Jazz gives you 30 seconds of “I get it” followed immediately by where is this song going and why am I being chased?
Microblog Memes
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
I think folks are just listening to the wrong jazz!
Here's a few modern jazz or jazz fusion song recommendations from me worth checking out:
'Ramen! Yes!', 'XYZ', and 'Balloon Pop' by Hiromi's Sonicwonder (also credited separately as Hiromi and Sonicwonder)
'Desire', 'Knowledge', 'Prologue', and 'Fists of Fury' by Kamasi Washington
and it's bossa nova which I guess is technically samba not jazz, but I say close enough to still recommend 'I Took the L' by John Roseboro
Bonus recommendation if you're open to heavy music (this is death metal jazz fusion!):
'Eb (D#)', 'IQ69Exaltations,' and 'deBroglieNeverExisted' by ByoNoiseGenerator
So, what you are saying is, I need to make a jazz band that does 30 second songs.
Sounds like it can be up to 59 seconds long and still work.
A jizz band
Jizz is already a musical style, its what those aliens play in the cantana in star wars.
"Jazz isn't dead. It just smells weird. "
~ Frank Zappa
"You just ain't never had it done right."
Old musician's joke "Do it once, it's a mistake; do it twice, it's jazz."
"Repetition legitimises"
"It's like, we get it, you can blow a trumpet. Wrap it up, Elton John!"
Oh yes, Elton John, famous trumpet jazzy.
(Love the good place, just watched that episode)
Smooth Jazz yes, but when there’s improvisation I tend to nope right out. Smooth jazz, big band, ragtime - all play the same way each time but for different focus (like big band/swing is for dance).
The only time I’ll tolerate improvisation jazz is while eating dinner when it’s socially acceptable to ignore the music and leave when done eating.
Improvisation can be really good when you get someone talented who's actually applying music theory (many jazz musicians do this).
But when you get avant-garde, the whole point is basically about throwing music theory out the window. It's supposed to be radical/deconstructionist/post-modern, but personally I think it sounds like crap.
Some people think I'm being snooty when I say this, but it sounds like dadaism on a saxophone. Some people claim to like it that way, but I'm pretty certain they're just saying that to be edgy.
Philosophically, it's the jazz equivalent of noise metal.
I thought it sounded poorly at first, but when I took a class from an experienced Jazz improvisation instructor I was able to build a deeper appreciation for the sound.
I personally feel it’s something that can grow on you the more you try to connect with what idea or emotions the musician may be trying to convey. Especially since that’s what the musicians are trying to do when picking up on each other’s signals while playing.
If they're able to "pick up on other's styles while playing" then they understand music theory enough to do that.
That falls under "improvisation while understanding musical theory."
My criticism of avant-garde was different, not directed as a blanket statement about all jazz improvisation.
For avant-garde there are some stylistic elements you can pick up on such as a sense of things falling apart or even distress based on the way something is being played. The other musicians may add their own ‘voice’ in on the story good or bad.
It can still be a compelling story being conveyed but it’s not necessarily something you’d put on when you’re intending to relax.
To each their own.
I think of more avant garde stuff as a whole different category: like you're tired of just listening to good music and now you want something weird and interesting that may fail but definitely tried.
You know like a rough indie video game or movie that might not be the most fun but tries to communicate something (to varying degrees of success).
Edit omg reading on, this thread turned into a whole thing. Music people...
Yeah, I mean it's perfectly valid if you want to listen to avant-garde. No one's stopping you.
My whole point is that the whole point of avante-garde is to reject musical conventions. That's not an opinion, it's literally what avant-garde is.
There's a philosophical argument to be had about what defines music, and how does it differ from noise or sound?
Some people might say dadaism counts as music, others might say it doesn't. And that depends on your definition of music.
I'd put it this way:
Does an audio recording of a construction site count as music? Or is it just noise?
Mind you, one can edit the recording and rearrange it into something musical. However, doing this would require an understanding of rhythm, tempo, meter, pitch, harmony, etc. These are the fundamentals of music theory which I describe as a science because they're mathematics at their core, purely quantitative and descriptive.
They tell you nothing about how to use those concepts together to create "good music." They simply define the components of music itself. How they're arranged is up to the artist, and that whole range of expression is the art side of music.
One could argue that music doesn't need to be melodious or harmonic or rhythmic or any of that. But if that's the case, then how is it different from noise? Does that make the unedited construction site audio "music"?
I would argue that but I have a very broad interpretation of music and art in general and don't actually care that much about categories.
I mean that's valid, I'm not claiming that music has to be defined a particular way, even though if I were personally to define it I would probably include certain characteristics that distinguish it from noise. But I'm not claiming my personal definition is the only valid one.
The whole point of philosophy is to dig into ideas a little further than we ordinarily do. People can have different opinions, and that can stimulate good discussion. At least, as long as people don't resort to bad-faith argumentation by misrepresenting someone else's argument or taking other cheap shots like that.
What I mean is, although you say you don't care about categories, do you consider the sound of a construction site to be music? If so, that's fine, and I'm curious what your definition of music is. And if not, then I'm curious how you distinguish between noise and music. Is there any defining characteristic that places a collection of sounds squarely in one camp or the other, or is it entirely ambiguous?
For me all art is about communicating (feelings or thoughts that are hard to convey straightforwardly), and when I think about music I think of it as an art form that's about communicating using sound waves. Typically this is done by producing waves using instruments and techniques that sound good when we process them. 99% of what I consider music and listen to falls in that broad category.
I don't really think of construction sites as music, no. But I'm open to that lens.
Hypothetically, I can imagine an ear and a mind that would listen to the sound of a construction site and hear music. They would be able to interpret the different sounds symbolically and put together a story about what's being constructed and what kind of a day had been had as a sort of working class opera.
It's a bit of an absurd example and of course I can see how it's not actually music in the music theory sheet music type of way. But if someone tells me their asonorous mixtape is music, then I'll believe them that it's music. It might not be good or even legible, but it's some sort of attempt at communication.
This reminds me of the question: what's the difference between work and play? Is it just that you're compelled to do one for money? Does a game have to be fun? Does work have to be for money? I believe all of the same components can be said to fit into either of these two categories.
People listen to music for different reasons. Sometimes it's to be entertained, sometimes it's to experience something else.
If you really understand music theory, you'll see that it's a science, with math at its core. The art is in how the science is applied.
If a painter forgets the color wheel, they won't be able to mix colors to get what they want. They'll wind up with a bunch of browns when they wanted greens and purples. If they forget the fundamentals like lines and forms and negative space, they'll end up with shapeless blobs.
I mean I guess some people like abstract art, and that's fine. But let's not pretend music theory is just some relic of colonialism. It isn't eurocentric to believe harmonious and rhythmic music sounds better than music that isn't.
All yall need some Hiromi in your lives. Also some Snarky Puppy
7 1/2 minutes into that Snarky Puppy, all are one in the celebration of the groove. Brilliant!
If my mind wanders away from it then back, I lose track and get annoyed, but it's likely because I wasn't paying attention and lost the plot a bit.
Jazz speaks in a way. If you drift from it a bit, you lose the conversation.
This happened to me the first time I listened to BADBADNOTGOOD.
Got through most of an album and thought "whoah, I've been listening to jazz for ages".
Tried some other jazz and thought "Hmm, maybe not"
Nice one, though I prefer Philly Joe or Kenny Clark, but they're from a different era.
Listening to some Medeski, Martin, Wood right now
Putting their "Out Loader" into my queue for tonight. Great idea.
