Started by
gian
Member
Member
Yes, how is jazz music born? And how can it be defined: popular (like pop music, rock music) or highbrow/art music? Listening to them play, for someone like me who doesn't know how to play, they give the impression of being extraordinary musicians, like classical music musicians, but is it really so, or is jazz music a lesser music compared to classical music?
Member
Hi Gian! For me, sincerely, there is no superior or inferior music but... one cannot help but notice that a good musician with a classical background who dedicates themselves to so-called "Cultured" music offers us a broader performance and interpretive landscape, not because it is superior, but because it is set up with different intentions. Listening to Jazz music, which I am very passionate about, the first thing that catches our ear is its simplicity (harmonic, timbral, technical-executive if taken from a sensitive point of view) compared to classical music, and the same applies to all popular music. Conversely, cultured music in many cases suffers from a certain "stylistic rigidity" that popular music does not have, and it is precisely on this that its beauty is based. Personally, I do not love hybrid art forms in the sense that I love the popular being well-distinguished from the cultured, and therefore I shun those artists who, despite having excellent qualities, fail (due to a sort of bizarre or libertine temperament or even a dry, a priori rejection of a structural tradition) to create a well-defined path within a tradition or to create a track that departs from it based on its foundations, instead invading a field that is not theirs, undermining—even if unintentionally—what is a pure, profound tradition worthy of all our greatest respect (Allevi comes to mind immediately).
Cultured or classical music is alive and sought after; it can be spontaneous and simple, but it nonetheless does not suffer (or at least suffers differently) from that somewhat grayish psychological fatigue of which many contemporary compositions do suffer. Jazz also surprises sometimes, but all the ingredients always seem to be extracted from the same pot—that of men! Whereas, browsing or listening to Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, we realize that with the usual ingredients, the old man in a wig knew how to put a thousand different pots on the fire; this, I think, is ultimately the greatest difference.
To conclude, I have always felt that classical music was part of me and of nature. In some pieces, one finds the wind, the force of thunder, or the mad rush of streams, and this, just like nature itself, never bores us. Damn me! But with other music, I just can't do it! Sorry for the length, but... too many things keep coming to mind. See you soon.
Member
fabio73 wrote:
Hi Gian! For me, sincerely, there is no superior or inferior music but...... one cannot help but notice that a good musician with a classical background who dedicates themselves to so-called "Art" music offers us a broader performance and interpretive landscape, not because it is superior, but because it is set up with different intentions. Listening to Jazz music, which I am very passionate about, the first thing that strikes the ear is its simplicity (harmonic, timbral, technical-executive if taken from a sensitive point of view) compared to classical music, and the same applies to all popular music. Conversely, art music in many cases suffers from a certain "stylistic rigidity" that popular music does not have, and it is precisely on this that its beauty is based. Personally, I do not love hybrid art forms in the sense that I love the popular being well-distinguished from the art music; therefore, I shun those artists who, despite having excellent qualities, fail (due to a sort of bizarre or libertine temperament, or even with a blunt, a priori rejection of a structural tradition) to create a well-defined path within a tradition or to create a track that departs from it based on its foundations, instead invading a field that is not theirs, undermining—even if unintentionally—what is a pure, profound tradition worthy of our greatest respect (Allevi comes immediately to mind today).
Art or classical music is alive and sought after; it can be spontaneous and simple, but it nonetheless does not suffer (or at least suffers differently) from that somewhat grayish psychological fatigue of which many contemporary compositions do suffer. Jazz also surprises sometimes, but all the ingredients always seem to be drawn from the same pot—that of men! Whereas, browsing or listening to Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, we realize that with the usual ingredients, the old man in a wig knew how to put a thousand different pots on the fire; this, I think, is ultimately the greatest difference.
To conclude, I have always felt that classical music was part of me and of nature. In some pieces, one finds the wind, the force of thunder, or the mad rush of streams, and this, just like nature itself, never bores us. Damn me! But with the other music, I just can't do it! Sorry for the length, but...... too many things keep coming to mind. See you soon.
Hi Fabio, your comment is beautiful and I share it entirely. I confess that I opened this discussion because nothing had been written in this section yet and, seeing there was nothing, I did it myself, just playing around a bit, between the serious and the facetious. After doing so, I turned off the PC and started listening to some music: Debussy's Arabesque, Chopin's Nocturne, and finally—I am still listening to it in the background—Pachelbel's Canon. Wow, I have chills of pleasure all over my body, which, with all due respect to jazz and rock music, they certainly do not provide. So, seized by this ecstasy, I turned the PC back on, happily found your comment, and have now replied. It is certain that this Canon gives certain emotions that... all classical music gives... divine music that involves us totally, but tonight, right now, Pachelbel's Canon specifically is melting my heart... making me truly perceive the greatness of God.
Member
Hi Gian. In fact, I always harshly attack "evasions" from the serious and profound study of music, but I assure you that I also look favorably upon other paths and am not closed off mentally or musically. Jazz, like other musical genres, is very direct and accessible, and this is a good thing. It's beautiful, among other things, when one approaches jazz to arrive at cultured music, right? And not the other way around. But regarding exactly what you were saying about divine greatness, perhaps the milder genres approach the subject in a milder way, and therefore... it is certainly this factor that gives us that sense of incompleteness. The Arabesque is beautiful, isn't it? I studied it years ago. And Pachelbel doesn't mess around either! These days I am reading Scarlatti's sonata that Gennarino and Simone passed on to me, and it is truly unique. Music is one of life's consolations! And think about it, there are people who gladly do without it... But! Hi and see you soon.
