Is there a more toxic album in any genre? Jazz was reduced to grasping for straws, sifting through Rock music's garbage just to avoid utter stagnation less than 10 years after this monstrosity came out.
It sent Jazz careening down the one-way street of empty virtuosity and amusical extremity so much so that people as tawdry as Kenny G received popular, critical, and academic acclaim for simply making Jazz tuneful again.
W E W
E
W
you can't fool me
The epic pretty much saved jazz desu.
modal jazz was a mistake.
>jazz was a mistake
not until 1959.
True.
Jazz was good. Untill white people came along.
It started the best period of jazz music... It's Ornette who killed jazz.
I remember you from another thread. Eat a dick.
I want this "Jazz is so complex and much less of a mass marketed low brow genre of music compared to Rock" meme to stop.
Jazz is pop music, not art music.
babbys first music studies // shit that classical music students actually believe
Yeah man, Fuck the culture induustry!
No one killed jazz until Miles decided to come back to life again in the 80s with that tacky stuff. 'You're Under Arrest' for example, just listen to the opener.
But no, Giant Steps was not toxic. The 60s was imo the best period for jazz hands down. Albert Ayler is reason enough.
>"x" killed jazz
>"jazz is dead"
lol m8s
>empty virtuousity and amusical extremity
can't make this shit up
lmao
>the best year in jazz is the year when it went to shit
contrarians are precious
fats navarro, charlie parker, clifford brown, lester young had all died and bud powell disappeared from the scene and people genuinely believe 1959 is the best year in jazz
kids are precious.
You guys are all wrong. Jazz has been on a huge downhill slope starting with that fuck Charlie Parker.
>great musicians dying in a specific year makes that year's music worse
wow grandpa dementia must be hitting hard
if you honestly think '59 was a bad year for jazz you're being contrarian.
kind of blue, shape of jazz to come, time out, mingus ah um, giant steps, portrait in jazz
so many quintessential jazz albums came out that year
but if you want to meme and say "hurr jazz went to shit after louis armstrong" then fine
I second this. Doesn't matter if these albums are critically acclaimed or well known, it still makes them important jazz albums.
fucking wrong, the epic is just an extension of young lions BS
giant steps didnt kill jazz by any means, people looking back instead of looking forward and ignoring free jazz killed jazz. Giant Steps, along with people like oscar peterson and cliff brown, simply created a new style of jazz that was focused on technical ability and virtuosity. There's nothing wrong with that, i personally dont go for it but it certainly didnt kill jazz, wynton marsalis treating it like a classical music that isnt allowed to push forward did.
- t. Kendrick fanboi
Theres three kinds of music. Art, Pop, and Traditional. No genre strictly confines to any of these categories so its best to just go record by record and decide which one the record best adheres too. Most artists will change their intent too frequently to even say that an artist fits into one genre......but ur clearly a autist with no understanding of music or the beauty that it creates, fucking uppity ass, jivin motherfucker. eat dick.
shit man, youre just wrong as fuck aint you? even if he did kill jazz, he didnt, no one did, i think being objectively the most conceptually forward thinking musician since bach is more then youve done with ur sad life.
literally this. free jazz didn't kill jazz at all.
also i posted a thread about this a while back, but basically some kid asked marsalis in a Q&A where he thought jazz would go in terms of the balance between traditionalism and the advancement of a seemingly stagnant genre.
marsalis literally just said some bullshit answer along the lines of "music never advances" and that "louis armstrong and bach were doing the same thing".
it's just weird to see such a good player not make any significant advances in the genre.
i mean the best musicians are constantly looking forward, not back. marsalis will be seen as a great educator and a traditionalist, but he will never be among jazz greats.
davis, from the get go, was constantly looking ahead of him. was right in the middle of the bebop era, basically created cool jazz and modal jazz, and completely embraced fusion in the 70s. the absolute definition of a forward thinking musician. he didn't hesitate once, he didn't start talking about how jazz used to be or how it was worse today.
and although he didn't embrace the free jazz movement as much as coltrane, he (afaik) didn't talk shit about it.
i don't really know where jazz can go today (same with classical), but i just think the best musicians are ones that can forget the past and look forward.
if beethoven, instead of pushing boundaries in classical music with romantic era-ideas, had just recreated mozart and haydn's music, we may not even have had a romantic era in classical music. same with bach and the baroque
The terms pop and art music don't indicate quality, just the medium in which the music is released (recording or notation). Fucking pleb.
just in case you're not b8ing, it's actually the opposite. GS was the culmination of that virtuoso faggottry. Even Colrane himself after this started looking for more spiritual, simple and meaningful music instead of just blazing through complex chord changes
yeah, GS was basically just taking that to it's absolute limits. still, it's super valuable in terms of theory, perfect example of the coltrane changes.
also honestly it's more melodic than a lot of people give it credit for
>honestly it's more melodic than a lot of people give it credit for
totally. Naima became a standard for a reason.