Why is Sup Forums so full of pop?

why is Sup Forums so full of pop?

is it because they don't get jazz?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_SgPSG3FGnc
youtube.com/watch?v=FSxnwDiFWhk
youtube.com/watch?v=Qka3Lv2NX48
youtube.com/watch?v=9fZYI61M3Rs
youtube.com/watch?v=FMoctGlH-rM
youtube.com/watch?v=IPvK-dYNoGE
youtube.com/watch?v=6YE7y-L65Xk
youtube.com/watch?v=Qov0QkuzJM0
youtube.com/watch?v=rwJNuY3i6uQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Jazz WAS pop before bebop. Not that I have anything against that. Swing, big band, etc, is still much better than rock and hip-hop.

If you're going to talk about jazz don't start the thread with a talentless ripoff hack

>pharoah sanders
lol

Best jazz cats in the game coming in

ah yes the "pharaoh sanders is bad because an album of his got popular with a small internet community a few year back" meme. got to love it

is he holding a guitar?

nobody likes jazz

Sorry Kiddo, Jazz is part of the Pop Tradition, obviously you didn't read the memo.

the memeo

He's bad because he blatantly ripped off John Coltrane and defaced his music with shitty yodelling and laughably bad free jazz solos. It's a real shame, considering how good his work as a session player is

It wasn't jazz as much as a singer and a big band.

>pleb cant into shitty yodelling

HAHA XD What a meme.

Except for the hundreds of millions of people who were alive during the 6 decades that it was popular.

JOHN COLTRANE WAS A LEADER IN THE FREE JAZZ MOVEMENT

>PLEB CAN'T LIKE WHAT I LIKE
Just a reminder, but if you have to force youself to like something it's probably shit.

it might have been a part of pop 100 years ago. it's high art music now. its very academic and shieet

Thanks for stating the obvious kiddo

>very academic and shieet
Type Zeros everyone

lol at you getting mad at an obvious joke. stay angry plebs

This thread got raided and derailed. Don't mention pop next time.

...

>he blatantly ripped off John Coltrane and defaced his music with shitty yodelling and laughably bad free jazz solos
...You contradict yourself and are in a corner, so you try to devalue my argument with name calling... we got a real good meme here.

Full of pop because Sup Forums is mostly non-musicians and therefor lack the obvious education and music appreciation of other genres (and pop is the least common denominator of "sounds good".)

People tend to lock themselves in a box when they like something, never trying anything new.

mate i even said 'shitty' in my comment. thats not pretending to be a retard, thats clearly having a laff - impying that i understand exactly why someone wouldnt like the yodeling, while i do.

plebs cant subtext

How did I contradict myself? Are you implying that Karma is not a cheap knockoff of A Love Supreme and Meditations?

Sometimes it's best that you cease responding to prevent further embarrassment.

Sanders plays on Meditations you goober

why does it matter? karma is the worst of sanders albums

everything is just a cheap knockoff of duke ellington and cab calloway anyways

And he also ripped it off 3 years later. So?

Ironically enough I think the best solo on it is Sander's on side 2.

I'd argue that Jewels of Thought somehow manages to be worse. It's like FMP jazz but god forsakenly bad.

I wouldn't really say that artists like Sam Rivers or Alexander von Schlippenbach or even Andrew Hill are cheap knockoffs of Ellington. Or Calloway. If you reason Sanders ripping off Coltrane like that, why do Don Cherry and Cecil Taylor sound so vastly different despite being in the same genre?

maybe because don cherry coulndnt play the trumpet if his life depended on it?

sanders is garbage. get some taste kid
everytime some kid tries to bash Sup Forums they always post their most pleb artist. lmao

>is it because they don't get jazz?
Hit the nail on the head.

Though I do quite like pop.

His piano playing is pretty solid. I like his flute stuff too. His trumpet playing is probably the least technically admirable of his instruments.

And that doesn't answer the question. Unless you're now going to tell me that Taylor was a shit pianist.

Based on the inherent nature of music, you can steal whatever you want.
Based on the inherent nature of knockoff's they are profitable and simpler to make; jazz is a dead meme making this your statement on a "knockoff simply a sour response or opinion.

Based on the inherent nature of free jazz, it's purely experimental and emotionally driven.
>Insisting that one free jazz solo is "easier to make" or objectively better than another: or, that you can ruin free jazz or imitate it.

