Why is jazz so unpopular on Sup Forums?

Why is jazz so unpopular on Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/user/ikema781
youtube.com/watch?v=Qv3BNDpNwPo
youtube.com/watch?v=X0d0mvVaW1Y
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

not enough meme verses to regurgitate in the comment boxes mang
hip-hop is "popular" here because of that alone
it ain't about no music in this place but lyrical memetics

because of the fags saying that grimes is the next mozart

The only people who regularly listen to Jazz in 2017 are really old people or rich white hipsters. Both groups of people don't browse Sup Forums or Sup Forums at all.

unless perhaps the jazz musician in question has a sexy ass and photogenic qt face

it doesn't carry any cultural cachet because it's old and it's merit has already been established

Sun Ra is the greatest jazz man to have ever existed.

Prove me wrong, bitches.

Also, space is the place.

But even classical music has a much greater presence on Sup Forums than jazz

Rich white hipsters are the entire basis of Sup Forums

Cause EVERYONE hates jazzfags.

Worst thing is, they actually want to be hated so they can keep their precious genre for themselves.

this is definitely part of it

I think its because with jazz and classical its harder for people to attach a personality/character to the music the way we do with rock and hip-hop

Like all of the most popular (on this board) bands' frontmen are basically memes themselves (MC Ride, Thom Yorke, Jeff Mangum, Kanye, Michael Gira, etc). With lyrics its easier to get an idea of what the artist is like and form an idea of them in your head. This is all amplified by the fact that it's an image board so we're constantly seeing funny/interesting pictures of the artists we like. So it becomes more than listening to music, you're also sketching a portrait of the artist.

and musicians

I'm also neither and like jazz

I wouldn't say all of Jazz is unpopular on Sup Forums the only Jazz I ever see is Miles and Coltrane or maybe some Mingus which is sad because it's such a small window of Jazz I rarely see anyone talk about Dizzy or Bill Evans who I think are leagues above Miles or Coltrane

it always feel like getting into a gimmick that gets stale after 2 album listenings
for me at least

What was that one youtuber that did covers with his sax any of you guys remember his name?

i'm 25, am i old?
i'm poor white kid working on the factory, am i hipster?
i regularly listen to jazz because i like it the most

Sun Ra is the best m8, see Still, Mingus > Coltrane >>>>> Miles.

Plebs won't agree.

this guy?
youtube.com/user/ikema781

Yes thanks my man

Almost nobody has the attention span to listen to instrumental music and many seem to think that music without lyrics that tell them how to feel is "unemotional" or "wank." ESPECIALLY if the music is not culturally relevant.

/classical/ may seem to refute this, but in looking at the general threads it's really only a handful of posters keeping those threads going. /jazz/ used to be the same but I think most of the main posters in those threads were actual musicians and they seem to have left Sup Forums

Another factor could also be a lot of Jazz is appreciated through understanding music theory which plays into the major part of Jazz which is improvisation it's entirely based off of theory. I'd find it hard to appreciate Jazz without knowing what is actually going on or how genius a solo is but, idk if Sup Forums actually knows any theory

I rarely see people here talking about any jazz classics beside those painted classics from Sup Forums-core.
not to mention it's all basically post 1960

Jazz serves a cultural function in the music scene. It is a signifier for musical "adulthood." To embrace jazz is to don a kind of graduation cap, signifying a broadening of tastes outside "mere" rock music. This ostentatious display of "sophistication" is an insult, and I find the graduation cappers transparent and tedious. Certainly there must be interesting music one could call "jazz." There must be. I've never heard it, but I grant that it is out there somewhere.

Jazz has a non-musical parallel: Christiania, the "free" zone in Copenhagen. In Christiania, like in jazz, there is no law. People are left to their own inventions to create and act as they see fit. In Jazz, the musicians are allowed to improvise over and beside structural elements that may themselves be extemporaneous. Sounds good, doesn't it? Freedom -- sounds good.

The reality is much bleaker. Christiania is a squalid, trashy string of alleys with rag-and-bone men selling drugs, tie-dye and wretched food. Granted Total Freedom, and this is what they've chosen to do with it, sell hash and lentil soup? Jazz is similar. The results are so far beneath the conception that there is no English word for the dissappointment one feels when forced to confront it. Granted Total Freedom, you've chosen to play II V I and blow a goddamn trill on the saxophone? Only by willfully ignoring its failings can one pretend to appreciate it as an idiom and don the cap.

