Why is jazz "music" considered intellectual?

Why is jazz "music" considered intellectual?

affirmative action

I don't know, frog poster, let's hear your hot takes.

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.

A similar phenomenon to dadrock syndrome but with the Silent Generation- "I grew up with this music so therefore it is the BEST music".

**And of course this sentiment echoes through each succeeding generation just like rock

ITT memerap kiddies with zero understanding of music theory use memes to completely disregard jazz

If Miles Davis were alive today he would BEG to collab with Kendrick

I detect no instances of that in this thread.

to be fair you have to have a high iq to understand the jazz scales and jazz theory behind the jazz music

There isn't a single music genre that should be considered "intellectual". Listening to music is the opposite of intellectual.

because the only people who listen to it were parents who grew up with it and became NPR listening, tweed jacket wearing faux-intellectuals. so it grew to embrace that association to survive while faggots who think this are just trying to subconsciously associate with that community college sociology professor they think represents nouveau cutlure and sophistication

Jazz music is a really good blues band.

That fell down the stairs.

And eh, I know the IP count didn't change when you made this post so where the fuck did you go?

retardation really hampers your epic joke here. thats like saying microchips are sand that got electrocuted

because you can't enjoy it without listening attentively

wat

I'm waiting for you to elaborate

on what? the first post in this thread was an edgelord dismissing jazz because of "affirmitive action"

please go back to your containment board

hmm well maybe some pieces but a lot of jazz isn't so dynamic that you can't understand what the musicians are trying to keep threaded through the song. lots of jazz is repeated improvisations on a certain theme. doesn't require each note captured with rapt attention

Thank you for elaborating

It sounds posh

Why is "Pepe" considered funny?

A girl I was on a date with asked me what kind of music I like. Before I could answer, she said "Please don't say you like Jazz or some high level shit like that"

I don't even listen to jazz, but that comment has always kind stayed with me, I still wonder why she would think that.

you prob can't completely contain your patrician power level and can not go completely undetected among normies

Because of jazz cigarettes.

pseuds

Nah mate, I mostly listen to pleb shit. I told her I like artists like Can, Radiohead, Talk Talk, Spiritualized, MBV, Aphex Twin. She had not heard of any of those.

you mean Sup Forums tier. unless she is some hipster chick radiohead prob was the only one she has heard of, and prob associated it with hipster music tastes. no way normies know can, talk talk, spiritualized, or aphex twin

Yeah I guess that's true. What seems pleb tier to me after being on this board for a long time is like some weird shit to normies.

Because in this history of music up to that point, all music was either written down or lost. Literally every great performance of a master with his instrument before the advent of recorded music is lost.

Jazz is not just a stylistic identifier for an era (20s-60s, arguably and with great gradations) but also the first time in history that an underclass of society was able to be heard performing, but also demonstrating their capabilities, and fuck you and all your prog rock bull shit, the jazz masters were god damn stunning players who's performances that were captured on magnetic tape leave indelible evidence of masters performing at their peak in a way that would that could only be captured by this new technology.

Jazz is musical genius + perfect timing in technology.

God you fucking idiots should goddamn kill yourselves go read a god damn book or listen to an actual record I hate all of you for having to point this out on a god damn music board

Thank you for writing this. These people are just circle jerking. If the OP wants an actual answer this is a good start. Also, the influence of Jazz music reaches out to most other music today. Lou Reed, almost certainly (at least arguably) the most influential Rock musician, was a huge fan of Ornette Coleman and his free jazz improvisation.
From The Grateful Dead, to Joni Mitchell, to Kendrick Lamar and A Tribe Called Quest, many of the greatest and most important musicians of every decade have actively incorporated Jazz and an appreciation for Jazz into their music. Listening to music without appreciating Jazz is like missing the first book in a series.
If creative, marginalized, African-Americans hadn't started to improvise on the bridge of swing songs and standards, we simply would not have modern music as we have it today. That alone should be reason to listen to jazz at at some intellectual level. The historical consequences of Jazz and it's influence not only produced beautiful music, but paved the way for musicians and art for the entirety of the post-modern era.

