Popular Music

[Robert]

OK here are a few, not an attempt at an authoritative list, just personal favorites:

Louis Armstrong: Hot Fives and Sevens
Coltrane: A Love Supreme
Wayne Shorter: Speak no Evil
Miles Davis: In a Silent Way / Bitches Brew (shh / peaceful really has a quite sophisticated development well outside traditional song forms)
John Zorn: Naked City (although Zorn is also widely recognized as a classical composer)
John Scofield: UberJam
Sonny Sharrock: Sieze the Rainbow
Pat Metheny / Ornette Coleman: Song X
Weather Report: Sweetnighter (again Boogie Woogie Waltz, aside from likely being the only 3/4 funk tune in existence, has a sophisticated long development)
Thelonius Monk: Underground

nice list...in terms of this discussion Waynes da man.......

[sonic1]

All the criticisms I see made of jazz so far can definately be said of classical music, or really any type of muisc. Really it is just the sound we are going for right.

Someone once said to me that music was a product of boredom. I think there is some strange truth to that.

Sometimes I am sick of everything I have heard and I just hate music.

[George]

Sometimes I am sick of everything I have heard and I just hate music.

me 2.

I may steal that for my signature.

[dtwilbanks]

me 2.

I may steal that for my signature.

The Replacements' "I Hate Music":

"I hate music

Sometimes I don't

I hate music

It's got too many notes"

[Steve]

All the criticisms I see made of jazz so far can definately be said of classical music, or really any type of muisc. Really it is just the sound we are going for right.

Someone once said to me that music was a product of boredom. I think there is some strange truth to that.

Sometimes I am sick of everything I have heard and I just hate music.

I can emphathize with that statement. Most often, that effect comes about from listening to a narrow variety of music for a couple of days, of so. Sometimes, when I'm wrapped up in a new sonata for my violin, I overplay the music of that composer. I go a day or so without listening to anything, and then I play something entirely new, and just like that, my interest returns. 

[marvinbrown]

I can emphathize with that statement. Most often, that effect comes about from listening to a narrow variety of music for a couple of days, of so. Sometimes, when I'm wrapped up in a new sonata for my violin, I overplay the music of that composer. I go a day or so without listening to anything, and then I play something entirely new, and just like that, my interest returns. 
[/quote


   They say Familiarity Breeds Contempt and Variety is the Spice of Life....I think that applies here.

   marvin

[Grazioso]

jazz, by the very nature of it's process (trying to make music on the spot via improv) is just not really built to last like art music is, and its hard to apply the same level of rigour, thought and care under those circumstances, where each note has the utmost musical value, because you dont know whats going to happen next when its done on the fly. and improvising in and of it self isn't anything special, all of the great classical composers where master improvisors too (ie Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, Messiaen etc) its a piece of cake to noodle thru harmonic sequences when you have all of that musical knowledge and tools available like they all did, so improvising is nothing new nor a jazz invention, it has existed since the earliest music was made, back in the day Bach used to improvise multi-voiced fugues for fun...anyway if you want to hear more modern and cutting edge music with richer and more profound content? dont listen to jazz (or any popular music) but go about 100 yrs back and listen to prokofiev, sibelius, mahler, messiaen, webern, bartok, boulez etc and those 'cats'....you'll soon discover that pretty much everything was covered far far earlier than jazz's inception.

To accuse jazz of not being built to last like classical music ignores some important points. Thanks to recordings, jazz has lasted quite well, as any fan knows. Classical music may be built to last, so to speak, but how much of it has been forgotten, rediscovered, forgotten again, or, in our day, largely ignored in a culture that doesn't give a darn about high art? How has Messiaen, for example, "lasted" when only a fraction of classical listeners have heard him, and when classical music is just a minute blip on our culture's musical radar? (And how much classical music deserves to last? Being part of the classical music tradition certainly doesn't guarantee quality or interest.)