I listen almost exclusively to instrumental-only music but most jazz just bores me and makes me feel tired. I really wish I could get into it, because I love improvisation and cool rhythms in music.

True I agree with the fact that a lot of Jazz is confined to the II V I progression but, there is so much you can do with it like any other music. But anyways I do agree with you that a lot of Jazz does not take the freedom that it grants and only follows tradition which is why I think albums like Ascension are praised because they deny tradition and truly embrace freedom and improvisation. Still old classics like Dizzy and Bird are still great because of what they made but, most of Jazz is holding onto the past and doesn't want to evolve. that's why these idiots who say "Jazz is Dying" are so obnoxious they refuse to take what Dizzy or Parker did and expand on it like Coltrane or Miles did

I'm white, but definitely not rich. I feel like these days, "hipster" is more about a clothing fashion sense than musical taste. I dress pretty regular desu, so I probably don't count as a hipster

I've played a fair amount of jazz in my scene (I'm friends with a bunch of cats because I grew up playing jazz in school and going to jazz camps, etc.) even though I'm not a huge fan of jazz. It's fun to play but I've honestly never enjoyed listening to it as much as other genres.

It's definitely a musician's genre. It's really hard to appreciate a lot of combo style jazz if you're not a musician.

Big band jazz, however, is different. I think it's much more accessible, and I personally prefer it, because I like the composition and minimal wankery.

But also, the jazz scene has really caused me to dislike it, because of how fucking pretentious and pompous they are. Jazz musicians talk more shit than any other types of musicians I know. Hell, they talk more shit than most athletes. Maybe it's due to the fact that it's one of the least popular genres, and their gigs are background music 99% of the time, which causes angst. I don't know.

Adorno btfo jazz like 100 years ago

Not trying to hate on jazz btw
I do enjoy it really, just not as much as other types of music

Yeah if you think the Sup Forums-core community is toxic Jazz is the most cancerous community you'll ever see it's full of pretentious pricks who think the whole think is a competition

L I A R
I I
A A
R R

H I P S T E R I N D E N I A L
H I P S T E R I N D E N I A L

i'm a musician and have played with some jazz guys a few times. the bass players are cool, the rest are complete pricks that are way too far up their own ass.

Yeah. Competition can be bad for art, I feel like

>the bass players are cool
I wish this was the case with the bass players I've played with. I've honestly found them to be the worst of them, since they're the ones who are technically the most important (you can't really play jazz without bass, unless it's a solo guitar or piano gig)
I've met a couple cool ones, but most of them have been pompous asses

The only reason why some music is better than other music is to measure whose musical cock is bigger, brighter, and more capable of getting a following. Competition is the only reason why music is still relevant.

maybe it's an age thing. i've met a few really douche bass jazz guys, but they were like right out of music school type of jackasses. the older ones ive played with are really chilled out

Then why are jazz and classical so irrelevant, considering they're the most competitive genres?

>the older ones ive played with are really chilled out
Oh yeah, the old guys are great. Unfortunately I mostly play with guys my age

More of a horace silver and pharaoh sanders man myself but can't deny the stage presence that was sun ra

I'm a bass player and I've played with some trios, most of the time I think the piano players are very toxic, lots of the time they believe they are the sole leader of the trio which can be obnoxious. But, lots of bass players also think they are the shit because it's a hard ass instrument to be honest string instruments are a bitch in the first place but one that is the size of a human being is a major bitch to learn and half the time the drummer just sucks or are clueless to whats going on.

Sup Forums is populated by white teenagers and underage children

of course they only listen to indie bullshit and hip hop

Because jazz and classical got old and decrepit like a man in a nursing home, and rock got even more competitive, and dethroned it as the king of popular music (then rock got dethroned).
Plus, jazz people got too competitive between themselves, and they collapsed into obscurity.

It's a pasta you idiot

the levels of douche in jazz are:
1. guitar
2. saxophone
3. piano
4. trumpet
5. drums
6. bass

>implying that pretentious white teenagers don't listen to jazz

elaborate

yo user

there are an awful lot of cunts here who try to hide their inferiority complex by pretending they like different music than others, since that's the whole point of Sup Forums

there are a gazillion of these "why does Sup Forums dislike jazz" threads over the course of history. always when there is jazz discussion going on in at least three open threads.

you're not going to outsnub all those other autists on Sup Forums, since everyone here makes it their life purpose to find even more obscure music to feel like they're smart, and if you don't get to sun ra at a certain point of that search you're not doing that very well

???

