And, there are so many different styles of jazz, writing off the genre because you don’t like it is kind of like not liking carbohydrates. Maybe you hate pasta, and wheat bread, and donuts, and bagels, and a million other things, but I’ll bet that there are carb-based foods out there that you do like.
Also, I found that my ability to get into jazz increased dramatically when I allowed myself to hate the way certain people played. There’s a mystique about jazz and jazz soloing that it’s all about ‘expression’ and all valid, and if you don’t like it you’re just not smart enough . . . BS! Often I’ll turn on the jazz program on the local public radio station, listen for a little while, think, “that music is CRAP!” and change the station, and other nights turn it on and find something sublime. All of a sudden I started liking the program, because I gave myself permission to not have to like all of what I heard.
Poetry. I’m whatever the poetic equivalent of tone-deaf is. I can’t tell the difference between doggerel and a work of genius.
Krazy Kat and Nancy. People say that Herriman and Bushmiller were geniuses. But I just don’t see it.
Bob Dylan. I can’t see his talent as a songwriter, a singer, or a musician. (Although on this one, I think I may be right and the consensus might be wrong.)
Maybe, I suspect though that it is purely a matter of taste and personal preference.
I think one of the problem for me is that for no other form of music would you need any basic grounding. It either works or it doesn’t.
My three and five year-olds were stunned into silence by Elgar’s “Nimrod”. I don’t see a virtue in inaccessibility.
As for variations within jazz? Heck, I gave up long ago trying to work out when the barriers lie and have no interest in finding out more. All I know is that whenever I hear music that makes my skin crawl it is…by whatever definition you choose…jazz.
I think it is a form of music, like all others, that either moves you or it doesn’t. Different strokes and whathaveyou.
It and it’s musicians, are not objectively “better” than other forms, merely different. The problem only ever comes when people try to make assumptions of people on either side of that division. I reckon that same issue rears it’s head for most of art and most of the topics in this thread.
It’s a show about teenagers having very teenagery problems. Even the adults have teenagery problems. Gay-friendliness aside, this is an example of “Stuff you shouldn’t like… and don’t!”
If you are trying to keep the beat with the snare or kick drum and the jazz song you’re listening to is keeping it with the high hat, having that pointed out is part of grounding. It’s not a big deal, just an adjustment most listeners don’t make.
If you try to listen to Coltrane’s Giant Steps without some education, well, that’s like trying to read Ulysses or look at Jackson Pollack without some grounding.
Again - no worries; you are welcome not to like it. But I have yet to find someone who is open to music that I couldn’t introduce to jazz in person…as **Eonwe **says, there’s too much variation not to find something for a music-liker to like…
But I can read Ulysees or view Jackson Pollack without any grounding. Like I say, it works or it doesn’t on it’s own merit.
And (something I’ve noticed when challenged on my dislike of jazz before) you seem to be saying that someone is not open to music or not a music lover if they don’t like jazz.
You probably don’t mean it to sound that way and but from my experience it is a common thing to imply.
And put me on board with not getting Pavement. I even saw them live, and it did nothing for me. For awhile it actually had me convinced I didn’t like lo-fi indie rock at all. But then I heard some Guided By Voices and was quickly disabused of that notion.
First of all, I am sorry if it comes across as condescending - NOT my intent. If you are saying you can read Ulysses without grounding, I would argue that is because you GOT the grounding over time.
Here’s Miles Davis- playing So What off **Kind of Blue **- it is very accessible and easy to understand on its own merits - but there is very limited structure and Miles doesn’t stick to a melody line while soloing but plays very straightforwardly. Then, at 2 minutes, John Coltrane kicks in - and he’s typical Coltrane and the quintessential “why does jazz sound like fighting cats?” kinda jazz tone. If THAT’s the stuff that puts you off, I don’t blame you. But then 3:40 in, it goes to the pianist (Wynton Kelly?) and the straightforward melodic playing continues…
I don’t think that’s true. I think all forms of music, including jazz forms, can be approached naively, without “grounding,” and potentially appreciated, depending on the person.
But all forms can benefit from contexts and foundations, too. I’m devoted to several very disparate musical traditions (for example, bluegrass and house music). I’ve seen each of these reacted to with extreme negativity by people who found critical-to-their-understanding elements of other musics missing here; often this was accompanied by the impression that music in my followed traditions “all sounds the same.”
I usually find that, for all forms I follow, the more I learn about them, the more grounding and context I develop, the more internal diversity I perceive, and the more I understand and appreciate.
My conclusion is that saying “it either works or it doesn’t” is often equivalent to saying “I already have the grounding or I don’t.” You may not realize how much of the “working” for you is bound up with the grounding that you have naturally developed in relation to your established musical interests.
No, not a problem at all. I was sure you weren’t trying to be condescending I understand your points entirely. It is indeed that “stuff” that puts me off and that is what I would call “jazz” The “too many notes” type.
Doesn’t do it for me at all. However, I am aware of Jazz influences in music that I do like (Pink Floyd as I have already mentioned, Hendrix as well) and I can’t draw the line neatly without recourse to musical snippets.
You know what? I don’t think “jazz” is a helpful term at all. Sod this. I’m changing my original “don’t like” to “that” kind of jazz.
Thanks for that, I hadn’t considered it quite in those terms before but that does make sense. The subliminal (by it’s very nature) is a slippery bugger.
Novelty Bobble: cool - we’re good. Per Eonwe, upthread - it is totally okay to not listen to that stuff. Coltrane is playing “out” - breaking enough rules that only the diehards follow him on the path the Free Jazz - which, trust me, you don’t want to hear.
But if you like that-era Miles (there are many eras), trying listening to Bill Evansor Kenny Burrell(Chitlins con Carne - swoon), or, or, or…
Butterfinger milk.
Seriously, it sounds awesome!
But…it tastes like Butterfingers, and without the crunch of the real candy bar, it sets off a cognitive and gustatory dissonance that is just…boggling.
People expect me to like Scrabble, (I read a lot and like board games, I think is the reasoning) but I hate it. I hate it and worse I’m utterly rubbish at it.
I ought to like FreakAngels; all the elements are there - a comic about a a motley crew of powerful mutants in post-apocalyptic London, written by Warren Ellis, sounds perfect for me. But I stopped reading it a year ago and haven’t gone back. Partially because them more I read of Warren Ellis, the more I get the feeling that he just wants to be the Strange Man of UK comics, despite the fact that that’s either Alan Moore or Grant Morrison. But I could ignore the self-conscious posturing when I read (and loved, and still adore) Transmetropolitan, there’s just something about FreakAngels that leaves me cold.
Oh, it’s cool if you don’t like cheese. It was forged in the heavens for my personal enjoyment. I like seeing my own cosmic gift shared among the masses, but I certainly wouldn’t want to force it on anyone.
