/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11070655]

STOP LISTENING TO JAZZ

[Anonymous No.11070665]

>>11070655
I agree

[Anonymous No.11070669]

shut up fogey

[Anonymous No.11070681]

>>11070655
>>11070665

What is their actual argument against jazz?

If it is anything like "new music is degenerate!! kids these days dont listen to ..." then fuck off

[Anonymous No.11070698]

>>11070681
Here, find out
http://www.verlaine.pro.br/txt/adorno-on-jazz.pdf

[Anonymous No.11070700]

>>11070681
He was right wing..., so yeah, everything new is bad

[Anonymous No.11070725]

>>11070681
Here's the short version:
https://youtu.be/WB6Ix1sw0iI

[Anonymous No.11070729]

>>11070700
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.11070737]

>>11070700
Who Adorno?
>right wing
lol

[Anonymous No.11070739]

>>11070655
BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS, DADDIO

[Anonymous No.11070740]

>>11070729
Dicklet

>>11070737
No, the other one

[Anonymous No.11070814]

>>11070681
This article is alright since it's brief
https://www.varsity.co.uk/music/15086

[Anonymous No.11070833]

>>11070814
so basically he didnt like the pop music form of jazz

so basically he didnt even bother to look beyond the surface level to discover anything more experimental and avant-garde behind it

thats the equivalent of determining your stance on rock music by listening to nickelback and ac/dc and saying it is formulaic drivel

[Anonymous No.11070838]

>>11070833
problem?

[Anonymous No.11070842]

>>11070838
what's the problem? he made a sweeping condemnation of a musical genre without looking beyond its surface

[Anonymous No.11070864]

>>11070842
there is nothing beyond the surface you inane insect

appearances are everything

[Anonymous No.11070866]

>>11070833
You also need the context of his work to understand why.
I don't recommend it usually but here's a school of meme link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YGnPgtWhsw

[Anonymous No.11070868]

>>11070833
Rock music is defined by its consumerism. The Beatles are considered the best vanderlei ever because they sold the most.

[Anonymous No.11070869]

>>11070833
Yeah this guy who probably wrote in the 30s didn't know about Ornette Coleman and shit, what an entry-level pleb

[Anonymous No.11070870]

>>11070833
No, he didn't like Jazz.
Experimental and 'avant-garde' jazz are even worse forms because they create a pathology of the underlying form.

[Anonymous No.11070871]

>>11070870
that quote makes no sense

he may as well just have said

>i dont like jazz

for all the substance it holds

[Anonymous No.11070879]

>>11070842
An important question, is there any jazz that can be considered Beautiful?

[Anonymous No.11070883]

>>11070879
charles mingus

[Anonymous No.11070890]

>>11070870
>>11070871
>azquotes

[Anonymous No.11070894]

>>11070833
Also, this is the historian's fallacy. Jazz was the pop music of its time, and pop music as we know it could not have influenced his position because it didn't exist.
All of the problems in pop music arrive out of jazz and similar modernist/post-modernist trends.

[Anonymous No.11070896]

>>11070870
Seems like he listened a bit too much jazz.

[Anonymous No.11070899]

>>11070871
Perhaps you need to improve your reading comprehension and learn a few things about philosophy and music.
It makes perfect sense, and explains the visceral reaction many people have to the hollowness of jazz.

[Anonymous No.11070911]

>>11070883
I mean, objectively. Not just for a particular time period and group of people.
I get why people like jazz but I have never heard anything that could be considered timeless or beautiful, temporality is written into its spirit (or lack thereof). Post a song that would be considered objectively beautiful.

[Anonymous No.11070914]

>>11070896
BTFO

[Anonymous No.11070917]

>>11070896
No doubt a severe case of manletism, but this doesn't make him wrong regarding jazz.

[Anonymous No.11070923]

I find that Brubeck is too wild and crazy, not too mechanised.

[Anonymous No.11070928]

>>11070917
Maybe he was right because he experienced the terrible effects of jazz on the listener himself.

[Anonymous No.11070935]

>>11070681
black people

[Anonymous No.11070944]

>>11070899
how do you feel about pop mate

[Anonymous No.11070972]

>>11070944
I think pop is actually an improvement on jazz, largely because it incorporates more elements of folk which jazz set out to destroy.
It's generally banal and uncultured, but there are far more gems than you'll ever find in jazz.
An interesting example of salvaging elements of jazz:
https://youtu.be/mFuxq_J1VuA

[Anonymous No.11071006]

>>11070899
In what way is emasculation involved, aside from being an empty rhetorical metaphor?

[Anonymous No.11071018]

>>11070655
Even Lee Sims?

[Anonymous No.11071039]

>>11070879
no, it's all utter trash. go back to listening to top40s hits you sodomite.

