Poll

How many non-classical albums do you own?

Nearly a Library's Worth (500+)
19 (25.7%)
Large Collection (200-500)
11 (14.9%)
Quite a bit (50-200)
11 (14.9%)
Some (1-50)
27 (36.5%)
None
6 (8.1%)

Total Members Voted: 42

Author Topic: Popular Music  (Read 21825 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

karlhenning

  • Guest
Re: Popular Music
« Reply #200 on: May 23, 2007, 10:46:12 AM »
Jazz is interesting not just because of the improvisation [snip] . . . Jazz is indeed important and significant to the whole field of music. I don't see how anyone can deny the effect jazz has had on the music tradition unless they were not very well informed.

Agreed, completely.

sonic1

  • Guest
Re: Popular Music
« Reply #201 on: May 23, 2007, 02:24:43 PM »
Had you not used such demeaning language in posts like the above, I could take what you are saying a little more. But you have exposed your prejudices a few times on this thread. You intend no due respect to the jazz tradition. But lucky thing: the jazz tradition hardly needs YOU to justify its importance.

And as far as the longevity of its being played live, while the improvisations will not be duplicated, I can assure you that more live jazz is appreciated in the world than live classical music (unless you are going to count student recitals). I have seen a lot of incredible jazz performances in my time, and I am too young to have seen some of the best. The tradition of jazz is not dead, and in fact, has increased since the 80s. This is especially true in Europe where jazz is generally more respected (sad, being that jazz is such an American contribution).

On any given night in NYC, Chicago, SF, LA, and most any cosmopolitan  city, you will find 10 times the performance of serious jazz, than you will classical music. Your suggestion that classical music will continue while jazz does not is mere prejudice, and just wrong. I mean, nobody can predict the future, but I would venture to say that if jazz music is dead in a few decades (meaning no more recording or performances) so will classical music. They are in the same boat for requiring more from a listener than most popular music.

But I don't know why I am arguing this with you. You seem pretty convinced of yourself. Your above language is offensive and uppity. I was not sure if you were suggesting I grow up, or the artists themselves grow up. But this suggest you feel superior in your tastes. I myself am comfortable with the fact that I let myself be entertained by some very bright musical minds in jazz, and that their contribution to music is not ephemeral, but perennial. Just like in classical music, there are ephemeral moments-to suggest that only jazz, and not classical music, is subject to the quality of ephemeral-ness is quite silly. And to suggest that jazz has not had huge moments, as has classical, is also silly. The only difference is the span of time in which these arts occur. They both draw upon the same basic tradition. And I will admit that a lot of classical music is more complicated in nature than the majority of jazz. However, the quality of being "complicated" is not all that makes an art great. With jazz, it was the simple innovations that were so amazing. By the jazz-like quality of synchopation, blues notes, complex chords, etc, etc, music was changed forever. And it did have a great influence on classical music. Maybe not the pasty white stuffy guys who went on to create nothing important. But I cannot imagine a Bernstein or a Stravinsky outside of the period that jazz shaped. When you think of the 20s, the 30s, the 40s to most people they have a jazz soundtrack. When you see documantaries on the era, mostly jazz music is played in the background (though classical music is often played as well).

It was not just the cultural influence of jazz that made it what it was. It was the quality of the music. Jazz has no close relative in classical music. It was its own music by definition. Nothing sounds like jazz. Those musical innovations expressed the quality of the times. And classical composers used those innovations liberally. It greatly shaped the post Ivesian American classical tradition.

That is JUST my opinion though. I am not saying this for YOU James. You seem already convinced of yourself.

Offline The new erato

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 14493
Re: Popular Music
« Reply #202 on: May 25, 2007, 06:21:54 AM »
Bach and Haydn didn't write for posterity either and would certainly be amazed that their music was listened to today. A confluence of factors has changed that. I'm sure some amount of todays popular music will survive in for the future even though it isn't written for eternity either. Why do we talk about evergreens?

It's easy to be  overwhelmed by classical musics great complexity and think that that makes it automatically great, but most of the music written contemporary to eg Haydn has been forgotten, often deservedly so. And lots are in simple ABA forms, and greatness only comes from a great composer. But there are great song composers today as well, and if you think that the text of a song like "A Day in the Life" by John Lennon has less literary value than the text to an aria by Handel, or less sophisticated structure than a Lied by Franz Schubert, you are sorely mistaken. But that doesn't translate into an obligation to like it.

Of course the commercial pressures, and easy production and distribution , assures that there's produced a lot of crap today. But lots of Haydns contenmporaries were composing mainly to keep their children fed as well.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2007, 06:23:52 AM by erato »

sonic1

  • Guest
Re: Popular Music
« Reply #203 on: May 25, 2007, 08:06:24 AM »
As an aside: there is also a lot of great music out there that never sees radio play. You have to look for it to find it. Most of what is on the radio is shite. I bet in some time the music gets rediscovered, just as today reissues of lesser known jazz and rock albums get released for music collecting fanatics.

greg

  • Guest
Re: Popular Music
« Reply #204 on: May 26, 2007, 04:39:12 AM »


Although I don't happen to like Jazz, I respect it very much. Not just for the obvious skill of the players, but for being in a way directly related to the Wagner-to-Mahler-to-Schoenberg-to-Shostakovich pioneering. Jazz really seemed to have pushed the boundaries of what was considered "tonality" during its (Jazz') nascent era.

Although I much prefer the "heavier" (some would say "radically condensed"/"rudimentary") stylings of Death Metal, I'd be pretty dumb not to admit that of the two "tonality-slaughtering" genres, Jazz is on a level of harmonic complexity and range that tends to garner more admiration from musicians on a worldwide level.

Again, as a musician, I really respect the amount of ear training and general jam-manship it takes to be able to improvise over the at times confounding sets of chord changes in jazz. My preferred forms of "popular" music (death and extreme metal) are perhaps centered more on the "effect" of the sustaining drum beat in general.
that's the exact same way i feel about jazz