Simply put, the historical ramifications, the art itself and the complex theory were revolutionary and generally far ahead of anything going on at the time outside of classical. Coltrane's Giant Steps displays legendary virtuosity and Miles Davis invented a multitude of sub-genres himself. Not to forget George Russell's Lydian Theory and a slew of other ideas that stemmed from Jazz.

If you really doubt Jazz lacks depth beyond many contemporary genres, you're losing out on the greater picture of music as a whole.

Good post

>jazz musicians developed new music theory techniques that build on the ideas classical musicians came up with.

You good have s going ie

Thanks for replying to my drunk ramble. Your reply is literally the only quality post I've seen on this board since I've come around.

>Nog thinks jazz as a whole suffers because some people can't play free jazz.

Bless you anons, this garbage board needs more posts like these.

I'm sure you will provide sources for such outrageous claims.

I know this is a pasta modification, but you simply don't. If you're willing to learn, you can. Music theory isn't theoretical physics and AI programming, it's very possible for people to understand jazz.

thanks u r 2 kind, I hope some more people read this and actually think about it. I took jazz appreciation last semester and read the textbook front to back because it was so good. With that said, coming from someone who has experienced jazz in an academic setting, I think it's also important to consider jazz outside of the realm of intellectualism. The aforementioned concepts are not at odds with both the relaxing and challenging varieties of jazz. Just because there can be an intellectual pursuit into the music doesn't mean you have to put on some pretentious thinking cap every time you listen. Don't forget to enjoy art for the pretty/nice/crazy/enjoyable sounds as well.

can't provide anything but music trends but i believe that as jazz subsided from popular music prominence, those who realized its importance/grew up with it were the primary driver behind patronage of jazz the past few decades. like classical music, it became a new higher art form (well deserved) and cultural treasure that established in the annals of universities, jazz clubs, and other more monied arenas that had interest in its continued availability. i think this combined with the public perception of jazz being only crazy improvisations it has become a point of musical notching to say you have broken into this style. unless you have training in, exposure too, or historical context of, you probably see jazz like everyone else in general, a genre that fights to be oblique and is supported by an audience of educated people. i think that connection has stuck to make plebs and cluesless retards think liking jazz is either some laudable feat or a snobby affair masking the distaste for music that is so jarring

Kind of Blue is perfect wallpaper music that can be easily ignored and just as easily capture your attention.

It's not intellectual, but it is creatively interesting. At least it was in the early to mid 20th century. Contemporary jazz is prob mostly contrived.

>intellectual
As if this word means anything in the first place.

listening & playing are two different
>tfw i dont play

I don't know about 'intellectual', but I listen because it's different and hard as fuck to play. I enjoy jazz most when I can see the performer. The 'hard as fuck to play' probably plays into post people's perception of it, as well as the fact that it's the most popular genre that's mainly purely instrumental, like Classical music was for a long time.

Because its more complex

Because of the required talent in composing, improvising, experimenting and being good at your instruments, dumb frogposter.

Cool jazz is literally jazz made to get white people into it without making them think too hard.

i mean not exactly but it is the worst jazz genre. early jazz is the easiest to get into and contains songs most people would recognize

Nah, smooth jazz is the worst jazz genre.

based albini

potato potato. smooth jazz was the white person offshoot of cool jazz from outside musicians rediscovering jazz in the 60s and saying hey we aren't really cool but we can be smooth

because an art form based entirely around improvisation is more or less completely unique compared to pretty much every other musical tradition.

>complaining about anti-jazz circlejerking
>while snobbishly circlejerking
Hmmm...

I think it doesn´t, that´s the point

Why it's considered intellectual is a sociological question and others have provided answers. Why it actually is "intellectual", as in mentally involved, is because of what it is. Jazz is improvisation using extended harmony over complex chord changes, often with frequent, rapid modulation. That's a really hard thing to learn, hard to do, and hard to hear. Also, because of the structure just described, it creates a very interesting context in which to try to apply concepts of music theory.