[Anonymous No.11071061]

>>11071006
The musical line is castrated, both in heritage and the meaning or direction of the song.
Also, compare this to how the jazz version would sound:
https://youtu.be/H5JmGIVrI-o
Structure and some element of symmetry is required for beauty - in music this largely comes down to the balance of harmony and melody. Destruction of this balance is written into the form of jazz, it synchronizes only to itself.

[Anonymous No.11071067]

>>11071039
Okay then.

[Anonymous No.11071090]

>>11070655
Define jazz. Thought so.

[Anonymous No.11071217]

>>11070868
no one actually thinks the Beatles are the best rock band

[Anonymous No.11071352]

>>11070911
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoPL7BExSQU

[Anonymous No.11071364]

>>11071061
>The musical line is castrated, both in heritage and the meaning or direction of the song.

Putting "castrated" there is a pathetic attempt to follow Adorno's "emasculation" phrase. You are a lowlife charlatan, buddy. Look at Adorno and tell me the guy wasn't an emasculated ponce in the first place.
Empty intellectualising with retorts as juvenline as "jazz is for wimps" is beyond stupid and reactionary.

[Anonymous No.11071372]

>>11070655
Stop caring about Nabokov's opinions, fags. You guys think he's the be all end all because he was an arrogant aristocrat- exactly what you want to be. He was a retard.

[Anonymous No.11071374]

>>11070972
>jazz set out to destroy

Stopped reading there.

>personifying a musical genre as if it has its own ideology and agenda

Nice strawman

[Anonymous No.11071384]

>>11071364
not him but jazz is indeed for castrated wimps

[Anonymous No.11071389]

>>11071384
Music in general is for castrated wimps.

[Anonymous No.11071407]

>>11071384
says the guy living with his parents past the acceptable age posting on an online cartoon forum

[Anonymous No.11071409]

>>11071061
Music is castrated from its history as background sound for ritual. Music for the sake of beauty is a posturing mess and jazz is only a natural extension of this no-count craft.

[Anonymous No.11071417]

>>11070879
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rOMV0A5jd0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ_rZZusz90

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geCLMB5N-90

And then even on the avant side, there's some stunningly gorgeous stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBNTfXfJhhs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlrQZc3h13E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ6lB7FKxi8

[Anonymous No.11071445]

>>11070879
I subjectively like this album, you might not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWsIG5sNq1Q

[Anonymous No.11071450]

>>11070879
No question concerning beauty can ever be important.

[Anonymous No.11071453]

>>11071445
the cover of this always looks like a cow skull to me

[Anonymous No.11071458]

>>11071364
Retard.
All I was doing was explaining what he said, and you come out with some lame plagiarising argument, as if I had not plagiarised thoroughly enough.
KYS.

[Anonymous No.11071467]

>>11071458
Says the guy who thought he would get away with saying castrated. Nope. Not on my watch, charlatan!

[Anonymous No.11071474]

>>11071374
>it's all relative bro, there's no inherent meaning

[Anonymous No.11071485]

>>11071474
Can you please explain without any recourse to irony what it is exactly you think you're doing?

[Anonymous No.11071494]

>>11071409
Sounds like bullshit.
You really think people didn't recognise some element of what we call beauty while echoing in caves?
Beauty isn't posturing, and the most beautiful is rarely ever laid out as a construction project.

[Anonymous No.11071501]

>>11071372
Nab was right about this one anon, i hate him too but there’s no denying pop, jazz and rock are plagues

[Anonymous No.11071503]

>>11071352
It's nice until the horn starts blasting.
I think that's the most you can ever say about jazz, 'It's nice.'

[Anonymous No.11071510]

>>11071503
>I think that's the most you can ever say about jazz, 'It's nice.'
YOU DONT GET IT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.11071525]

>>11071501
I don't hate him. Some of his writing is excellent. It's just that his opinions are asinine and are worshipped here by aristocrat LARPers.

[Anonymous No.11071539]

>>11071417
Same thing, 'It's nice' is the most you could say about this.
Where is the music going? What's the point? It's like a child lost in a park, but nothing ever really happens. It's a bad story.
It must be compared to post-modernist music that is truly beautiful:
https://youtu.be/Ozb9eigk9yY
Two completely different ends of the spectrum when it comes to beauty and meaning.

[Anonymous No.11071543]

>>11071467
>you used a word I don't like
>therefore you are wrong

[Anonymous No.11071559]

>>11071543
You've missed the point.

[Anonymous No.11071560]

>>11071510
Yes, I do. That's why anyone with a sense of taste thinks jazz is objectively bad. It's purposeless wankery or, again, at best the background sounds at a club that won't offend anyone.
It's just proto-muzak.

[Anonymous No.11071562]

>>11071560
>It's just

This is how you identify a charlatan. When they say that before spewing out an opinionated generalisation.

