Is it bad that every jazz song i hear sounds the exact same

is it bad that every jazz song i hear sounds the exact same

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=XrPAznqp6vA
youtube.com/watch?v=5Jhy3-5coc8
youtube.com/watch?v=kbpOPOz2KQA
youtube.com/watch?v=YDiKea1r7sw
ericbarnhill.wordpress.com/facts-about-improvisation/
youtube.com/watch?v=4tZamFKyPwM
gutenberg.org/files/35041/35041-h/35041-h.html
classicfm.com/composers/beethoven/guides/daniel-steibelt/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

i really want to get into it but i can appreciate it further than just normal background noises

Fuck off Albini

I have the same problem with rock

The elephant in the room. Thanks for pointing it out.

I have the same problem with noise.

It's all the same shit.

youtube.com/watch?v=XrPAznqp6vA
youtube.com/watch?v=5Jhy3-5coc8

in what ways? i was conditioned to verse chorus verse so i guess with jazz its logical in that i shouldnt expect any hooks. i suspect its my lack of music theory that keeps me from enjoying it.

Depending on the style of jazz, and the leading instruments, I can tell a difference between.
But if it's in the same sub-genre with the same instrumentation, it more or less sounds the same to my ears as well.

However, alt/indie rock??
That shit literally all sounds identical.

Whether it's shit from the 90's or now, all more or less sounds the same.

i stay away from any indie rock post 2000 altogether

so insufferable

You're what we in the business call "Tone Deaf."

Sup Forums unironically thinks that these sound anything alike.

youtube.com/watch?v=kbpOPOz2KQA

youtube.com/watch?v=YDiKea1r7sw

It just means that you don't know how to actually listen to music is all. You can only hear it as background sounds.

Generally, it's a problem with attention span. You should try to spend more time on active pastimes like reading.

Listen to Money Jungle

If you think every song on that sounds the same I don't know what else to say to you.

I share a music board with these simpletons...

No its negro bar music trying to look "cool"

sat down rolling cigarettes for the past hour listening to mingus. am i just retarded?

you weren't even paying attention to the music then you fucking idiot

doing something while actively listening is something only people with years of experience of actual listening can do

you are an absolute pleb and an uncultured swine, so you need to listen to this music with 0 distractions

fair

What album?

*tips*

One goes biip boop biip while the other goes BRAOROA BNOARBOABR AORB AOBRAORBABBRBRBRBRBBRRB.

I guess they sound a little different.

jazz has smaller available canvas than classic tonal music and sacrificed two aesthetic dimensions and ability to accumulate ideas in order to sound "cool" and spontaneous. ideological dogma won over simple truths and necessities of the craft.
live improvisation is harder than accumulating ideas on paper. the probability of fresh inspiration during live performance is smaller than a time window that a normal composer devotes to a piece. consequently the live jazz soloist will recall tropes from memory more often than a composer who can edit everything on paper. it's not a coincidence that most jazz musicians were drug addicts, every live concert became an existential crisis. even a "regular" middle class guy like bill evans turned into a junkie.
classic tonality has two dimension which jazz doesnt use to the full extent possible
-pure consonance and dissonance (corresponds with biological sensation of relaxation and tension, the tension is more profound because there is a perfect relaxed background against which tensions can contrast, more opportunities to "sculpt" the space between pure consonance and extreme dissonance)
-sense of perspective (listener is aware of attitude to main key during each segment), spengler compared tonality to discovery of perspective in renaissance painting.

jazz dillutes contrast between tension and relaxation by avoiding basic triads and throwing in 9s, 11s and 13s for "cool sound", which leads to permanent tension and a "smaller canvas" compared to classic tonality. and they remove sense of perspective by frequently modulating full circle of fiths and of course excessive chromaticism. the artist instinctively feels that his sound lacks something and since he's discouraged from using pure consonance, he goes to the other extreme and searches more extreme dissonance.
>but it's a sonic representation of urban chaos and disoriented life of a modern nomad bla bla
i agree that jazz is a perfect representation of modern spiritual poverty

didn't read any of that, but you should hang yourself

>le noble Sup Forums savage gives instinctive advice

>jazz dillutes contrast between tension and relaxation by avoiding basic triads and throwing in 9s, 11s and 13s for "cool sound", which leads to permanent tension and a "smaller canvas" compared to classic tonality.
That's asinine. Through extended harmony, jazz creates a much broader spectrum of "tension and relaxation" rather than reducing it to a simple binary equation.