Give me some good jazz albums that include guitar

It's got to be either really fun or really chill

Incorrect
1. trumpet
2. drums
3. guitar
4. saxophone
5. piano
6. bass

Most Joe Pass stuff is really good but, Wes Montgomery is my favorite
Joe Pass: Virtuoso
Joe Pass: Chops
Wes Montgomery: Smokin' At the Half Note

Albinis still got a point

>it's pretentious to listen to jazz
I listen to jazz and don't understand shit about it

that's actually a meme.
people who know music theory have better tools to explain why they think an album/a solo is good, giving its appropriate criticism, but it's not necessary at all to enjoy jazz music. Music is all about language, and if you can't communicate with the listener by the music only, you're not a musician. Also, good solos are easily recognizable, even if you don't know scales or more deep stuff about the theory.

FUCKING LIAR PANTS ON FIRE
Everybody on this board is a white middle class teenager of 14-20 who has nothing better to do in his spare time.

Kenny Burrell: Midnight Blue
Grant Green - Idle Moments
Any Django Reinhardt
Charlie Christian - Genius of the Electric Guitar

Do not consume what you do not understand. I don't listen to ambient because I do not understand what the fuck the point of it is.
>kek at the picture

True

Not the user you replied to, but I enjoy jazz despite being ignorant of theory and everything. It just sounds good.

And what's there to understand about ambient? It's all about atmosphere.

>Sun Ra is the greatest jazz man to have ever existed.

Everything seems to be in order.

But what's the REAL point of ambient music?
Plus, enjoying jazz requires understanding theory, which is a waste of time. Rock music is easier to consume, therefore easier to enjoy.

>why is noodly, technical, dissonant music unpopular in an age where minimalism is the prevailing musical philosophy

>enjoying jazz requires understanding theory
Not really. That's like saying you need to understand electronics to enjoy watching the telly.
>Which is a waste of time
To each to his own bruh. I love studying jazz, especially for drums. (Okay, it's my instrument but I think it still applies.)

Agreed. I remember Buddy Rich saying once something in the lines of jazz being the rebellious response to the current popular music.

It's easy to make fun of because of retards like you

I love how my title says Anti-jihadi advert preaching ‘love not terror’
I will now proceed to kill myself.

The same reason that Bossa Nova is also unpopular: Sup Forums is the new reddit, full of plebs

I enjoyed jazz back when I knew absolutely nothing about music theory. I still don't know very much at all and I love jazz. It's not everyone's genre but don't make excuses. It's clearly just not your type of thing.

You are learning theory, friend, by studying jazz. Therefore, you have a better capacity to enjoy it. But to each his own, I guess.
Plus, the television analogy does not make sense, since most people watch shows that are produced FOR television. That's the entertainment. Knowing about acting and directing helps enhance your television-watching experience.
Actually, you made me realize something.
It's actually less extreme than my original POV.
I think what I meant to say was that understanding something, or the theory behind it, helps you enhance the experience, not completely bar you from enjoying it.

Refer to my above post.

Yeah, it was a shitty analogy. I agree on your point about it not completely stopping you from enjoying it but rather enhancing it. I think the feeling partly comes from the ability to perform it as well.

youtube.com/watch?v=Qv3BNDpNwPo

Jazz is enjoyed by musicians, because it is made for musicians.

La La Land got some things about Jazz wrong, but the scene where Sebastian explains to Mia what Jazz is about is very accurate: Sebastian says "Jazz was born in a little flop house in New Orleans. [it was] just because people where crammed in there, they spoke five different languages, they couldn't talk to each-other. The only way they could communicate, was through Jazz."

Continued: "The Sax player right now, he just hijacked the song, he's on his own trip. Every one of these guys is composing, re-arranging, they're writing, and their playing the melody. And now look, the trumpet player he's got his own idea. So it's conflict, and it's compromise."

Here's the scene: youtube.com/watch?v=X0d0mvVaW1Y

I did not enjoy Jazz for many years, and then under my degree I took two semesters of Jazz Improvisation (some of the two hardest courses I had to take, they really surprised me) and after that I loved Jazz. It's very hard to appreciate Jazz without an understanding of music theory concepts. It's literally music for musicians. Those who genuinely love Jazz that don't understand music, would probably make great musicians. It takes an understanding of composition and arrangement to understand what is happening. It's about breaking the rules. Not in the same way experimental music breaks the rules, Jazz is taking the mathematics of music and flipping them on their heads. It's like hacking music.

It's great stuff, but It's a very alienating genre and I do not expect any of my friends or relatives to enjoy it so I don't play it with other people around.