And to say that jazz isn't built to last like "art music" (jazz is of course art music, too, with serious expressive aims and a high level of craft) is true insofar as jazz is built in part on improvisation, spontaneity, and the electricity of connecting artist and audience in the moment. But there you're applying a classical music criterion to an art form with partially different aims and modus operandi. You could turn that around and use the standards of jazz to point out how four-square, stiff, straight-laced, and over-intellectualized classical music can sound. You could damn classical music for largely jettisoning improvisation over the centuries and limiting itself to slavish cookie-cutter performances of written scores.

Apples and oranges. At the end of the day, both musical streams sound different, work differently, and--for me at least--elicit different emotions and listening experiences. How many of the composers you listed sound like Trane or Monk or Miles and vice versa?

[Haffner]

I have a large collection of popular music, mostly my favorites from when I was very young. Kind of a nostalgia thing.

My classical music collection has easily overtaken the rest, even without counting the box sets.

[Grazioso]

when i say art music im referring to the classical tradition...1000 yrs vs. 100 of jazz?

and i was asking more about the specific pieces created in jazz come way of improvising that come close to the great heights found in classical music, you just do not hear it, nothing i have heard really comes close to the depths found in the very best music of Messiaen or Bach or Beethoven or Shostakovich or Bartok or Stravinsky or Brahms or Schoenberg or Debussy or ANY major classical composer of note, i saw the list posted earlier & that stuff just does not compare, the artists of those "albums" would even admit that im sure...other than some "standards" (which are based on simple/popular song form, legacy changes), jazz will never travel as well. and its not designed with the same level of craftmenship. we will see how much of the jazz listed earlier will be performed and recorded 300 years from now, not going to happen. the best musicans in popular music themselves (jazz or otherwise), whether it be Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Chick Corea etc. truly stand in awe of whats in classical music, and i know thats a tough pill to swallow for some folks here, but believe it, its true....

Sorry, I hear lots of depth and craftsmanship in jazz. You just need to know what to listen to and how to listen to it, to be open to to what it has to say and how it works. If you go into it expecting it to sound like Bach, you'll be disappointed--and vice versa. It offers things--sounds, emotions, instrumentation, rhythmic subtleties--I don't find in classical music--and again, vice versa.

Btw, I know "art music" is sometimes used as a synonym for "classical music", but that sets up a false dichotomy. Of course other forms of music are art and can require artistry. Also, the classical music tradition might be a thousand years old in an abstract academic sense, but most of what's performed and recorded spans just a few hundred years, and within those centuries, the classical "mainstream" is highly selective. And it's to jazz's credit that it's managed so much in so short a time.

[sonic1]

I (Of Course) agree with the above post. A lot of people think classical music is simple, boring and wanky-if you don't listen to the music with empathy, to any sort of music no matter how "good" it is, you will not hear it. There is some incredibly written jazz out there, but you have to listen empathetically, not just do the shallow drive-by. Yes, jazz has been around only a hundred years; that is what is so amazing about it (and the 20th century in general). If you listen to the earliest jazz and compare it with some of the latest, it can blow you away how much innovation happened in just over a hundred years. I don't think there is any time period in classical music that compares (not even the 20th century stuff). The difference between Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Albert Ayler, Sun Ra, Evan Parker, Alexander von Schlippenbach, is so vast as to be dizzying, and to render the general term "jazz" almost useless.

When people say they like jazz (or dislike jazz) it tells you almost nothing. Did they listen to 70s fusion, West Coast cool jazz, swing, bebop, hard bop, avant-guard, European free improvisation, chamber jazz, new orleans dixieland, vocal jazz, third stream, latin, hard bop, post bop, sweet band jazz, world fusion jazz....

see what I mean...


almost like when people say they like "classical" WTF does that mean anyway.

[karlhenning]

almost like when people say they like "classical" WTF does that mean anyway.

Or, even better, when people state vehemently that they "hate" classical . . . and then you ask them what they've heard . . . .

[Haffner]

Or, even better, when people state vehemently that they "hate" classical . . . and then you ask them what they've heard . . . .

I usually just take the "haters" cum grano salis; I have certainly spent time being hornswaggled by some Classic music.