Pharoah Sanders is an honest musician with honest intentions, so who cares if he 'rips off' another musician; that is widely accepted and incredibly common occurrence in jazz especially. I mean, for like 60 years 50% of the time we've been playing the same songs. So while you keep insisting that he made Karma to make money or gain popularity, we all know that you're just a bitter person who is a fanboy of Coltrane. Your reasons for disliking musicians is so invalid and honestly kind of sickening.

u arent even a fraction of the musician sander was. is that why u salty?

cecil taylor would've freely admitted that he was a second rate duke ellington or bud powell but of course you would rather shift the argument to something more in your favor, eh?

>was
hes still alive man. i saw him live a couple of months ago - hes still got it

>sanders is garbage.
Explain why. Use specific music terminology.

>get some taste kid
Such as? Are you going to point to other artists who liked/respected/collaborated with him?

>lmao
XDD

nope. my point was that they sound different because cecil taylor could actually play while don cherry could not

I get jazz. I just don't care for it. I don't enjoy Instrumental virtuosity all that much. I love seeing a good quartet live but listening to a recording of it? Nah.

>I don't enjoy Instrumental virtuosity all that much
that's more of a trope than what actually happens in jazz. Plenty of fusion music that sounds great.

A few years ago the leftist intelligentsia collectively came up with a plan to hide how culturally elitist they are by embracing modern pop and other obvious garbage as some sort of egalitarian pose. Hence white college "intellectuals" awkwardly pretending to enjoy and relate to trap rap in recent years.

Sure, you can steal whatever you want, but that just stagnates the genre you're in and music as a whole. Why else do you think that jazz is now a rotting corpse?

That second statement makes 0 sense. Is english just not your first language?

There is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to preferences in jazz solos of any kind. When did I imply that? When did I even mention solos save for the bit where I said that Sanders' solo on side 2 of Meditations is my personal favorite on the record? Key word: personal favorite.

Haha, if his intentions were so honest he wouldn't be ripping off Coltrane in the exact same fucking key as the original.

And yes, that is the exact fucking reason Jazz is a dead genre today. Back in the 60s people were pushing boundaries. That's why Kind of Blue sounds so different from In a Silent Way. That's why Giant Steps sounds nothing like Interstellar Space. Before that, it was all standards and everyone playing the exact same song in near identical ways. And now it's the same thing.

I never implied that. I only implied that he extremely explicitly copied John Coltrane. His motives are not up to me to decide.

And yeah. I like Coltrane. I'm ok with Sanders as a session musician. I hate him behind the wheel of bandleader. Your poor ad hominem isn't going to change my justification of my opinions.

Now, pop on back to RYM.

That's just being humble silly. Nothing got to do with his own opinions on his playing.

And please do elaborate how that has anything to do with shifting arguments in my favor.

That's not a justification. Whether or not someone can play their instruments properly and how derivative they are don't exactly correlate.

what kind of conspiracy is this?

>you can steal whatever you want, but that just stagnates the genre you're in and music as a whole
That statement is so small minded and ill informed, I'm just not reading the rest of this.

Which still heavily relies on noodling. It's fine, it's just not my thing. I appreciate it when I see it but I wouldn't jam out to it in my bedroom or my car.

>being intentionally ignorant so that you don't have to refute your opponents argument because reasons

Sasuga user, you sure showed me

I can literally the same about you for any pop singer.
how dumb are you

sure you can, but i wouldnt be true.

im p talented myself

vocaroo you singing right now

This is the internet equivalent of getting punched in the gut during a fight and saying "That punch was so weak I'm not even going to bother fighting you anymore" while walking away, coughing up blood with tears in your eyes.

>still heavily relies on noodling
Your first statement said nothing about noodling. Listen to Snarky Puppy "Semente" youtube.com/watch?v=_SgPSG3FGnc or Brecker Brother's "Big Idea" youtube.com/watch?v=FSxnwDiFWhk

i dont sing. i play a number of instruments
also, im at my home i dont have any mics here

You don't have an argument. You didn't ever ONCE list a reason why you don't like him past "he's shit". So when I attempt to address your flawed logic, you called it a ad homenim. I have better things to do than talk to idiots.

You should post a recording of you playing one of your free jazz hits or you playing anything better than Sanders.

See Also, my argument for him being shit is that he remorselessly ripped off a dead man's music just 2 years after being one of his closest collaborators. And in the process of doing so he added unbearable elements from his own self which make the already bad music even worse.

Does this make sense to you? Or are you too in love with Sanders' BBC to see through the semen in your eyes?

