So I recently decided to check out Miles Davis's relatively recent stuff, as in Bitches Brew and later releases, and I must say, I quite like it. What do you guys think? Why do so many people reject his last 30 years of work?
Or not, that's cool too.
You, Sir, are bumping... :lol:
In all seriousness, I've never heard of the guy.
Miles Davis, king of Jazz. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTfBpKzu6XA)
My opinion:
Jazz: What people do when they can't write and play music or sing.
Miles Davis is probably the most famous jazz musician out there. Jazz is some of the most complex music out there, in most senses of the term.
@Red Devil: What do you think about jazz singers then?
Blech.
Do you recognize them as talented but they don't appeal to you? Or do you not recognize their talent?
I'm not a fan of jazz singers either. That said, I saw a cool Brazilian one at Blues Alley once.
I wasn't much of a fan of Miles, but he truly was a pioneer (bebop, etc). Keep in mind that Jazz is more complex than something like Western Classical or Baroque, akin to say, C++ is to say, BASIC. Syncopation, blue noting, riffs, minor 3rds, etc., you hear those in all forms and subgenres of modern Rock now, all stemming from African-American roots of music, with Jazz (an American invention in itself) being one of them. Elvis, the Beatles and other white musicians after, who've played the most fundamental Blues I-IV-V chord progression styles, have all payed homage to it (and even Miles) in one form or another. It's taken for granted most of the time, especially to the youngin's, that today's rock and pop music have many mixtures of certain genres, all due to the fact that musicians copy styles all over the place. You'd know that Jazz is a a major part of that mixture, as it's already been incorporated in American music and culture a century's worth.
There's even Latin Jazz too; the popularity of "Louie Louie" (Kingsmen) wouldn't have happened without its use, amongst many.
Miles did have that nice plastic trumpet. Very retro-futuristic. :P
Jazz takes some serious skill. Simply being able to play with other musicians in tune takes a very good ear.
If you think playing jazz does not take skill, then you try it.
I dont really 'understand' Jazz, but its alright.
It all just sounds like meaningless meanderings to me, reminding me of the random tinkling of untuned Tibetan bells.
I've listened to the Grateful Dead play some really good songs, then devolve into something that sounded like a half hour of cats in heat yowling.
Bluegrass musicians are starting to do it, too.... :roll:
Sorry, but even thinking about it gets me all cranky. :|
Its not a genre where i could listen to it after a few years of being into it, and think "oh i know this song". To me it all just sounds like improvisation... and it does get pretty boring. I guess it takes some form of skill to improvise with other mucisians and make it sound 'right'... but i would rather just listen to a song and hear the musicians playing what they know really tightly.
Hmm, let me try to put this into some kind of perspective... y'all know when some electric guitar rock god is "shredding" , and he's making all that wailing, fast arpeggiating, minor 3rds, augmented 4ths, chord progression, chromatic glissandos, and whatnot? It sounds random and gibberish, but you're aware that it does have some sort of coherence to the song he's/she's playing. Well, that partly (or mostly) comes from "Jazz". You never hear that in a Bach fugue or an Irish jig (although it also partly comes from those too). Think Marty McFly, when he "shredded" to that innocent 1950's audience.
Western classical traditions usually play on beat at mathematical precision. Jazz introduces the aforementioned improvisations as well as syncopation (backbeats and forebeats), that you wouldn't traditionally hear in most Western classical compilations. That's why it might sound like yowling cats. They are riffing off each other and playing around the melody, both through added notes and rhythmically. What does it all mean? Well, it makes music just a little more "organic", to say the least. And who's the best "shredder" in history, no matter what music genre? Imho, Art Tatum. :-P
The following really old "interview" might also help define Jazz:
QuoteYogi Berra on Jazz:
Interviewer: Can you explain Jazz?
Yogi: I can't, but I will. 90% of all Jazz is half improvisation. The other half is the part people play while others are playing something they never played with anyone who played that part. So if you play the wrong part, its right. If you play the right part, it might be right if you play it wrong enough. But if you play it too right, it's wrong.
Interviewer: I don't understand.
Yogi: Anyone who understands Jazz knows that you can't understand it. It's too complicated. That's what's so simple about it.
Interviewer: Do you understand it?
Yogi: No. That's why I can explain it. If I understood it, I wouldn't know anything about it.
Interviewer: Are there any great Jazz player alive today?
Yogi: No. All the great Jazz players alive today are dead. Except for the ones that are still alive. But so many of them are dead, that the ones that are still alive are dying to be like the ones that are dead.
Interviewer: What is syncopation?
Yogi: That's when the note that you should hear now happens either before or after you hear it. In Jazz, you don't hear notes when they happen because that would be some other type of music. Other types of music can be Jazz, but only if they're the same as something different from those other kinds.
Interviewer: Now I really don't understand.
Yogi: I haven't taught you enough for you to not understand Jazz that well.
Sometimes it helps me to think of Jazz this way: Jazz is making the dissonant sound consonant. Simple as that.
It's not a perfect way of thinking about Jazz, but it has it's merits.