I'll never forget when Beethoven's 3rd Symphony "clicked" for me...my life was better afterward.

[Don]

sorry i don't, and how can it, when it's usually tossed off then and there, and the majority of it's practitioner are mere dabblers....in terms of listening, its a piece of cake i find, being that it's just homophonic texture etc...there is more music to be heard in a just a few 20th century classical works, believe it......and if these jazzers were as good as you think they are, they would be able to not only indulge in noodling (like Ives, Beethoven, Mozart & Bach and countless others did in their day), but also would have the comparative musical knowledge/skills to write serious stuff like.... symphonies, string quartets etc. but they don't do that do they, and when some have tried the results are quite sub-par.

That's quite a statement.  As I read it, you're saying that a composer who does not write any serious classical music must be inferior to one who does.  I think your disparagement of jazz is leading to very unreasonable views.

[sonic1]

yup, label it, divide it, separate it and call it what you will, but ive heard tonnes of it that falls under all of those...to me its all jazz/popular music, fusion probably being the worst, music marred with incredibly tacky sounds from dated technology, heck a lot of it isn't even jazz imo, boring ol' bop? free jazz? which has NO CONCEPT of *quality control* etc etc etc Zzzzzzz

Again, people say the exact same thing about classical music. They will base their judgments upon what they have heard which is often relatively little. You should know that it takes work to get into classical music, and into any genre.

I am not interested, however, in trying to convince you of that. You seem convinced already which is a terrible way to go about learning anything. If you were truly interested, and had YOUR MIND OPEN (like your quote suggests) you would not ask for examples then simultaneously tell us you have already heard all this stuff. You already know, and I will let you "already know".

At some point I decided not to try to interest people in music I love. If you were truly interested you would have the empathetic ear and would not need me or anyone else to convince you.

Your loss, not mine.

[Don]

that's correct.


p.s. i do like a fair bit of jazz/popular music btw, but my arguement here is that it doesn't compare to the serious writting & results found in classical, all you have to do is be exposed to a fair bit of both to come to this conclusion quite quickly...

Since I'm close to 60 years of age, I must be a very slow learner.  Although I don't often listen to jazz, I have great respect for it (unlike my views on most pop and country music). 

[Don]

Don.. but Bach is you main man, so I can tell you are a man of the best possible taste and insight.

You've got me on that one.

[Robert]

the only reason why i ask sonic is because i want to see where you are coming from.

i have been exposed to lots and lots of jazz, i went through a whole period where that was all i was exploring.

i have been to lots of jazz concerts & i own lots of jazz albums btw, but id say that less than 5% of it i return to with any regularity...most of the stuff listed in this thread thus far i either own or have heard.

i got into classical right away, like i did with jazz, but after listening to a far bit of both it's easy to see which of the 2 is infinitely superior on all fronts. that may sound snobbish or even pretentious to you, but i have to be as objective as possible and tell it like a hear it....

can you give us some examples of exactly what you have been exposed to. also let me know five jazz concerts that you have been to over the last year.. I AM TRYING MY BEST TO GET A GRASP ON EXACTLY WHERE YOUR COMING FROM......I only wish I had half your music expertise...please elaborate....

[Grazioso]

sorry i don't, and how can it, when it's usually tossed off then and there, and the majority of it's practitioner are mere dabblers....in terms of listening, its a piece of cake i find, being that it's just homophonic texture etc...there is more music to be heard in a just a few 20th century classical works, believe it......and if these jazzers were as good as you think they are, they would be able to not only indulge in noodling (like Ives, Beethoven, Mozart & Bach and countless others did in their day), but also would have the comparative musical knowledge/skills to write serious stuff like.... symphonies, string quartets etc. but they don't do that do they, and when some have tried the results are quite sub-par.

