branca

Or Brian Wilson

This is a really stupid fucking thread.

Literally any way you define rock or jazz, rock is a genre that is about a billion times more limited. Rock never reached the heights, quality and variety of jazz because that's not what rock is for.

>Brian Wilson
>Rock musician
>Tripfag
>Baiting
Checks out.

Other genres of music involve more than I iv IV V in 4/4, don't go ABABCAB, use instruments other than guitar-bass-drums-piano.
I know there are exceptions, but that's 90% of rock.

Rocks other problem is it's shitty audience who get pissed at anything difficult or new. People on this board still get butthurt at TMR because their palate is so limited they find it inaccessible

Zappa fans deserve to be executed

Because rock never did this

Wow, you're the first one who hates Zappa on Sup Forums, how original.

Jazz is garbage. It's elitist technical proficiency with no grounding in the realities of real life. That's why only musicians, who can appreciate the technical fluff that all jazz is, listen to it. And is there anything worse than Jazz fans? I think not.

Branca wasn't even a very good minimalist.
Why not just listen to Tony Conrad and save yourself from the fucking monotony?

>Ween
>Shitty

there's a reason jazz is an outsider, art in a sense is not relatable. It derives from personal view.

ROCK
>blues based
>3 to 4 chords
>3 to 5 musicians
>guitar, bass, drums, piano
>verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-verse-chorus
>0 or 1 key change

JAZZ
>literally anything

Hhhmmmm why has one reached higher heights of quality and variety?

>jazz
>elitist

>It's why it will always remain an outsider genre
You do realize jazz was pop in the 40's? You know, swing and big band jazz? You don't know what you're talking about.

This.
Art is not a mirror.
Art is a hammer.

listen to more rock

Well on it's way. And much faster than the western cannon.

>Jazz never cared about appealing to the widest possible audience.
This is blatantly not true and indicative of a lack of knowledge about the genre's history and scope.

>JAZZ
>>literally anything
you don't know what you're talking about

Thanks for proving my point. Jazz is a genre that had it's day. It's unrelatable and irrelevant in the modern world.

nice dubs

pick two

>math rock
good one user

you obviously dont know batshit about jazz

>It's unrelatable and irrelevant in the modern world.
Sure, for people who listen to music half drunk and never bother to actively listen to music.

The Allman Brothers Band (RIP Gregg) played jazz, blues, soul, country and rock....so methinks you are clueless.

>Brian Wilson

oh give me a break. he has a maximum of two albums that could even be considered 8+/10 (Pet Sounds and Smile, obviously).

Zappa has a massive discography full of dozens of masterpieces that blend rock with tons of different genres.

Brian Wilson made pop tunes. pretty good pop tunes, but co compare him to Zappa is a massive insult to Zappa.

*to compare him to Zappa

How do you actively listen to music? Do you run around your yard in circles while listening to Pat Metheny?

Get ready. Just get ready. You know what's coming now.

math rock riffing requires more finger speed and technique than jazz you fucking baby

Branch wasn't bad, his compositions aren't far off from early John Adams in thematic material.

yeah, the psycho Brian Wilson fans who have listened to about 50 albums in their entire life

rock can't be as good as jaz-

I'm not sure why I'm even wasting time with you. I'll indulge you though, but I'm saging. How do you actively listen to music? How about not listening to music on your phone speakers, in your car, actually knowing music theory to an extent and having a technical appreciation for music, playing an instrument and being inspired by musicians you listen to, etc.

Love that album but most Jazz is better than it

And hard bop drumming puts "math rock" drummers to shame thoroughly and consistently.
In any case, more technical doesn't mean better.

Oh so an elitist? You just keep on proving my point. Jazz is unrelatable to the average listener.

You've obviously never listened to Rush.

Like jazz was ever about sounding good.