Administrator
fabio73 wrote:
Music is one of life's consolations! And just think, there are people who willingly do without it......But! Bye and see you soon.
In this question lies the answer... Can you imagine a world without music?
Member
Wow, and what is this! I just discovered it and I didn't understand it at all. 😆
Member
The previous sonata is a composition that anticipates the concept of swing by 300 years!!! "From the cooing of the dove to the rushing of the storm, from the subtle use of sagacious devices to the tremendous limit where culture loses itself in the tumultuous chaos of nature, he has passed everywhere, he has felt everything. Whoever comes after him will not continue, they will have to start over, because this precursor has led his work to the extreme boundaries of art." Damn, yes!
Anyway, jazz is a language that was born around the 1890s or thereabouts: its matrix is the blues [so the classic structure of the 3 chords 1,4,5 more or less (on the 'more or less' there would be infinite substitutions and values of the harmonic, rhythmic, and melodic vector)] and it is played by musical bands playing ragtime, which is music with improvisations on themes based on preset chord structures. Jazz was also born because, being played by the poorest people (from an economic point of view) who did not have access to education, only a few were able to read music, and therefore they had to make necessity a virtue: by improvising, there was no need to know how to read music "one just had to play".
An example of early jazz is the compositions of Scott Joplin: ragtime will give rise to stride piano, which in turn will give rise to swing.
I'll stop here because jazz, despite being a newborn compared to classical music, has also absorbed its influences and it is difficult to list them in a few lines in a post. One of my favorite pieces of music is this one, based on an atonal improvisation that I find reaches the almost limits of perfection: in fact, Coltrane spent more than a year practicing this progression before recording it.
Anyway, there is no superior music: everyone has their preferences, but the fact remains that classical music is limited to the sheet music and jazz music is limited to improvisation! 😆
Member
fabio73 wrote:
Hi Gian! For me, sincerely, there is no superior or inferior music but...... one cannot help but notice that a good musician with a classical background who dedicates themselves to so-called "Cultured" music offers us a broader performance and interpretive panorama, not because it is superior, but because it is set up with different intentions. Listening to Jazz music, which I am very passionate about, the first thing that strikes the ear is its simplicity (harmonic, timbral, technical-executive if taken from a sensitive point of view) compared to classical music, and the same applies to all popular music. Conversely, cultured music in many cases suffers from a certain "stylistic rigidity" that popular music does not have, and it is precisely on this that its beauty is based. Personally, I do not love hybrid forms of art in the sense that I love the popular being well-distinguished from the cultured, and therefore I shun those artists who, despite having excellent qualities, fail (due to a sort of bizarre or libertine temperament, or even with a blunt a priori rejection of a structural tradition) to create a well-defined path within a tradition or to create a track that emerges from it based on its foundations, going on to invade a field that is not theirs, undermining—even if unintentionally—what is a pure, profound tradition worthy of all our greatest respect (today's Allevi immediately comes to mind).
Cultured or classical music is alive and sought after, but it can be spontaneous and simple while still not suffering (or at least suffering differently) from that somewhat grayish psychological fatigue that many contemporary compositions suffer from. Jazz also sometimes surprises, but all the ingredients always seem to be extracted from the same pot, that of men! Whereas, browsing or listening to Bach's The Well-Tempered Clavier, we realize that with the usual ingredients, the old man in a wig knew how to put a thousand different pots on the fire; this, I think, is ultimately the greatest difference.
To conclude, I have always felt that classical music was part of me and nature. In some pieces, one finds the wind, the force of thunder, or the mad rush of streams, and this, just like nature itself, never bores us. Damn me! But with the other music, I just can't do it! Sorry for the lengthiness but...... too many things always come to mind. See you soon.
Compliments!! Truly profound observations... a great example of the equality that music offers (I don't mean that all music is the same, clearly 😆). Well done!
As far as I know about jazz... here is a brief summary.
Jazz was born as "Work Music" towards the second half of the 19th century, on plantations, where people of color were inhumanly exploited. Generally, these early songs were inspired by the sad living conditions and tradition. For this reason, many melodies of "early" jazz are sad and melancholy. The only instruments available were the voice, hands, and sometimes sticks, to be used as very simple percussion.
With liberation, many Black slaves continued to play in this new style. Many also learned to play instruments, and the first jazz quartets began to form. A few years later, the first real jazz quartet was born, the "Golden Gate Quartet." As jazz spreads, its "developments" are born: blues is taken up again, and others decide to "return to the traditions" of work songs. Thus, bebop is also born.
Gradually, jazz spreads throughout the world as music in its own right. Among all the greatest exponents of jazz, Louis Armstrong must absolutely be remembered, considered precisely "the ambassador" of jazz. Speaking of this great musical figure, his particular style should be remembered: he played the trumpet like a voice, and the voice like an instrument.
Among the other great jazz musicians to remember are Dizzy Gillespie, Parker, Benny Goodman, Stan Getz, ...
If you have questions, you can find me here. Bye!