I've been playing jazz for 12 years at this point. I play alto & bari sax, flute, clarinet and I'm teaching myself upright bass at the moment. There are two groups of people who think jazz is "intellectual" as far as I can tell. Fedora-tippers who will come up to you after a show and try to impress you with their knowledge of jazz theory and people who dislike jazz music.

The former is just trying to have some sort of social standing and is honestly just embarrasing. They don't seem to get that I might not want to talk jazz right now or that I don't need another friend who knows about jazz. They normally try this angle because outside of this they're boring as fuck and have nothing interesting to say which is just sad.

The folks who dislike jazz generally seem to equate intellectual with snobbish, but are too pussy to call it snobbish. They'll talk about how you can just play whatever in the solos and it's left up to interpretation or how people who like jazz are only concerned with the intricacies of the music, not if there's any soul to the piece ect.

Personally, I don't think that jazz as a cultural group is particularly intellectual or snobbish. People tend to presume that only clever people listen to jazz, but you know what else clever people do? Watch football, play video games, become alcoholics, marry the wrong person, end up in prison, or sit on Sup Forums shitposting about bjork for the better part of 4 years (haven't been back here in a while). I've definitely played for intellectuals, but I've also played in working class pubs where most people finished education when they were 14.

Certainly, there are complex jazz pieces. Definitely there were jazz musician who wanted to achieve "intellectually stimulating" pieces. But does a room full of drunks singing along to "New York, New York" seem intellectual to you? Or a bunch of middle aged folk trying to dance to one-note-samba while their kids look on in shame? To me it sure doesn't.

while nothing you said is wrong, its obvious to any plebian the complexity of jazz and probably has a hand in the "muh intellectual music" labeling when people discuss it as "hard to hear" because outside of musicians and music theory posters, who make everything they talk about intellectual, jazz fans don't need to comprehend that level of detail to love what they are hearing. people who equate hard to hear with jazz either think it all is the loose form modern jazz with crazy energy or have been witness to others using it as a way to portray themselves as somehow a step above by "getting" it.

quickly too, most improvisational challenges and energy i enjoy in hard bob and bebop is not at all like the slower, melodic beginnings of jazz that most people would realize they already have exposure to

On the "hard to hear" thing. I really do think stuff like bebop, hard bop, and all the crazy modern soloists is hard to hear in the way the musicians are hearing it. I'm a musician and I'm not too bad, been playing a while. Listen to all kinds of stuff with all kinds of different harmonic stuff going on. But when I hear Michael Brecker or someone go off on a solo, while it's still exciting, and I can feel the energy, and catch phrases here and there, I still always feel like if I had spent hours getting the sound of loads of various arpeggios and modulations into my ear, I would be hearing it in a different way.

yeah i get that but again i think some hang ups come with these solos association with the whole genre. and more so that non technical appreciation for the music isn't a struggle or ladder to climb. i can appreciate the skill required and still get lost in the music without having to map the specifics. maybe some people think that is what is required somehow to be a fan. certainly see Sup Forumstants with that opinion

Then explain why there are so many idiots who play jazz.

Not really, but I disagree with you. Sure, having a higher IQ might help you learn faster, but anyone can learn jazz if they're interested and disciplined enough. For some of us, it just took a shit ton of time because we're brainlets.

Best post.

Hey man, I was wondering if you had any advice for a noob sax player. I've only dabbled in jazz for a couple of semesters and I paid for some private lessons for a few months a while back, but I still can't solo. I've been transcribing some of my favorite solos and trying to get my scales in my fingers lately. I remember learning that certain modes fit well with certain chords, and certain chord progressions share common tones. I also have iRealPro on my phone and a ton of charts, as well as Aebersold backing tracks. Yet, when I attempt to play a solo to a slow ballad or a simple blues, I just blank. Any advice would be appreciated.

