Jazz is a massively varied genre that has been around for literally almost a century

>jazz is a massively varied genre that has been around for literally almost a century

>jazz discussion on Sup Forums revolves almost entirely around famous/acclaimed albums from only the 50s, 60s, and 70s

why do you guys do this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=GdP0I5c9lbQ&index=4&list=LLYlJlMavXQXHsb7l4NHSuhg
scaruffi.com/jazz/40.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because the famous/acclaimed stuff is usually more listened to and therefore more likely to be discussed?
That and a decent chunk of 60s-70s Jazz musicians crashing and burning from the 80s onwards.
70s Jazz was the best anyway.

I think you answered your own question. It's been around for so long, is so deep in variety and quantity. Because of this, it's much easier to discuss the most popular of the genre, especially for a board like Sup Forums where most people are interested in multiple genres, not just dedicated to one.

We just listen to the jazz that Anthony says is good. There’s really no point in delving any deeper beyond that

Earlier jazz was pretty shite until the 50s mane

have you even been in a jazz thread?

The people who actually liked jazz and tried to talk about it in depth were chased away by the plebs.

Because most people just claim to like it to appear sophisticated along with classical. I as a degree holding card carrying jazz musician dont see why anyone who isnt a musician would even listen to jazz. Im studying when I listening and am stealing licks. Its like work. Normies listened to jazz when you could dance to it and then again when they were all on drugs. Whoever said pre 50s isnt good proves the point. Youre all posers as far as I see browsing this board.

>jazz is a massively varied art form that has been around for literally millennia
>music discussion on Sup Forums revolves entirely around acclaimed pop albums from the past month

>dont see why anyone who isnt a musician would even listen to jazz.

because they/we like the way it sounds. how is that not obvious.

>jazz is a massively varied genre that has been around for literally almost a century

Because in the modern days it's just hacks leeching off of the greats with no new inventions.

oh really? what were the last 10 jazz albums you listened to that were recorded this decade?

stop being a fucking idiot please

name one good jazz album released before 1950

Sup Forums does that with every genre except metal ya doof

youtube.com/watch?v=GdP0I5c9lbQ&index=4&list=LLYlJlMavXQXHsb7l4NHSuhg

You realize the LP (album) format did not exist before 1948.

Thanks

Ya but now we go into a circle. Do you just like jazz OP mentioned or are you crushing Duke Elington, Dizzy, Jack Tea Garden, Django, Jelly Roll farty pants, Zippidy Rapskipple and shit like that.

scaruffi.com/jazz/40.html

You're smoking dicks m8

Name a good CD released before 1976. But seriously Louis Armstrong, Jelly Roll Morton, Django, Dizzie, The Duke. 1920's was called the JAZZ AGE. Fuck off with your bebop. It all sounds the same for christ sake. Play the major scale and add the flat 7 as the passing tone so you always land on a chord tone when you play your shitty 8th note runs and plebs freak out like its witchcraft. Again back to my point about non musicians. You matter as well be studying old boxing matches.

M8? What are you one of those Britbongs? You fucks have no music. All you have ever done is copy other countries music. Your rock and roll was bland, your classical is shit. You people have no talent, but you have good marketing and were an empire so you force your products on the world. Does British art even exist? You can tell a lot just by a cultures food. You fuck off now and jack off to us alpha chad americans culture for the last 10 years we got left. Hush now.

anthony doesnt really review jazz

>implying dixieland doesn't have some groovin tunes

He's right though. Jazz is saturated with white jazz majors playing covers and ripping off greats. Sometimes they'll get creative and make shitty jazz fusion

This guy gets it

Original 20s-30s jazz was the best. Duke Ellington and Art Tatum alone made better jazz music than many of their successors in the late 20th century. Bebop was a mistake

epic

Pleb.

Much of jazz is focused on elements of music that people don't find pleasant, and for actual reasons too.

Improv jazz is literally just jam bands with better chops and more music theory. People running up and down scales and developing phrases that the others can bounce off of, with jazz scales and the beat is swung. It's good when it's good, sure, but just like a jam band, it's just a series of tricks. Running up and down scales while they cycle through the progression, maybe bouncing some rhythmic or melodic motif back and forth. And even though it'd be hard to articulate it precisely, everybody should know that improv as a whole has an aesthetic sameness to it. It's limited in terms of how developed it can be, because in order for it to develop further you'd have to stop, mull it over, try a bunch of shit, and determine the best way to move the piece forward step by step, at which point it's not improv, it's composition, and the only way to do that off the cuff would be to read people's minds.

Then you have this sect of jazz that truly is up it's ass. People that are think complexity is the prime virtue of music. Basically some people think that the music becomes increasingly valuable every time you modulate. How chromatic and syncopated can we make it before it becomes atonal/arrhythmic? Well there are about ten thousand jazz musicians at any given time trying to figure that out, and it's not interesting unless your interest in music is as shallow as this pursuit is.

Then there's the focus on performance, i.e. if it's more challenging to perform, it's better. It's really not though. How fast you can twitch your fingers is impressive in a way, but the way that it's impressive is more like athleticism than art. Art is about expressing ideas and emotions, not about showing off dexterity. Of course, there's nothing wrong with a piece being difficult, but when you can tell that the difficulty is the focal point of the composition it just feels masturbatory.

People don't care anymore because this kind of stuff is what they usually hear out of jazz.

The best jazz is music that people wrote, and they wrote it because it expressed an actual idea or emotion, and SOUNDED right to them. That kind of jazz strikes a balance between the complex rhythmic and tonal quirks that make the genre what it is, but without any of the masturbatory elements that plague it. And honestly, this jazz that I'm talking about that really strikes a balance in a way unique enough to give it its own genre is kind of just a specific subset of classical music, or even pop music. Virtues akin to all of the virtues of classical music, but with a specific set of rules that give it a distinct flavor. But the well has been plundered, in the same way that the well of baroque has been explored pretty thoroughly, and now the people that want to keep the tradition alive are stretching it in the ways I listed above, and people are losing interest. The good stuff is still good, but like I said, it has certain limitations. To deviate from them is to turn it into something that isn't even jazz anymore. Which is why the most relevant, in terms of just obvious cultural impact, jazz to come out in decades was To Pimp a Butterfly, and most purists wouldn't even say it's jazz anymore, but some other thing altogether.

ad hominem

>bebop all sounds the same
>but 20s jazz doesn't

are you high

this. if it's not roland kirk or kamasi washington why even fucking bother.

>around for literally almost a century
>literally almost
I can't wait for WWIII