It's bad because scales

>It's bad because scales
lmao imagine being such a hipster faggot that you have to resort to regurgitating meaningless theory terms to try to justify the fact that you can't like something that's popular

no wonder jazz is fucking dead

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ieRr57EsZkI
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

if this album is so good how come you didnt buy it?

Ok, OP. Let's hear your explanation of what makes this album special and what makes it better than other jazz albums that have come out in the past five years.

Why is it good?

Because it's exciting and fun music and there is a ton of emotion and soul in the songs and in the band's playing.

Yeah but I asked what makes it special. I could claim what you just said about any jazz album and be just as justified as you.

It's a brilliant meta-modernist deconstruction of decades of jazz academia. It employs expertly-crafted stripped-back composition to pay homage to classical minimalism heavyweights like Philip Glass and Terry Riley while blending in just enough jazzishness to BE jazz, and also mind-bogglingly recontextualizes contemporary masterful hip-hop production techniques to allow the music to reach casual listeners without sacrificing its artistry.

But smooth jazz artists have been doing all of that for decades. And smooth jazz is almost universally hated on Sup Forums. You must be a big fan though right?

Also calling the album minimalist seems flat out wrong considering its over 2 and a half hours long and features an orchestra, a choir, and multiple drummers and bassists, often for no real reason at all considering they are usually just doubling unison lines played by other instruments. I'd go as far as to call it maximalism.

Also I don't think you know what "deconstruction" means. Hint: it's something different than "destruction"

I like the way it sounds.

Perhaps you could explain, then.

It doesn't make it wrong in this context, and just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it's not special or great in other respects. Also he referred to the stripped down production as minimal, not the entire album. Either you're not reading or you're cherry picking.

>smooth jazz artists have been doing all of that for decades

show me a smooth jazz album with hip-hop production and a full orchestra

>Also calling the album minimalist seems flat out wrong

but I thought you jazz snobs were always going on about "muh not enough scales, muh chromatic notes"? Make up your mind lol

this is ultimately, what is most important. good for you user.

honestly smooth jazz can be good if it's edited well enough (especially in the context of vaporwave or some new age stuff).

>Perhaps you could explain, then.
Explain what makes it subpar? Sure.
Very limited harmonic expression. The comositions and playing are so limited in their harmonic range that it limits the emotional expression and impact of the music. The album is way too long considering the limited range of that expression and mixed terribly so that you can't hear the individual instruments except for the soloist. It just becomes muddy noise.

>Also he referred to the stripped down production as minimal, not the entire album. Either you're not reading or you're cherry picking.
This is just wrong though. Refer to the quote is
>stripped back compositions pay homage to classical minimalism
He's clearly referring to the COMPOSITIONS as paying homage to minimalsim. Not the mixing.

>show me a smooth jazz album with hip-hop production and a full orchestra
youtube.com/watch?v=ieRr57EsZkI

>but I thought you jazz snobs were always going on about "muh not enough scales, muh chromatic notes"? Make up your mind lol
how does that contradict what I said?

>limits the emotional expression
>MUH COMPLEXITY

you realize emotion is subjective right? someone could get an emotional experience as profound as you would from whoever your favorite jazz artist is from a drone or noise artist.

why do jazz snobs always fall back on the ridiculous idea of "if it has more notes n shit it's more EMOSHUNAL!!" it's not true. complexity is just a meaningless dickwaving contest.

the fact that Kasami has reached such a huge audience despite not being as accessible as pop should say something about the emotional depth his music can have for people.

>comparing fucking Kenny G to Kasami

okay now I know you're memeing

he didnt even compare kenny g. he posted a valid answer to your question

All of what you said is true, but it doesn't change the fact that limiting the level of complexity does in fact limit the expressive range of the music.

How much expression could you really get from a 3 hour album that uses only one note repeated over and over?

The fact that you are so sure Kenny G must be bad just proves my point. Give me one good reason why Kenny G is bad that I couldn't just as validly say about Kamasi Washington.

>you realize emotion is subjective right?
Wow so after posting this you must realize that trying to discuss and argue about your own emotional response is completely pointless right? So why are you still relying only on arguments that have to do with your own emotional response?

You just ignored the most valid part of his post; the album is mixed terribly and becomes incredibly jumbled and messy because of the massive band playing a bunch of bullshit that isn’t important. All the elements that make this album “epic” are either horribly executed, for example the size of the band, or just immature, for example the length of the record. Also Kamasi is a shit soloist; Shabaka Hutchings plays in a similar style but uses more dynamic range and saxophone gimmicks much more effectively.

What exactly is Hip Hop production?
Is it drum heavy or something?

Yes, very heavy on drums and bass, to the point where they start to sound "distorted." Plus heavy compression.

his "music" is shit you faggot

Now that the actual jazz listeners have been coaxed out by this post, whats some good 21st century jazz albums? I feel like not keeping my ear to the ground for the new jazz sound is really gimping my playing.

jazz is fucking shit. all of it

>And smooth jazz is almost universally hated on Sup Forums.
plebs

I recently listened to Float the Edge by the Angelica Sanchez Trio. Very enjoyable.

Peter Evans- Ghosts
Maria Schneider- The Thompson Fields
Alex Sipiagin- Destinations Unknown
Steve Lehman- Mise en Abime
Henry Threadgill- In For a Penny, In for a Pound
Chris Potter- The Sirens
Yosvany Terry- Today's Opinion
William Parker- For Those Who Are Still
Rudresh Mahanthappa- Gamak
Steve Coleman- Sinovial Joints
Tim Berne- You've Been Watching Me
Ambrose Akinmusire- The Imagined Savior is Far Easier to Paint
Farmers by Nature- S/T
Matthew Shipp- To Duke
Mary Halvorson- Saturn Sings
John Escreet- Exception to the Rule

oh look it's this thread again

Thanks guys. I know these threads are usually a waste of time, so It's nice to notice one and grab something useful from it, now that /jazz/ is dead.

All of Joe Lovano’s Village Vanguard live recordings are sick, especially the quartet one. Both of Fly trio’s ECM albums are also great.

Why do purists absolutely loathe soul and spirituality in music?

They don't. They just hate it when people use it to excuse poor musicianship and lack of creativity.

me like magical negro feeling music

This. A Love Supreme is one of the greatest jazz albums ever and John Coltrane managed to make a deeply spiritual album without sacrificing musicality and depth.

You should listen to more of Coltrane’s stuff from that period and onwards, then! Once you get into Kulu Sé Mama... damn........

What makes you think I haven't?

>calling a song "The Rhythm Changes"
ebin

A Cosmic Rhythm with Each Stroke - Vijay Iyer and Wadada Leo Smith

Anything by Bobby Kapp and Matthew Shipp.

>scales don't matter in jazz

Attached: 729.png (645x729, 68K)

>listening to the "nigger tries to make classical" genre

Attached: amerimutt4.png (348x336, 9K)

>unironically pulling the "nigger" card
literally kill yourself

Because both of those are meaningless buzzwords like "emotion" and "feeling"

Attached: 1448533309862.jpg (479x480, 23K)

Because I’m a massive faggot that assumes that anybody who mentions A Love Supreme has only listened to A Love Supreme.

scales are for fish

Nobody actually does that, but nice strawman.

What you are probably referring to is the dislike of people who use are only capable of talking about music in terms of "soul and spirituality" and think that applying these terms to music means anything. See, the problem with using ideas like "soul and spirituality" as your sole criteria for judging music is that those terms and their opposites can be applied to any music with equal validity. Anything I like, I could describe as soulful and spiritual, anything you like I could describe as soulless and emotionally void. And I'd be just as correct as you.