I don't get the Rock vs Jazz argument - Jazz Superiority over Rock...etc

[PlatoCat]

Once you walk out the door and play live, you aren't playing for yourself, you are playing for an audience.

If you make the choice to pick out the most obscure chords, stray away from recognizable music theory, play along with some convoluted rhythm...that in the end only three music professors in the dingy little bar are giving you a standing ovation...is that really a win?

Is that the genius everyone is chasing...learning some Eskimo/Albanian Jazz scale that eludes the typical guitar player?

 

[guitarjazz]

"Some people like the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition and some people like Hustler"-David Grissom-Guitar Player Magazine.

 

[ArtDecade]

Let me be the first to offer you a: "Cool story, bro."
Followed by a: "You don't clearly understand jazz and that's okay."

 

[Silent Sound]

People like to project their insecurities. It's part of life.

If you're lucky, you'll get to the point where you realize you like whatever kind of music you like, and you don't like other kinds of music, and you know exactly what it is about those songs that you like so much, and what it is about those other songs that you don't like. And you're making up your own mind, so you quit caring what other people think because they're no longer doing your thinking for you. You're in charge of your own thoughts now.

And that's when it hits you, you don't even label music jazz, rock, country, whatever. To you, there's only two genres. Music you dig and music you don't.

 

[The bear]

The ignore button do come in handy at times.

 

[amstrtatnut]

Play what you enjoy and enjoy what you play. Dont worry about the rest. If you ever get curious about jazz, it will be there for your enjoyment.

 

[BlueWolf]

I don‘t think any reasonable jazz player would claim that jazz is better or “superior” to rock. All music is simply a matter of taste. No style of music is better or worse than another. There is good and bad music within every style. As a jazz player, but one who also plays and loves rock, however, I think it is reasonable to say that learning jazz is much harder than learning rock. Sometimes that probably gets twisted up into jazz being “better” or “superior,” but that’s a simplistic and incorrect characterization. Jazz isn’t superior to rock, just more difficult to learn and play.

As for those convoluted chords, scales, and rhythms you speak off, they are ALL founded in well established music theory. In fact, they’re founded in some of the same theory that the great classical composers have used for hundreds of years. I also think the audience for jazz, while maybe not quite on par with rock, is still pretty sizable. It wasn’t that long ago that jazz was the most prevalent and popular form of music there was. Ever hear of Benny Goodman? All I know is that Pat Metheny and Herbie Hancock can still sell out any venue they care to perform in. Must be a lot of college professors out there.

For someone that obviously doesn’t have any experience or appreciation for jazz, you are pretty dismissive of what is a great art form. Can’t you just say “I like rock better than jazz” and leave it at that? Nobody can argue with that and more people would agree with you than disagree as rock is clearly the more popular art form. As it is, you seem to be saying that jazz is just worthless crap, but rock is great. You’re certainly not going to get any agreement from me or many others with a uninformed opinion like that.

 

[stevel]

Once you walk out the door and play live, you aren't playing for yourself, you are playing for an audience.

Well, you just answered your own question.

For many people, that's not the case.

Maybe you might consider that selfish. Many people might not, or have convinced themselves it's not, or have been convinced it's not, or simply don't care.

Don't forget too that there's plenty of "inaccessible rock" and plenty of "accessible jazz" and so on. So it's not a "rock versus jazz" argument - it's a "playing for themselves versus playing for others" argument - which can happen in any genre.

And there are audiences with similar degrees of "elitism" and things like that.

But you also have to be at least somewhat "playing for yourself" while you're playing for others because otherwise you won't be that invested into it and won't really be serving them like you intended to!

 

[davess23]

Am I the only one who's enjoying the notion of getting a standing ovation from three music professors in a dingy little bar?

Whenever I've played those places the applause generally comes from the bouncer, the barmaid, and the too-drunk-to-walk old guy waiting for the cabbie to come in and manhandle him into the back seat.

 

[PlatoCat]

But you also have to be at least somewhat "playing for yourself" while you're playing for others because otherwise you won't be that invested into it and won't really be serving them like you intended to!

Is that a theory? Does that come from the idea that you can't be all about making music for others...that in some part, their has to be some selfish motive?

I could argue that pretty much every experienced orchestra, tribute, cover band, late night band is phoning it in, playing music they have played a bazillion times, would choose something else...but this is what pays the bills.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

Is that a theory? Does that come from the idea that you can't be all about making music for others...that in some part, their has to be some selfish motive?

I could argue that pretty much every experienced orchestra, tribute, cover band, late night band is phoning it in, playing music they have played a bazillion times, would choose something else...but this is what pays the bills.

Is it a theory that all working musicians are either weekend warrior/bar band guys, orchestras or jazz guys no one wants to hear?
Let's see...all of this falls under the category of serving up genres of music way past their prime to audiences that want to stroll down memory lane to their high school days?

 

[jogogonne]

That's not jazz as a whole.

After all, this is jazz.



And this is jazz...



And everybody loves it.

I think Michael Buble is jazz too, and people love him. Kenny Rankin.

I think the individuals who call out the Michael Bubles, etc, give jazz a very complicated reputation.

 

[Tele-Vision]

The ignore button do come in handy at times.

He’ll be gone soon

 

[TheLesserCornholio]

This may help op

Straw man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Alchemist XP]

People that feel a need to hammer a community of people with a "what I personally like happens to be the best also" kind of argument over and over are often trying to get recognition they crave but haven't gotten through more healthy avenues. The idea that one sport is objectively "better" than another or that a genre of music is "better" or "harder" because I say it is ... well, that's just a level of intellectual immaturity that is best avoided.

There is a certain joy in bar banter among friends to basic shoot the **** about a topic like this for laughs, but the way some do it here as though they have the only possible definitively true answer is ridiculous. They often have a hard time distinguishing between opinions and objective facts and are oblivious to their ignorance.

 

[SoPhx]

It's a big world and there are all kinds of music for all kinds of people. Some people live to play popular music for an audience, some people are interested in dodecaphonics and modes of limited transposition ala Messiaen.

HORATIO:
O day and night, but this is wondrous strange.

HAMLET:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[sanhozay]

what does an audience have to do with music? lets face it, respect can't always pay the phone bill.

 

[jkg]

 

[Maguchi]

Once you walk out the door and play live, you aren't playing for yourself, you are playing for an audience.

If you make the choice to pick out the most obscure chords, stray away from recognizable music theory, play along with some convoluted rhythm...that in the end only three music professors in the dingy little bar are giving you a standing ovation...is that really a win?

Is that the genius everyone is chasing...learning some Eskimo/Albanian Jazz scale that eludes the typical guitar player?

There is a certain joy in bar banter among friends to basic shoot the **** about a topic like this for laughs, but the way some do it here as though they have the only possible definitively true answer is ridiculous. They often have a hard time distinguishing between opinions and objective facts and are oblivious to their ignorance.

There are very few if any "universal truths." There are roughly 8 billion people on the planet and many, many valid perspectives based on different experiences and environments. The perspective that jazz is obscure chords and convoluted rhythms that stray away from recognizable music theory is not one of them.

 

[tktk]

It's just the way you hear, which doesn't apply for everyone.
The very first time I listened to Four & More, I had no idea what was going on. I actually couldn't even count on it, but I was totally fascinated by the fact that there was something I couldn't understand at all. Not soon after, I went to see a concert of The Quartet; Wayne Shorter. Herbie Hancock, Ron Carter, and Jack Dejohnette. I still had no idea what they were playing but completely mesmerized by their sound. Wayne Shorter particularly was like a magician, and I've been a huge fan since.