It's like using a light switch where you can control both the color and the intensity of the light, versus using just an on/off switch.

where did it extend relaxation?

>implying that jazz musicians only work on their music during their performance

>live improvisation is harder than accumulating ideas on paper. the probability of fresh inspiration during live performance is smaller than a time window that a normal composer devotes to a piece. consequently the live jazz soloist will recall tropes from memory more often than a composer who can edit everything on paper.
Interesting points, however you fail to recognize an advantage that jazz has, in that it is often a "collaborative composition," in that the best jazz musicians are inspired by and feed off of what their bandmates are playing, essentially collaborating to create new music in a way that is all but impossible with pure composition.

Furthermore, improvisation offers a direct, untainted view into the "emotion" of music. When you listen to a performance of a pre-composed piece, you're basically listening to an actor, trying his best to portray the emotion of the piece originally intended by the composer, even when you listen to a performance by the composer, he's still only imitating the original emotion that went into writing the piece.

Improvisation is the only way to see true, in-the-moment musical interpretation of an artist's emotions.

>implying further preparation and reduction of authentic spontaneity doesnt add another layer of anxiety to their inferiority complex

It didn't, but mathematically what you're calling "relaxation" can only be extended so far, which would be not very far beyond a triad.

By your logic you could claim that all composers after the renaissance were limited because they virtually eliminated monophony and open fifths (basically the only two options that are "more relaxing" than triads)

Every song sounds the same but it's a pretty good song

>the probability of fresh inspiration during live performance is smaller than a time window that a normal composer devotes to a piece. consequently the live jazz soloist will recall tropes from memory more often than a composer who can edit everything on paper
Why is it then that many of the greatest composers practiced and taught improvisation and often included improvised sections in their performances?
ericbarnhill.wordpress.com/facts-about-improvisation/

To be fair, most jazz songs are the same which is why they are called standards but 90% of jazz is instrumental and not sung, so maybe try some of that

Dude, just go beyond Jazz
Here, let me get you started:
youtube.com/watch?v=4tZamFKyPwM

How is that even possible?

Its more varied than rock.

more is gained by renditions of compositions than by live improvisations. if you express emotions during live performance you are still only approximating them in the first order, and you can approximate them much more closer and iteratively to a higher order on paper, like beethoven did in his sketches.
the collaboration in jazz sounds good in theory, but it's a fallacy because inspiration isnt additive. if somebody is inspired you can only flesh out the shadow of his ideas, but you dont necessarily enter mental inspiration zone yourself.

extension of dissonances didnt counterbalance the loss of space made possible by pure consonance.
>By your logic you could claim that all composers after the renaissance were limited because they virtually eliminated monophony and open fifths (basically the only two options that are "more relaxing" than triads)
yes, in this regard medieval modal music was more open, but what makes it flatter was lack of the other, second dimension of tonal perspective i mentioned.

the linked article conflates virtuosity of invention and variation with romantic improvisation.
the improvisational elements by classic and baroque composers were usually overestimated by amateur listeners. there is hard evidence that e.g. JS bach discouraged his students from writing at keyboard, because as he said the "ideas should rule over fingers not vice versa". i'm aware of jazz apologists wo see forerunners of improvisation in incomplete figured bass scores, but i think it's farfetched, because most figured bass players applied rigid rules of interpretation, and didnt try to express their own feels beyond the necessities and tropes of baroque. the baroque ideal was devoid of individualism, everything had to resemble a puppet (with strings held by divine providence). what is called baroque and classic improvisation is still execution compared to modern improvisation.

>more is gained by renditions of compositions than by live improvisations. if you express emotions during live performance you are still only approximating them in the first order, and you can approximate them much more closer and iteratively to a higher order on paper, like beethoven did in his sketches.
But somebody still has to interpret that composition. So in fact, what you're hearing is an approximation of an approximation anytime you listen to a performance of a composition. There are two levels of separation. With improvisation, there is only one level of separation.

