How did rock music kill off jazz when jazz is so much more energetic and exciting?
How did rock music kill off jazz when jazz is so much more energetic and exciting?
people don't have the patience or attention span to hear or comprehend the details that make jazz enjoyable
jazz
>requires fucking mini orchestra to play
>had been around 60+ years by 1960 and already went through 54845545 alterations
>big snooty jazz clubs and bands totally divorced from its negro origins
rock
>easy to set up
>democratic structure by the time of skiffle
>new
>simple to compose on the spot
>not as restricted by any kind of convention
gee I wonder why
Classical is better
>so much more energetic and exciting
it really isn’t
I could genuinely fall asleep to this. Are you trying to be funny?
>terrible recording equipment == excitement and energy
fuck off already
Because of this
Skip to 3:00
m.youtube.com
accessibility
This is what Jazz fans call exciting?
Rock was more tonally intereating and could convet different emotions than jazz could. It was also much more accessable to play rock than jazz.
But jazz is boring
such an exciting and energetic bass tuning
Jadedness, the same reason I no longer enjoy rock and now prefer jazz.
Hipsters need to radically jump ship on cultural movements. It's also generational. I personally wish non-cacophonous free jazz got more of a fair shake.
I really don't think rock music by itself could have killed jazz. Jazz was still popular in the 60s and 70s thanks to fusion hard bop, modal jazz, and perhaps the avant garde. It wasn't until the 80s when jazz lost it's popularity. The only people making new popular jazz releases at that time were Matt Bianco, Basia, The Manhattan Transfer, Bobby McFerrin, and Al Jarreau.
I think one could make a case that early synthpop, heavy metal, or new wave killed jazz since that was when it's popularity started to decline.
...
>requires fucking mini orchestra to play
What is a trio? What is a quartet? What is a quintet? You are a fucking idiot.
Rock didn't kill Jazz. Jazz was destined to be what it is.
Jazz was and still is an extremely important genre for the advancement of musical techniques and expression.
Jazz turned into funk which turned into RnB and hip hop.
As a musician myself who understand the underpinnings of how jazz works technically I've always seen jazz as a tech demo type of genre.
Jazz is like 3d mark or some kind of rendering stress test you put your computer through. but no one wants to sit there looking at 3d mark all day. You'd rather play skyrim
Its what is physically possible at the very tip top of performance but its not really good for weaving real songs with narratives and emotions in the same way other genres are.
this shit is awful
...
>anything turning into hip hop
Hip hop is pot-music. It is quite literally uneducated niggers salvaging the remnants left behind by their superior ancestors and tinkering with them without having any musical understanding. Hip-hop is the musical equivalent of the post-apocalypse. The apocalypse which destroyed all black talent in music. It's nothing more than re-purposed junk.
>pot-music
post-music*
If that's your opinion fine.
But that junk you reference is the leftover tones, feelings, and a lot of the time its straight up sampled from Jazz
>requires fucking mini orchestra to play
I love when people who have never listened to a jazz album in their life pretend to know what they're talking about. Jazz requires the same amount of people as literally any band. Some of the greatest jazz bands only have 3 members. There's jazz albums that are nothing but a solo pianist.
I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying that just like an uneducated savage in a post-apocalyptic story coming across remain of old world tech and tinkering with it to get some function out of it, so are these hip hoppers. They're coming across these remnants of the past that are far beyond their shit brained comprehension and are breaking down these wonderful, rich, ingenious mechanisms into very basic caricatures of what they once were. It's a very desperate attempt at trying to salvage art and culture despite their minds being far from capable of even comprehending the concepts of art and culture.
Imagine having such a short attention span and being so bad at pattern recognition that you can't hear the logic and development in a good jazz solo
Jazz for me is like Picasso painting, i don't get the fuckin point and as i see it it's people making "art" for the sake of art. I'm not saying it's shit, i'm just telling i don't get what it's trying to tell and can't find any value whatsoever in it.
But the most annoying thing is that every people i know who is listening to jazz are hipsters who are placing themselves on a high pedestal and can't comprehend what douchebags they really are to everybody around them.
And short attention span? Yea, kinda right, but when a song is literally 33 minutes long and the first 7 of them is random bass sounds, no thanks, i rather turn it off and listen to moths taking a shit.
I understand your sentiments and I agree with it on a lot of levels but I would implore you to listen to "To Pimp A Butterfly" by Kendrick Lamar. Its the opposite of what you're talking about.
It uses Jazz and RnB and Funk to unbelievable effect along with some of the best word smithing ever and real high level jazz musicians consulting and recording on the whole thing.
There's a very good reason its already considered a classic.
But yea I mean if you listen to Lil Pump you'll assume the sky is falling and you may be right.
Cause rock, especially in the 60s, was the more catchy and immediate genre, which is at the end of the day what most people want from their music.
>2018
>not realizing jazz-rock and fusion are some of the best either genre has to offer
>adventurous jazz lines with rock intensity
the absolute state of the posts ITT
>had been around 60+ years by 1960
Maybe 40.
that's fair, especially considering jazz was getting far more experimental and abstract in it's style in the 60s when popular rock music REALLY started emerging
Jazz was never the predominant form of music. Back in the 40's, more blacks were listening to The Ink Spots and Louis Jordan than to jazz.
imo thats when jazz started to get really interesting. Jazz really started to get super interesting in the 70s with fusion. Jazz then went smooth in the 80's and mostly became palatable for the masses again.
i fully agree that jazz started to get really interesting in the 1960s, but it's hard to imagine even the most entry level experimental jazz from the era competing with pop rock shit from the same time
I dont kno what ragtime & new orelans jazz iss xD
Ragtime wasn't jazz, the earliest jazz was made in New Orleans in the late 10's and early 20's.
it definitely can't compete with the contemporary tastes of the time in terms of digestibility but most rock was only considered pop music at the time so you can't really ask for much for jazz being socially acceptable at the time
this thread is so retarded. only a person who isn't into jazz at all would say that jazz is dead.
exactly, it just like those posters in other threads saying rock or even rap is dead just because they can't find something they enjoy
after 22:34 it's literally just a woman screaming
what is the best jazz album of 2017 in your opinion?
just like every date I've ever had
>well played
no distortion!!!!
because white people actually know how to make art rather than boring cuckmusique
this is bait do not give him (you)s
>Trumpet
>Sax
>Piano
>Bass
>Drums
Wow, literally a mini orchestra. Same number of members as a rock band with vocals, lead guitar, bass guitar, drums and keyboard.
the absolute state of mu
why not both?
says the cuck who thinks that every dissenting opinion against """him""" is bait