As I suspected, I don't think you really get jazz or appreciate it on its own terms. You seem to be comparing the intellectual depth (however that might be defined) of classical versus jazz compositions. That neglects two major points: music--certainly for most listeners--is in large part about emotional power, not just intellectual content. (Which isn't to deny the intellectual interest of jazz, which is prodigious--try to play it, and you'll see.) Secondly, jazz generally puts more weight on individual performance/utterance over composition. While the latter is significant, it largely functions as a framework for individual expression in a group context. The depth of jazz is in large part the depth of individual statements, how something is "said" as much as what is said.

To call jazz improvisers noodlers and dabblers again betrays a lack of sympathy and critical listening, not to mention a disrespect to all the artists who practice and study hour after hour, year after year to perfect their craft. Is there bad jazz improv that falls back on cliched licks and stale ideas? Certainly. But good jazz artists construct solos with both emotional and intellectual weight.

To say that jazz is just "homophonic texture" is bizarre in light of the contradictory facts. Polyphony is hardly uncommon in jazz. (Though why the use of polyphony somehow makes music superior, I have no clue.)

You say that symphonies and string quartets are "serious stuff". Undoubtedly. But so is A Love Supreme and Brilliant Corners and countless other jazz albums. It may not be the music you like, but that doesn't negate artistic intent and craft. And, to turn your question around, why can't any old classical composer write/play brilliant jazz, seeing that it's supposedly just simplistic noodling, tossed off at a moment's notice?

p.s. i do like a fair bit of jazz/popular music btw, but my arguement here is that it doesn't compare to the serious writting & results found in classical, all you have to do is be exposed to a fair bit of both to come to this conclusion quite quickly...

I've been exposed to way more than a fair bit of both and sure don't come to your conclusion.

[longears]

By the poll standards my collection of non-classical (i.e. popular music) is large.  Mostly jazz, rock, and singer-songwriters.  Anyone who thinks jazz is not serious music or is performed by incompetents is uninformed.  Equating popular music with the popularity of music is equally wrong-headed.  Very little popular music sells in the millions.

Think I'll go listen to some Bob Wills now to get the day off right.

[Steve]

when i say art music im referring to the classical tradition...1000 yrs vs. 100 of jazz?

and i was asking more about the specific pieces created in jazz come way of improvising that come close to the great heights found in classical music, you just do not hear it, nothing i have heard really comes close to the depths found in the very best music of Messiaen or Bach or Beethoven or Shostakovich or Bartok or Stravinsky or Brahms or Schoenberg or Debussy or ANY major classical composer of note, i saw the list posted earlier & that stuff just does not compare, the artists of those "albums" would even admit that im sure...other than some "standards" (which are based on simple/popular song form, legacy changes), jazz will never travel as well. and its not designed with the same level of craftmenship. we will see how much of the jazz listed earlier will be performed and recorded 300 years from now, not going to happen. the best musicans in popular music themselves (jazz or otherwise), whether it be Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Chick Corea etc. truly stand in awe of whats in classical music, and i know thats a tough pill to swallow for some folks here, but believe it, its true....

Your post really hit a chord with me, James. One of my reasons for trying to tone down the influence of popular music on classical, is to emphasize the incredibly rich and incomparable tradition that is classical. Composers today can find influence among their contempoaries such as popular musicans, but they can also reach into an unblelievablely diverse and rich repotoire, which as you've mentioned, spans some thousand-years. While Jazz is a remarkable innovation in its own right, its harldly been around long enough to amass the sort of depth that classical has. It also explains why Western literature can be spoken of in a similar fashion, as writers in European languages have a rich, increbly deep artistic and literary tradition from which to extract influence. Classical music has grown over generations; stood the test of fallen aristocrats, dying monarchs, and the birth of republicanism. In short, it can never really be thought as confined to a single period of time in the way that popular music does.

Perhaps in a few-hundred years, we can speak that way about Jazz, but in the meantime, I cannot see giving up my limited time listening to music which has only seen its heyday in the past hundred years when I could just as easily be listening to music which has had eons to mature and grow. But, alas, I digress, noting the results of the poll which point to large populations on this forum with little interest in popular music, and a tremendous interest. We have a dichotomy, or so it seems.