Scales are your friends. Buy a book that takes you through all standard progressions and start with that. My old teacher told me that he only considered a sax player intermediate once they knew their entire cycle of fifths off by heart and that means off by heart - major, minor, arpeggios, third, fith and seventh changes, stacked fourths, you name it, you should know what it is. When you have these scales learnt off by heart it should feel instinctive where to go from note to note depending on what kind of solo you want to produce.

That's the thing with solos, you want to not have to overthink them. It should just come naturally, so at the moment just play whatever. Just play up and down the sax if that's all you can think of. If it sounds shit, it sounds shit. Learn from it. Try to improve from it.

Learning standards is good too, but not so important. Most bands won't mind that you don't know standards off by heart, but it is good to learn some.

Personally, Pete Thomas' Taming The Saxophone is a good website, and decent books, though I don't know how easy it is to get his books across the pond.

As far as transcribing solos go, I'd say that's more a thing for composers to study, not players. Listen to the solos, and steal from them, but don't write it out. It takes too long, and doesn't help improve your playing, just your understanding of what the other guy does, which can be achieved much more quickly just listening to jazz.

Personally, I never use backing tracks, but that's just me. If it helps, it helps, I don't really have an opinion on them.

That's instant dropped material
>please don't say you listen to things that are brain-challenging in any way!!!
For the record, I don't think Jazz is necessarily brain-challenging, but she clearly does if it's "high level shit".

I'd be curious to know as well what your practice schedule looks like. Ignoring how long you spend on each, I'd recommend going in this order.
>blow a few notes to check reed, anything else, adjust till in tune
>scales
>long notes, practicing tonguing, diaphram control, improve lung capacity and strength
>pieces
>cool down with a few simple little runs or something, I tend to just make up a ballad or something slow to relax my muscles
>dissasemble and clean sax
Oh and the other thing I forgot to mention was that if you can get a teacher on a regular basis, then go for it. Obviously you need a good one, and do not treat them like your once a week practice, you practice when not with them, and they give you more things to practice on every time you meet. This is how you should be taught.

t: turbo-brainlet

You do know improvisation has ALWAYS been a massive part of classical training in music, especially piano/keyboards right?

I like listening to jazz live, it's a fun experience, and the music is good. I would never listen to a recording of jazz though it's too stale. Part of the performance is seeing a group of musicians in sync with each other and their communication.

I think she just had a bad experience with some pretentious asshole who claimed to like jazz. That's what usually happens with people who claim to hate jazz. Sadly, neither of those people probably immersed themselves in jazz culture. From my experience, the only negativity I've experienced is online. IRL, jazz musicians are some of the most humble, down-to-earth people I've met.

It's shitposts like these that bait out the anti-theory folks. Look, I know it's easy to use this site just to let out your stress, but come on man. You just make the rest of us look stupid. We're not all theory prescriptivists.

I thought his joke was funny. Lighten up, guy. Also, your analogy is pretty clever too. It's cool to think about silicon like that sometimes. Puts things in perspective. Really makes you think...

No but really, what's wrong with some self-deprecation? I don't think it's healthy to take yourself so seriously.

Cool jazz was started by swinging the notes less, at higher tempos. That's all. Why make cringeworthy race statements?

inb4 "triggered whiteboi"
t. non-white

>what is gamelan
>what is renaissance chamber musc
>what is hindustani classical music
>what are 10 hours of ebin stockhausen improvisations
>what is figured bass
I grant that Beethoven and Clementi (foolishly) killed off improvisation for 100 years, and classical music performances today underutilize it, but this is just b8

Also I would add that composers of the baroque and early classical era usually just expected it rather than explicitly write in, for example it would have been perfectly acceptable for a performer if a phrase is repeated exactly more than once, to put a variation on the phrase the second time it is repeated. Clementi was the first to write in the variations himself, and Beethoven completely killed off the aesthetic by making his music the expression of "himself", rather than the performer's interpretation or simply absolute music.

/thread

She's learned from experience to associate jazz with insufferable pseuds.