>Oh so an elitist? You just keep on proving my point.
Oh, appreciating music on a level rather than a pleasant background stuff is elitist? And that's a good thing, right, because almost everyone does it?
>Jazz is unrelatable to the average listener.
And it has been since its departure from swing. So, what now? Should every genre of music be jolly pop music made to sell?

dude what

Not him, but it isn't the point of this thread to exemplify how oh so more complex and technical jazz is than rock music?

>Rush
ahahahaha

I guess?
I thought the point of the thread was to explain why rock never reached the same level of pseudo-academic tradition as jazz.

The average listener is a pleb. Fuck the average listener.
Nothing wrong with elitism.
Elbulli is better than McDonalds
Joyce is better than Dan Brown

You're welcome to your mediocrity, but why should I restrict myself?

You know what jazz is right? Its a musical movement build out of the fundamental of learning music theory by ear. It's a circlejerk of "Oh hey fellow jazzman listen to this complex thing i came up with, dont i just look so fly masturbating my guitar?" and people in the audience go either "Wow he did that, im going to pretend i know how complex that was so people with think im cool" or "Yeah that was an inverted scale with the 7th 5th bla bla bla off tempo on the last note sliding the chord 1/4th upward so it hits the next key bla bla lba".

I'm not by the way.

New pasta?

>Rock can actually write a sing

Or you could just listen to Solo Monk and chill the fuck down.

If you're a Julliard grad I don't expect you to listen to music the same as I do. Of course not. And no not all music should be pop made to sell. Thank god for that actually. But don't try to tell me that Jazz has achieved the same heights as Rock because it hasn't. And simply because it is not music made by people for the people. It's music made by musicians for other musicians. And jazz has always been about that. That's undeniable. Not that that's a bad thing. It just makes it a genre that for your average joe is meaningless and over your head.

Fred Frith, Robert Wyatt, Christian Vander, Robert Fripp.

Found the rock plebian.

There are well known bands that break many if not all of those 'rules'.

As a huge Soft Machine and Henry Cow fan, I respect the mentions, but Zappa really did Canterbury before either of them on songs like The Little House I Used To Live In and The Orange County Lumber Truck.

Why are jazz fans such elitist snobs?

Yes it did

>Juilliard grad
I'm not even from the US and I had to Google that.
>But don't try to tell me that Jazz has achieved the same heights as Rock because it hasn't.
I think discussions like that are pointless and I'm a fan of both jazz and rock music, among other genres. I agree with all of your other points though.

Because its justified

Why do rock fan think their fuzzy warbles are somehow more authentic and artistic than Ariana Grande style teeny-pop, despite it being harmonically and melodically identical

I don't care about having special snowflake opinions unlike you

>doesn't hide lack of talent behind hours of aimless improvisation
"Many people don't understand how disciplined you have to be to play jazz... And that is really the idea of democracy - freedom within the Constitution or discipline. You don't just get out there and do anything you want." -Dave Brubeck

Yeah, man. At least rock isn't full of elitist faggots.

Why do jazz fans think their wanky technicality is somehow more authentic and artistic than Kenny Rogers style cheesiness, despite it being harmonically and melodically identical?

Damn, sick burns. How will I ever recover? Grow up.

Now THAT was a sick burn.

tfw you remember glory days of Sup Forums when just about every post in this mind numbingly retarded thread would have been ironic

No. I don't. And I've been here a long, long time.

This. I've never heard a Jazz song as exciting as 2112.

Because it is unavoidibly justified by being fundamentally snobby.

Because live instrumentation. You being a jazz fan really checks out, even moreso one that doesent know music theory since you think harmonically and melodically is two words so distinct that you have to use them both. Eitherway, its pretty obvious that you have never been in a band that doesent know music theory, so you will probably never experience the autenticity of playing whatever and making a song without the borders of staring into a scale sheet and playing random notes, thinking that its somehow authentic.

Just please do everyone around you a favour and save your hollow opinion on artistic ability, to save those around you from becoming like you.

These aren't ironic posts?

Oh. OH GOD.

>what is Gentle Giant

No Jazz composer can even come close to Gentle Giant complexity.