>the collaboration in jazz sounds good in theory, but it's a fallacy because inspiration isnt additive.
But it is additive. Multiple musicians have a hand in determining what direction the music takes.

>if somebody is inspired you can only flesh out the shadow of his ideas, but you dont necessarily enter mental inspiration zone yourself.
I'm not sure what you're even trying to say here but I'm pretty sure it's wrong.

>extension of dissonances didnt counterbalance the loss of space made possible by pure consonance.
It does though. By expanding the palette, you add a greater range wherein pure consonance isn't always needed to create relaxation.

>yes, in this regard medieval modal music was more open, but what makes it flatter was lack of the other, second dimension of tonal perspective i mentioned.
So then by that logic you can say that music with a lack of jazz's extended harmonies is "flatter" because of its limited tonal perspective.

FURTHERMORE, your assertion that jazz doesn't use triads is flawed. If you're going to insist on being stubborn about this point I can find you some jazz tracks that use triads. It's not that there's some rule that says "no triads in jazz," it's just that the sound isn't favored by most jazz musicians, but they still do use the sound when they think it's appropriate for the music.

>the improvisational elements by classic and baroque composers were usually overestimated by amateur listeners. there is hard evidence that e.g. JS bach discouraged his students from writing at keyboard, because as he said the "ideas should rule over fingers not vice versa".
Do you have any sources that back up any of that?

>i'm aware of jazz apologists wo see forerunners of improvisation in incomplete figured bass scores, but i think it's farfetched, because most figured bass players applied rigid rules of interpretation, and didnt try to express their own feels beyond the necessities and tropes of baroque. the baroque ideal was devoid of individualism, everything had to resemble a puppet (with strings held by divine providence). what is called baroque and classic improvisation is still execution compared to modern improvisation.
None of this addresses my main point, which was that many of the greatest performers routinely improvised in performances, as the article states.

My question is, why would these composers (not all of whom are baroque or classical composers) improvise in front of an audience if improvisation is always inferior to pre-composed material?

The great composers of the world would disagree with your assertions.

For example, here's a Keith Jarrett tune that is almost all simple triads.

Only if you listen to it enough. It's true of most genres when you're not well versed in them.

More triads

gotta go now, will reply later

like i said the linked article is extremely flawed. i dont have the time to challenge each statement there, probably the statement about debussy is the only one i wouldnt challenge.

>sources
forkel bio
gutenberg.org/files/35041/35041-h/35041-h.html
>Most youthful composers let their fingers run riot up and down the keyboard, snatching handfuls of notes, assaulting the instrument in wild frenzy, in hope that something may result from it. Such people are merely Finger Composers—in his riper years Bach used to call them Harpsichord Knights—that is to say, their fingers tell them what to write instead of being instructed by the brain what to play

and in footnote #137 of same booklet:
>The following passage from the Autobiography of Hector Berlioz (ed. Dent, p. 11) is relevant: “My father would never let me learn the piano; if he had, no doubt I should have joined the noble army of piano thumpers…Sometimes I regret my ignorance, yet, when I think of the ghastly heap of platitudes for which that unfortunate piano is made the daily excuse—insipid, shameless productions, that would be impossible if their perpetrators had to rely, as they ought, on pencil and paper alone—then I thank the fates for having forced me to compose silently and freely by saving me from the tyranny of finger-work, that grave of original thought.”

most conservatoires also taught/teach students to write at desk.

is it ok if i listen to pic related while shitposting?

jus trying to find inspiration for word vomit senpai

I don't think either of those quotes is enough to refute the widely-accepted fact that improvisation was a major facet of live performances throughout the 17th and 18th centuries and that many great composers took improvisation seriously as an art.

classicfm.com/composers/beethoven/guides/daniel-steibelt/

>17th and 18th centuries
Oops, I meant the 18th and 19th centuries

I don't know too much about Berlioz' disposition or personal life, but frankly, reading through that quote it sounds like a case of the fox and the grapes to me. A virtuoso improvising pianist could still sit at a desk and compose pieces, but someone without years of training and practice could never improvise in the Classical style on piano.

...