Also, that's not an ad hominem. That's me pointing out how laughable your weak damage control is right now.

I'm at work :)
but I'd be happy to hear yours :)

>my argument for him being shit is that he remorselessly ripped off a dead man's music just 2 years after being one of his closest collaborators. And in the process of doing so he added unbearable elements from his own self which make the already bad music even worse
This isn't an argument. It's flawed logic with a lack of reasoning. Again...THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH 'RIPPING OFF' MUSIC.

JAZZ IS NOT BASED ON NOODLINGGGGGGGGGGG REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

How is that not an argument? Because you say so?

And like I said, ripping off music leads to genre stagnation. Why else do you think that post-rock turned from one of the most promising growths in the 90s to a pile of horseshit in the 10s? Why else do you think the indie rock movement has been replaceed?

Get a grip man. I think you should just log off and go to bed at this point.

>That's me pointing out how laughable your weak damage control is right now.
"Ad Homenim - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."

You are truly an idiot

Haha, that's what I wanted to say, but I just sent some BB and Snarky Puppy instead.

But he has no more positions left to attack save for his attempt at crying foul play. What else am I supposed to do, pat him on the head like a puppy dog?

>con

I'm not saying it was a conspiracy, I'm saying it's a recognizable trend in music criticism based on a rather mindless hivemind-like process in an ideological circle.

Arguments are to be objective. Period. Everything you've said is an opinion or a fallacy.

Example of your fallacy - "my argument for him being shit..." Your argument was never about someone being shit (as a person like this statement says clearly) but about his music being shitty.

guys Jazz is dead becuse big recording companies don't want to invest in it because all they care about is money so no one tries to push jazz forward. That's why popular music is worse now than in the 60's aswell. All they care about in money.

And it's not just music. Sports, Movies, journalism, literature. Everything is either very dumbed down or the people who control it only cares about money. Capitalism has gone too far and art suffers.

>that's not an ad hominem. That's me pointing out how laughable your weak damage control is right now.
so stupid

interesting thought.

>Arguments are to be objective
So he did not objectively copy A Love Supreme? His free jazz freakouts on Karma are not objectively derivative of Meditations?

Bravo

So we're playing the semantics game now? This is Sup Forums. Slang like that is extremely common. For example, if I were to say "The Beatles are shit", it would be widely interpreted to be me saying "The Beatles' music is shit" rather than "The Beatles' are shitty people". Because this is a board about music, not about celebrities or personalities.

I really suggest you find a better argument than this because this is not going in your favor.

Nice, an ad hominem to counter a statement about ad hominem. Genius

>capitalism is bad
when will this meme stop. its the go to excuse for people who make shit Music.

Since capitalism started ruling the world it probably became better. It's probably even responsible to a lot of great art.

But right now everything is in the power of some guys controlling everything and the only motivation for them is to make more money so the actually good stuff like more artistic pop or Jazz or Classical is not being released in big labels. There's a reason why the most popular music in the world right now is shit, repetitive and everything sounds the same. It just makes them more money to release a Kary perry song than a Ben Wendel song. And that's why modern music seems worse to a lot of people.

Yeah

nobody needs big labels anymore.we have spotify,pandora,apple music. people can click on a playlist or radio and discover new music everydayy.
and why are you mentioning katy perry shes not even on the charts atm
Beyonce,major lazer,drake,desiigner, adele.sia and 21 pilots are the ones dominating pop music atm. how do end of them sound the same?

Modern music is great stop being lazy

>Arguments are to be objective.

Reddit

All those artists you mentioned may not sound exactly like each other but they also do nothing new except maybe beyonce.

Those internet platforms don't really mean anything when you're not already famous and infront of people's eyes. Rihanna for example is famous because her record labels decided to invest money on her and make her famous because they think she has potential of being famous and give them more money (just using her as an example, this is pretty much true for all big artists right now). And those people don't want to invest in more artistic music like Jazz or art pop becuase it won't bring them enough money so those genres will never be as big as Rihanna or Beyonce.

It's not like music is worse and people are less talented but it's just that the big people that release music don't care about art, they care about money.

>he blatantly ripped off John Coltrane
Except his playing style is miles off Coltrane's. There's a little bit of aesthetic similarities in the sense that Sanders was playing spiritual jazz which Coltrane laid most of the groundworks for. Sanders wasn't trying to make a facsimile of Coltrane's work though. He was just playing in the same idiom as he did for a while. He was no more ripping off Coltrane than Coltrane was ripping off Miles when he started moving into modal music.
When you hear the two of them playing together like on Meditations, you can pretty clearly see the massive gulf between the two of them with regards to musicianship and approach but Coltrane respected Sanders enough to have him on tour and records for the last two years of his life.

Show me some modern jazz thats doing anything new?

But those internet platforms do mean something. everbody has a choice of what they wanna listen too and nobody can stop them..

>Except his playing style is miles off Coltranes
See: Sonny Sharrock - Ask the Ages, where he played session. That's fucking sheets of sound all the way through.

There's nothing wrong with building off of your mentors work. Except when the material you build off with goes out of its way to have extreme similarities with your mentors work, and has many distasteful elements added by yourself that are arguably an insult to your mentor.

He had something going with Tauhid. But yet he chooses his next album to be extremely derivative of Coltrane's work.

And while Coltrane did build off Miles when he first started I wouldn't say that any of the With the Miles Davis Quintet albums sound like Giant Steps or My Favorite Things.

And yes, Coltrane and Sanders were, during Coltrane's years of work with him, quite far apart. Which is why I mentioned that I found his session work with Trane quite admirable. His playing on Live at the Village Vanguard Again is mindblowing. But what I cannot admire is his intentional change in direction after a solid release that was designed to sound exactly the fucking same as Coltrane.

Is this reasoning good enough for you?

>Show me some modern jazz thats doing anything new?

Not him but:
youtube.com/watch?v=Qka3Lv2NX48
youtube.com/watch?v=9fZYI61M3Rs
youtube.com/watch?v=FMoctGlH-rM

>everbody has a choice of what they wanna listen too and nobody can stop them..
Right, but when you're not popular enough your music won't get recommended to people so they still won't know it exists.

>Show me some modern jazz thats doing anything new?
youtube.com/watch?v=IPvK-dYNoGE
youtube.com/watch?v=IPvK-dYNoGE

But of course if Jazz was being pushed forward and actually popular there would've been much more new stuff. Just like hip hop is constantly changing.

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're wrong. A large reason why jazz became popular in the first place because of capitalism. It was a new thing, plus it was combined with new trends + the birth of recording. The market pushed and helped it in overwhelming ways.

Jazz could be popular again if new artists started recorded songs similar to the ones in the 30's. That was the pop music of the time, after all.

jazz fans are worse than metal fans

As a jazz fan you could not possibly be closer to the truth

You probably like K-pop and memerap. Fuck off.

>A large reason why jazz became popular in the first place because of capitalism
I agree with this. The market pushed it and helped it but that stopped and it's one of the main reason there wasn't another huge movement pretty much since fusion started. Jazz could be popular again simply if the market will start to push it again which is very unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Jazz became too hard for the normal person to enjoy and they just prefer short upbeat songs like whatever is on the radio right now.

t. baby jazz fan

Never listened to either if you don't count clicking a video on youtube and watching it for a few seconds

>Sonny Sharrock - Ask the Ages, where he played session
Huh. I wasn't actually aware that was him. It's been awhile since I've heard it but I remember the sax being pretty good on that album. Do you think he was adding some more personal touches that were in bad taste on that album?

I've not gone particularly deep into his solo discography so I'm not familiar with Tauhid or "Izipho Zam". I don't actually like his playing in general desu. It sounds like you're not tarring all his work with the same brush which was what I was taking issue with so yeah, I'm satisfied.
I thought you were being a bit harsh that first post but it sounds like you get that things were a little more nuanced than Sanders spending his career in the shadow of Coltrane, probably better than I do.
I think it's worth noting that in a big discography with a lot of releases, it's damn hard to be original all the time. People like Coltrane who were almost constantly evolving their sound and giving incredible performances are few and far between but that's why he's got the widespread acclaim that Sanders doesn't really have.

>the normal person to enjoy and they just prefer short upbeat songs like whatever is on the radio right now.

That's exactly what almost all music was like before the album format existed and everything was a single. A few examples:

youtube.com/watch?v=6YE7y-L65Xk
youtube.com/watch?v=Qov0QkuzJM0
youtube.com/watch?v=rwJNuY3i6uQ

Honestly, no one cares what music you like. Leave this thread if you're so butthurt about jazz.

>That's exactly what almost all music was like before the album format existed and everything was a single
Exactly, and because Jazz doesn't offers that anymore, the normal person just doesn't connects with it like he used to.

