Why is Jazz Not So Widespread?

Personally, I start from the assumption that I am musically and culturally ignorant on the subject and, on an aesthetic level, I have never been very attracted to the Jazz music genre, also because, like Blues, it is immediately recognizable by that particular unmistakable flavor... the only musicians I like are Alan Holdsworth, Pat Metheny, the late Shawn Lane, who moreover played the Piano better than the guitar 😆, and the legendary Franco Cerri, whom I have met and who, among other things, lives near my house. 🙂

PianoScholar wrote:

Personally, I start from the assumption that I am musically and culturally ignorant on the subject, and aesthetically I have never been very attracted to the Jazz music genre, also because, like Blues, it is immediately recognizable by that particular unmistakable flavor... the only musicians I like are Alan Holdsworth, Pat Metheny, the late Shawn Lane, who moreover played the Piano better than the guitar 😆, and the legendary Franco Cerri, whom I have met and who, among other things, lives near my house. 🙂

If I can be frank, at first (about 3 years ago) I wasn't enthusiastic about jazz: I liked blues almost immediately, since as a teenager I listened to a lot of hard rock (and I still do), which takes a lot of inspiration from the latter in its harmonic and rhythmic structures, but I always found myself feeling limited even while being free when I improvised (and impromptu). I first found freedom in progressive rock, then in jazz, and a world opened up to me.

I would like to know who, perhaps coming from a classical background, is unable to improvise: is it because they are not capable or because they were never taught?

Besides, even when expressing a concept, one improvises with words to achieve the result of communication. Is it not an analogous process in the world of music (in fact, in this wonderful world, it is more immediate)?

Unfortunately, things are not as simple as they seem!

Before venturing into difficult matters, let's have some simple discussions (!!!!).

What does improvising mean?

Does it mean solving a problem with what one has at their disposal?

Does it mean doing things that appear original in very little time?

Does it mean creating forms/structures/responses/theories that no one has ever imagined before?

In fact, no one has yet clearly understood what improvising means, nor even composing (and, I say, not even performing!).

Therefore, I believe that the discussion we could have regarding this risks leading nowhere, because each of us gives different meanings to the same words.

Moving to an even more difficult and intricate level, let us remember that we move according to conceptual schemes that are largely the product of a rationalistic and deterministic culture. This, on one hand, has represented the most significant advantage of Western countries in the economic struggle but, on the other hand, is also responsible for cultural flattening, unless it is appropriately mitigated by sensitivity and attention to diversity.

For example, we say that written Western music is art music. Perhaps the other is uncultured?

Furthermore, we define popular music as a certain type, based on its apparent simplicity (rhythmic, harmonic, melodic). Unfortunately, in doing this, we completely ignore the enormous value of cultural transmission that it has had and quite a few other things; moreover, let's be honest, we assume a somewhat (?) snobbish attitude.

This reminder of mine is not accidental.

For example, PianoScholar claims not to be attracted to Jazz (they can do it very well, because it's a matter of taste) "also because you recognize it immediately by that unmistakable particular flavor" (I can't accept this! If I adopt this criterion, I must throw away Mozart, Chopin, Bach, etc....., "because you recognize it immediately by that unmistakable particular flavor"!).

In fact, even improvisation has rules or patterns, depending on how more or less hidden the genres are; however, the best improvisations try to use only a few very simple patterns, but with a great capacity, with few uses or iterations, to "land in a new world".

This world can be rhythmic, melodic, or even of a completely different type, as happens, for example, in Hindustani music.

In the end, improvising may not be different from composing, even if we give the term composition a typically "modern" meaning.

It is no coincidence that Camy86 reminds us that the improvisation that "everyone" continuously performs is in the construction of language, to communicate concepts.

Some write them down and they are beautiful, and they are poems or musical scores. Some read/perform them and they are interpretations.

To return finally to the initial question, I believe that Jazz is little practiced because doing it well is difficult (like performing classical music well, perhaps even more so) and, if you don't believe me, try having a go at Oscar Peterson's book.

But it is above all difficult because, unlike interpretation, the dimension of improvisation (of quality!) is more subtle and imperceptible than that of interpretation, as it is closer to creativity and further from introspection.

Finally, I recommend a pleasant reading:

Carlo Serra, On Improvisation http://users.unimi.i...m1/dm1impcs.htm

In Music, we all know how to distinguish Harmony from Melody. I am speaking of tonal music.