[Anonymous No.11071580]

>>11071458
Nice post! A little bit of "responding to tone" sandwiched between to slices of name calling

[Anonymous No.11071590]

>Don Cherry - Orient
Jazz would be good if it had more than one masterpiece

[Anonymous No.11071595]

>>11071580
>context
>to

[Anonymous No.11071601]

>>11071562
>charlatan
https://youtu.be/KrJYpActs7g

[Anonymous No.11071602]

>>11071494
>the most beautiful is rarely ever laid out as a construction project.
This is my point, in response to this:
>Structure and some element of symmetry is required for beauty

This is a metaphysical idea of capital-B 'Beauty', as in relation to the guiding principle of Truth, by way of mathematics, science, rationality, abstraction, etc. 'Beauty,' as we use it today, is such a devalued term that doesn't really derive in any meaningful sense from the metaphysical conception of it: that is, what determined in the first place our ideas for beauty in art. Music 'castrated' from ritualistic social gatherings is music posturing (as art) --trying to be something that it is not -- with the belief that the 'construction project' of balance and harmony is beauty, and in turn is truth, etc. Further it is useless, in my opinion, to speculate as to what degree there is any significant continuity between how music factored into pre-historic belief systems and the decidedly ethnocentric development of metaphysics in ancient Greece. The point is that the history of music in the West hasn't really been concerned with music before civilisation, only in the 'perfected' natural forms as determined in antiquity. 'Beauty' is such a pointless distraction it may as well not exist at all. But in saying that maybe we should just throw it to the dogs of music.

[Anonymous No.11071605]

>All of my formal education in music was in European classical music. The instrument I studied was the violin. Until mid-1961, I was a composer of “modern” music of the post-Cage generation. But in the years from 1958 to 1962, my attitude toward music underwent a total change. The first sources to inspire this change were Ali Akbar Khan, John Coltrane, and blues singers such as Robert Johnson. La Monte Young would bring to my attention Nazakat and Salamat Ali Khan, and later Ram Narayan. In the mid-Sixties I began listening to field recordings of African tribal music and to Bismallah Khan.

>Meanwhile, my philosophical researches gave me an intellectual basis to reject the claim of cultural superiority which musicology made for European classical music. These claims have a vast literature, including dispensations by Schoenberg and Adorno.

>I was inspired by the image which Ornette Coleman had at the beginning of his career: the image of the untrained “folk creature” as avant-gardiste. [...] My music is a sophisticated, personal extension of the ethnic music of my native region of the United states. In all of my experimentation, I assert myself as an autochthon (colloquially, a “native” or “folk creature”)—siding with the emotional experience and the musical languages of the autochthonous communities. In particular, I assert that the objective sound elements of blues and country music are demonstrably incommensurate with the categorization of sound in European musicology—as for example in the use of an unaccented glissando on the beat as a “note”—and in non-arithmetical division of the beat.

>For me, innovation does not consist in composing European and academic music with inserted “folk” references. It consists in appropriating academic or technical devices and subordinating them to my purposes as a “folk creature.” An outstanding prototype of this approach was Bo Diddley’s use of the electric devices of pop music to project the Afro-American sound. This approach strikes in the opposite direction from that of the era of picaresqueness and nationalism in classical music. (Most annoying to me, I suppose, is classical pop, the gypsy rhapsodies, “Bolero,” “Sabre Dance.”)

http://www.henryflynt.org/aesthetics/meaning_of_my_music.htm

[Anonymous No.11071616]

>>11070870
lmao this would make sense if Jazz musicians didn't get mad pussy

[Anonymous No.11071640]

>>11071539
I'm not sure if your shitposting or not, but I'm also a fan of John Adams. His Harmonielehre and Violin Concerto are stunning, and I actually attended the premier of his Scheherezade 2.0. So yeah. Jazz and po-mo classical are both astounding forms of music. My advice: stop being so academic.

[Anonymous No.11071665]

>>11071605
But all of the best folk music is close to classical in its structure and technicality.

[Anonymous No.11071688]

>>11071640
No, it's an amazing composition.
Why would we want to be non-academic in an intellectual discussion of music? Your position makes no sense, and your argument that 'classical is good therefore jazz' is a fallacy.
We're discussing intellectual/philosophical critiques of jazz, so it only makes sense to try and keep the arguments at an intellectual level.

[Anonymous No.11072391]

>>11070814
>He found that most jazz musicians were isolated from their audience: they wanted to play what they called “jazz,” which was already very unpopular. Like everyone else, they wanted a decent wage and a steady job, but found that they must please the “squares” (i.e. play pop music) to get one. The choice between playing jazz or having money bred resentment. They hated their audience. They didn’t want to look at them or associate with them.
Man, hit in the feels. Any fellow lit/ musicians around here?