On that album? No. His playing was fine. But that's still an incredible close ripoff of Coltrane's signature style.

And yes, I do understand the dynamic between Sanders and Coltrane. I mean as a Coltrane fanboy it's basically obligatory for me to know about his no. 1 collaborator who didn't originate from his classic quartet.

He does get better later on though. Black Unity is a nice release that tries hard to be less derivative.

And yes, I do understand how insanely difficult it is to keep pushing the envelope. That's basically the reason I admire Coltrane so much, as well as his fantastic playing and interplay.

But basically yeah, that sums up my overall critique of Pharoah Sanders' post-Coltrane era.

How do you explain people like Gregory Porter and Esperanza Spalding who have a big following of normies?
>His playing was fine. But that's still an incredible close ripoff of Coltrane's signature style.
I suppose my next question would then be: do you actually have a problem with that? If he's making enjoyable music, is there harm in it being derivative?
>Black Unity is a nice release that tries hard to be less derivative
I didn't like it much. To me it represents some of the worst stuff modal jazz can produce where everything feels static and the soloists don't bring the harmonic freedom they're given anywhere interesting. Sanders spends waaaaay too much time dicking around with extended techniques and trying to produce interesting timbres for their own sake. I much prefer how people like Coltrane or even Albert Ayler approached that stuff, as a tool rather than an end unto itself.

Haven't heard for gregory potter but esperanza is a cutie chick that makes borderline pop music. It's dumbed down Jazz. And even then she's not close in popularity to beyonce or rihanna

I was referring to Ask the Ages specifically, not any of his other albums.

And yes, like I said, it leads to genre stagnation. Derivativity is the cancer that killed jazz and a million other genres.

I like textural dickery and extended technique so it appeals to me. I see it as the natural conclusion from Tauhid and as a finality statement before he went on to his 80s era. Whereas Karma and Jewels of Thought were overlong for all the wrong reasons I feel like Black Unity suceeds in making good use of its runtime.

>It's dumbed down Jazz
So is most of the stuff that was ever beyonce level popular in jazz's heyday. People like Frank Sinatra and Peggy Lee were the faces of jazz for a lot of the public in their day.
For a lot of his career, Miles Davis was playing clubs, not stadiums and even when he was at his peak popularity, he wasn't getting number one albums and singles. His records sold the amount they did gradually and because the critics and fans kept pointing to Kind of Blue and saying it's a remarkable album.
>And yes, like I said, it leads to genre stagnation. Derivativity is the cancer that killed jazz and a million other genres.
Innovation by itself isn't enough to make good and impactful music though. People like Lennie Tristano are a testament to that.
I don't think that jazz has ever really completely stagnated though. There are a bunch of scenes and players still evolving and developing new styles. It's certainly out of the public conscious but it's deffinitely not dead. If you look at /blindfold/ threads, depending on the theme, people are always showcasing new releases and consistently, I've seen unusal musical ideas and artists pushing themselves as soloists and composers. You gotta cherry pick a little bit but I don't think you can really call a genre dead if there are still modern gems to be found.
> I feel like Black Unity suceeds in making good use of its runtime
Better than Karma does for sure. I can deffinitely appreciate that if you've got a palate attuned to that stuff that it's probably great. I bet you're probably a big fan of Albert Ayler and Anthony Braxton too.

I guess calling jazz dead is an exaggeration. It's more of at a state where it's a niche rather than a popular genre. Still, I prefer the 60s avant-jazz and post-bop to any other era.

I actually do dig Ayler but I haven't checked out Braxton's stuff yet. He's in my backlog though.

serious question:

why are jazz fans so fucking pretentious?

Because Jazz is intellectual music, and they think by listening to it that makes them intellectual

It was a different time I don't think count basie ever played in stadiums either.

>It was a different time I don't think count basie ever played in stadiums either.
The point still stands though: "the best of jazz music" never resonated with the public. People didn't get Ellington's Reminiscing in Tempo, beboppers were marginalised and the people who were wildly popular were usually more akin to the sort of people on the charts today than to the likes of Miles Davis and John Coltrane.
>I prefer the 60s avant-jazz and post-bop to any other era.
I'd be in the same boat as far as preference but I like some music from basically the start of jazz through to modern day.
>I haven't checked out Braxton's stuff yet
You'd probably like him. I prefer the way he plays as a sideman on the likes of Conference of the Birds and The Iron Men but I'd say you'd really dig the likes of Dortmund Quartet.