When a composer harmonizes a melody or creates a counterpoint, some notes of the tonal "framework" meet, kiss, recognize each other, and everything seems logical and pleasant to us. In a melody, we can easily recognize the notes belonging to the harmony that governs it, that accompanies it. We also know how to identify within the melody those notes that fill the passage between two tonal notes (specifically those called passing notes). We also know how to recognize those notes that deviate from the tonal notes and return, after a little "stroll," to the chord note again (these are specifically called "neighbor tones" or "turn notes"). Tonal chord notes, passing notes, and neighbor tones create the "little motif."

Now consider that in Jazz (which does not belong to me, which amazes me, fascinates me, and impresses me), even while improvising all this, the Artist's fantasy adds other foreign notes, consonant and/or dissonant, which constitute their "salt," their personal "seasoning." The more this "ironic" way of expressing oneself becomes recognizable, the more, in my opinion, the style of that Jazz musician or improviser is elevated. Sometimes one cannot listen to the completion of an idea before another immediately opens up; the orthodox "order of movement" (a Platonic definition of rhythm) to which we are accustomed in nature almost never coincides (everything is almost always in syncopation and therefore against nature). Everything is different and overwhelming, leading us into the world of "musical transgression."

The tasty dish is not for everyone.

I have great respect for those who practice Jazz and I believe they are on a "different march" (....You see, I am not saying an extra march).

One leaves a jazz concert feeling lost. Upon entering, we do not know what we will find, and upon leaving, we still have to fully convince ourselves. A process and a "nourishment" completely different from the "Classical." Here, we wait to listen to a Beethoven sonata and activate our verification models, our judgments. There, we are disarmed and fascination pervades us. In Jazz, we always enter an unknown world, which I would define as the "Adventure of Music."

Happy listening

Paolo

Exactly, Paolaccio!

It is indeed a different procedure and I absolutely love the concept of the world of adventure that you express!

It's exactly what I felt the first time, when that fantastic genius Umberto Apicella (a saxophonist from Cava dei Tirreni with whom I had my first complex, when I played the guitar), made me listen to the piece of which I include an excerpt below, to me who was playing Sor, De Falla, Pujol, Diabelli, etc...)!

Christ - I thought - here you can even get lost and never find the exit again !!!!!!!!!!

Charlie Parker - I've Got Rhythm (Best jazz ever) by George Gershwin

Greetings to all and have a good discussion!

It is right to feel a bit lost. I think this recording is from the bebop era: in fact, there are many scale changes because it was a revolution that still marvels today for its originality. But jazz is not just "dispersion." Think of Lester Young, Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis.

One example above all: Miles' solo (the trumpet one, for those who are not experienced) which is based on two dorian scales (like the whole piece), is of a stunning beauty. The following solo, by Coltrane and characterized by his continuous "rambles," can induce a sense of loss: but personally, I like getting lost 😆

Open content (youtube)

@Camy86

Perhaps my exclamation led one to think that the statement had a negative meaning, but it is not like that at all!😆

Getting lost and not finding the exit means that this is a new and different Universe, from which one might also not return, as immense as it is.🙂

I hope that what was stated is now clear.

Gennarino wrote:

@Camy86

Perhaps my exclamation led one to think that the statement had a negative meaning, but it is not like that at all!😆

To get lost and not find the exit means that this is a new and different Universe, from which one might also not return, as immense as it is.🙂

 

I hope that what was stated is now clear.

No, don't mention it: I just wanted to clarify, but I share both your thought and Paolo's. 😉

You are inevitably infected and immersed in the profound discernment of the immense musical journey!!!!!!!!

pianoexpert wrote:

You are inevitably infected and immersed in the profound discernment of the immense musical journey!!!!!!!!

Totally!

I wanted to point out, for those who might not know it, this piece:

With this piece, I marvel every time at how simplicity is perhaps the most complicated thing to achieve.

Open content (youtube)

Wonderful, especially because it teaches us that "mental legato" I was talking about in another study section.

Dearest Camy86 and Paolaccio PianoExpert,

when I listened to the link proposed by Camy86 the other evening, this one came to mind instead:

in Ciccolini's interpretation.

Remember that there are a few years of difference!

Open content (youtube)

Gennarino wrote:

Dearest Camy86 and Paolaccio PianoExpert,

when I listened to the link proposed by Camy86 the other evening, this one came to mind instead:

in Ciccolini's interpretation.

Remember that there are a few years of difference!

You read my mind!

Open content (youtube)

camy86 wrote:

Totally!

I wanted to point out, for those who don't know it, this piece:

With this piece, I marvel every time how simplicity is perhaps the most complicated thing to achieve.

How beautiful!!! I like it very much, it's true it reminds me of Satie ...

Open content (youtube)