Rufus is not a musician. That should be obvious. He's also not a Jazz fan, which is his own business. But his description of Jazz music, and Jazz musicians, is immediately obvious for it's lack of understanding.
Rufus is not a musician. That should be obvious. He's also not a Jazz fan, which is his own business. But his description of Jazz music, and Jazz musicians, is immediately obvious for it's lack of understanding.
I think Rufus needs to see Whiplash.
Thing about jazz is that where is the innovation today? You have reactionaries, like Wynton Marsalis, who seems to represent himself as "Mr. Jazz" these days. He's a great musician, but he has no respect for anything out of the mid to late 60s and early 70s. Matthew Shipp seems to be out of the limelight lately; but players like Vijay Iyer are doing good things, only it does not move me as much as the older stuff does. Tiim Berne, Dave Fiuczinski, etc. all good. But I need real excitement, ecstatic and- wait for it- shambolic stuff... :-)
I'm not lazy. I just work so fast I'm always done.
Well, this is a whole other discussion (jazz is dead!?). The last major changes in jazz probably are the wide-scale incorporation of "world" elements that occurred in the '70s-'90s, which contributed toward the definitional ambiguity of jazz (that started with the advent of free jazz) morphing into the definitional bloat that we have now (everything that is improvised and/or which prominently features popularly-recognized elements of any previous jazz style, is considered jazz by somebody).Originally Posted by Dana5140
People like Nils Petter Molvaer, Jan Bang, Arve Henricksen, Bugge Wesseltoft are merging jazz with hip-hop rhythms and turntablism.
Supersilent 7 live - whole concert
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fsZ-CmSVOA
Supersilent is among the most intense concerts I have been to.
Not necessarily MORE respected, but it's definitely more acceptable to be an older musician playing jazz than it is in the rock world. Being 61, I certainly like that aspect. Sometimes I feel a bit foolish getting on stage and rocking (on anything other than a chair) at my age, but as long as people are willing to pay me to do it, that's what I'll do. I can't (or at least never figured out how to) make a living playing jazz.
I think ALL musicians are trying to impress other musicians on some level. Anybody who takes some pride in their work wants to be acknowledged by peers now and then. As far as hooks go...
That's how I see it as well. A hook doesn't have to be a simple melody that you're able to hum. It just has to be something that sticks in your craw and for some people, that can be a fast moving, complex angular line. Besides, "catchy" isn't always a good thing; some of the most memorable earworms can be rather irritating.
Well I'm a fan, but at times I do wish he'd play something a little "earthy" once in a while; it's all very intense and serious at all times. But I still don't think you have to necessarily be musically inclined to appreciate him. I can understand what he's doing some of the time (which is not to say I can do it myself), but when he takes it "out," I have no idea what's going on. I do dig it though! I think of those fast, angular lines going by at supersonic speed as "shapes," and I love to listen to them, at least when certain players indulge in that type of thing.
You could fill a book with everything you DON'T know about jazz. Yes, there's lots of improvisation, but there's plenty of composed music too; much of which has about every musical aspect your favorite prog has, and beyond. And it's funny to me that you think "not knowing what the other guy is going to do next" is a negative thing. That's exactly what keeps things exciting for the player and the listener; it's as WideOpenEars mentioned, "the sound of surprise." Some music has zero element of surprise and when I can usually predict what's going to happen next, I have trouble enjoying it. YMMV.
I've never actually known of any players being opposed to that. I hear the "self-indulgent" comment (especially as it pertains to jazz) and I always think, "of COURSE it's self indulgent!" Isn't any true artistic expression self indulgent? By "true," I mean not doing something because you're second guessing that people are going to like it. An artist can't afford to worry about that until after the work of art is finished.
In my dreams! But I appreciate the flattery, thanks!
Me too, although I don't necessarily think of it as tension. But I love great composition and great improvisation and jazz is the music where you're most likely to find those two living peacefully together, side by side.
Last edited by No Pride; 02-27-2015 at 12:59 PM.
Must be a Florida-thing..Im not saying its the norm, but there are a lot of players that frown on it.
You may be answering your own thread topic here with the answer to this question: When you played in general Rock or Top 40/Dance bands, did you really look at that as "art"?
Not necessarily.
I'm not one who considers a certain genre of music to be "dead" if it's not constantly in a state of evolution. As time goes on, it gets harder and harder to innovate because so much has already been done. So naturally innovation has slowed down in jazz as it has in most kinds of music, but it's still there. For me, saying something brand spanking new is not the be-all-end-all; it's how you're saying what you're saying. It's entirely possible to say what's already been said in such a manner that it sounds fresh. It's about personal expression, not coming up with the next theory of relativity.
That's kind of a tough question. At this point, I have some trouble deciphering the difference between art and craft. When I'm allowed to improvise my own solo in a pop/rock cover tune, maybe it's art or maybe it's just craft; I don't know. I don't give it much thought. If I did, it'd probably just make me depressed.
ITTA. I do not think Jazz is Dead- which, by the way, is a very good band, just saying- but I am not finding the kind of innovation I saw when I first began listening. Nichification is a bit of problem, but there is a reactionary element in jazz, as well- see Wynton Marsalis for what I would consider the worst offender. I am not intrigued by adding turntablism or hip hop to jazz- heck, Digable Planets did that 20 years ago. What I want is that spirit of probing improvisation. The Dave Liebman, for example, of 30 years ago and not the one now- who is a better musician but is playing, in my estimation, safer music now.
Braxton has become a formalist- I am not sure I would call him a jazz musician any more though he can clearly play inside (i.e. his Lee Konitz discs, etc,). Where are the Aylers and Shepps and Tranes of today?
I'm not lazy. I just work so fast I'm always done.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks