Playing the saxophone How do you justify jazz?

I think jazz has some of the same issues as classical music. The terms have been twisted to fit a very wide range of styles and sub-genres. The terms are used to broadly describe an entire world made up of many different things.

I've introduced people to classical music. If they come from a heavy rock type background, they tend to like the 'big' stuff by Tchaikovsky, Richard Strauss, Mahler, Rachmaninov... Some like to hear virtuosity... and so on.
I agree very much with your first point, though I know rather little about (let's say) orchestral music. And with your second point in mind, I thought I'd add this link in case someone were to find it useful in the context you mention. I very much like it, but this may have all the cred of liking one of those 'hooked on classics' LPs which used to do the rounds...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3Cg9Xh9gfA


'Mars' and 'Uranus' are also very good.
 
The metal guitar version is very cleverly done indeed, I know the piece very well right back from childhood, I'm most impressed and I'm not usually a fan of that kind of ''guitarring''
 
I agree very much with your first point, though I know rather little about (let's say) orchestral music. And with your second point in mind, I thought I'd add this link in case someone were to find it useful in the context you mention. I very much like it, but this may have all the cred of liking one of those 'hooked on classics' LPs which used to do the rounds...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3Cg9Xh9gfA


'Mars' and 'Uranus' are also very good.
Yes, this is another work to introduce rockers ansd metal heads to 'classical' music. Mars and Jupiter are popular with metal bands and guitarists - I've encountered several versions over the years. Some have in the past got into trouble for failing to be aware that Holst was still in copyright e.g. Wendy Carlos in the 70s, although no longer an issue.

I think the first full performance by the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra was in 1923. (Working on my memory as I cannot find online proof as Google's AI seems to make a lot of assumptions.)
 
Lots of good point here....
I don't think you can pull people into Jazz, it is for every individual to decide what kind of music he/she/.... likes. It's all good.
.......
But for me it's all about the energy that you feel in the music. Whether it is Jazz, or pop or folk or classical (not really my cup of tea) or whatever kind of music.
Some live performances are more a very well-rehearsed routine, it may sound good, but it doesn't really have the bit that captivates me (as a listener). I want to revel in a performance where you can see, hear and feel that the musicians are enjoying themselves while they are playing together, sometimes interacting with the public or each other in an organic way.... One can just feel the enjoyment and energy.... That is what make an outstanding performance.
A very good example of this was the performance of Julian Lage (guitar) in Gent Jazz about 2 years ago. He seemed (at times) genuinely surprised and amazed at the music that was coming out of his own guitar. He looked like he really enjoyed himself. And it sounded good too!
 
I actually like the term “justify” in the context, because everyone who likes and listens to jazz, interacts with non-jazz listeners, and talks with them about music will get to the point where one justifies jazz - music that nowadays threatens off people who just want to enjoy and not work for music.

As others pointed out, genre definitions are difficult per se and even more difficult in a musical landscape that has been so heterogeneous as jazz is. There have been fierce discussions about what jazz NOT is, which for me mostly contradict the whole idea of jazz being able to be quite a lot, from soulful world music to sophisticated and complex musical, almost mathematical combinations of sound and rhythm, from public entertainment to fierce political rebellion. It's all jazz.
But genre boarders have been secured so heavily by a few, that even the origin, i.e. jazz music from the 1910s - 1930ies is not considered "real jazz" by some. We are getting to the point, where many non-professional musicians, who play jazz, don't call themselves jazz musicians. Just to avoid being called out for doing it not properly. I guess if that happens to a music genre, it probably needs justification in the view of an average music listener.

Despite a political attitude, that may or may not be part of jazz, jazz for me is defined (or should be) by a musicians attitude to learn and assimilate. When I grew up musically, I was listening to everything from classical music, over trad jazz, rock'n'roll, hip hop, soul, to punk music. I was lucky to get musical training, but the training was only classical and did not look at other genres.

Then I met some semi-pro jazz musicians, who just did the opposite. They literally played everything and wanted to perform well in every context. They practiced hard to be able to substitute in classical orchestras, big bands, soul and funk bands, country, western and even Bavarian marching brass band music. They were open to everything and tried to learn and assimilate every style they contacted to take a piece with them into their own music. Of course any musician can have this openness and there is some opening happening in classical music. But in my experience I most often found this with people who played jazz. Maybe the improvisational training with chords, scales, and harmonic functions helps to quickly understand other musical ideas.
This musical openness of musicians beyond genre boarders is my (personal) idea of what jazz music and jazz musicianship could be about today. And it has worked as justification before, for why I like to PLAY jazz. I am no longer trying to convince people to listen to jazz though...
 
But for me it's all about the energy that you feel in the music.
+1. And a lot of that comes from the rhythm section. Lots of great points made in this thread, but I haven't seen much mention of the rhythmic aspect of jazz. Syncopation and 'groove' play a huge role! But it's very difficult to describe. Like trying to explain 'swing' or 'funky'. But it's sure there and you can really feel it.
 
Interesting question, with an inevitably vast array of answers. I tend to share the "who cares, like what you like and ignore what you don't" view, I do think anyone with lights behind the eyes tends to gravitate toward what they genuinely prefer as they're exposed to a variety of things, and that's just fine. And for anyone who doesn't have all that much light behind the eyes, I don't particularly care... 😬 sorry. Unthinking masses will flock with unthinking masses, same as ever. The smart cool weirdos (from a wide array of backgrounds) have always been my people, and so it shall remain.

But even among these smart cool weirdos (SCWs), these tastes might be heavily swayed by environment and culture. When I was a youth, my little crew of SCWs tended to like music on the "heavy" side. Rock/grunge/metal, hip hop/gangsta rap, things like that. So the first jazz we really connected with in high school was relatively "heavy" for jazz, but not compared to what we were already accustomed to: things like the Mahavishnu Orchestra, Headhunters, and Coltrane's quartet with McCoy and Elvin. We needed the edge and energy. It actually took me a while to warm up to great Miles records on the mellower side, like Cookin' and Kind of Blue, even though they've been favorites of mine for decades now.

Additionally... I think the vast majority of records produced, including in jazz, simply aren't that good. When a record truly has all the necessary elements – great writing, great playing, great sonic production, and an actual cohesive artistic concept that successfully executes what it sets out to do – it tends to reach a wide variety of ears, even folks not normally into "that kind of music." So I'm not surprised when people think they don't like jazz. They probably haven't been exposed to the very, very best records, and those might help open their ears.
 
I actually like the term “justify” in the context, because everyone who likes and listens to jazz, interacts with non-jazz listeners, and talks with them about music will get to the point where one justifies jazz - music that nowadays threatens off people who just want to enjoy and not work for music.
A fair enough point. There aren't a whole lotta common contemporary genres where you really would sorta automatically get into having to 'explain' it during a conversation....but a lot of convos with a person relatively unfamiliar with jazz...tend to GO there....
 
Then I met some semi-pro jazz musicians, who just did the opposite. They literally played everything and wanted to perform well in every context. They practiced hard to be able to substitute in classical orchestras, big bands, soul and funk bands, country, western and even Bavarian marching brass band music. They were open to everything and tried to learn and assimilate every style they contacted to take a piece with them into their own music. Of course any musician can have this openness and there is some opening happening in classical music. But in my experience I most often found this with people who played jazz. Maybe the improvisational training with chords, scales, and harmonic functions helps to quickly understand other musical ideas.
This musical openness of musicians beyond genre boarders is my (personal) idea of what jazz music and jazz musicianship could be about today.
This is a really GOOD point. I agree 100%, being a fairly accomplished jazzer DOES provide you with the tool belt to actually learn and play other genres pretty 'easily', for lack of a better word. So I would add that to my list of ...er....

"justifications"....

I have done this a number of times as a bandleader. We may have had a client or a club that wanted a special theme-night of a particular music or even decade, or such. It was actually very smooth to pull that off with a group of jazz players.

My group is about to do that now, in two days. Mardi Gras, Fat Tuesday, Carnivale ...in the borderlands desert !
I have had the fortune to attend a New Orleans Mardi gras and back in my college days, Zydeco music got really "hot" in pop circles and radio for around 3 or 4 years....and I always wanted to play a Zydeco show with some other down-home Louisiana style music in there.

A few bands here do Mardi Gras gigs - but in honestly all they do is throw in a few Trad Jazz tunes to their regular jazz repertoire, then revert to Great American Songbook or bop...but audiences here know no better. The bar is pretty low.
I was approached with doing a Mardi gig and decided I really wanted it to be a melange of New Orleans style music.
Nobody in my group here was familiar with a lot of the material...the Zydeco, New Orleans Funk (The Meters, Dr. John, The Neville Bros, etc), of course Dixieland, Delta Blues...we are even gonna do a NOLA Funeral Dirge.

As my trumpeter (young guy, grew up here) said when approached, after listening to the playlist: " I have never heard any of these bands, but this is doable, it isn't HARD to wrap our heads around, it's just something we are mostly unfamiliar with".

We had three practices but honestly, after one practice it came together so quickly that I was almost giddy.
But yeah, they are jazz players/singers, they prepared for the practices, so this was not by any means too big a piece to bite off.

Applies to other genres of course. I have been involved in Rock shows where, likewise, the jazz players occupying the parts just did a more thorough, precise job of learning and playing the material than a rock cover band would do.

Jazz does give you those tools.
 
This is a really GOOD point. I agree 100%, being a fairly accomplished jazzer DOES provide you with the tool belt to actually learn and play other genres pretty 'easily', for lack of a better word. So I would add that to my list of ...er....
I disagree sightly. Producers I've worked for on rock/blues sessions have said that many session players haver a problem with playing other genres. I've known so many jazz players who think dismiss blues as easy, and yet without being able to play blues convincingly. They get the harmony yet somehow miss out on the feel and intonation. Somehow unable to leave the jazz licks and patterns at home.
 
I actually like the term “justify” in the context, because everyone who likes and listens to jazz, interacts with non-jazz listeners, and talks with them about music will get to the point where one justifies jazz - music that nowadays threatens off people who just want to enjoy and not work for music.
That is a sad definition of jazz if it must be understood to be appreciated. I don’t want to work to appreciate a performance either, but I still enjoy music that falls in the genre of jazz.
 
That is a sad definition of jazz if it must be understood to be appreciated.
Right. For me, that would be backwards. When I was first listening to jazz, I loved & appreciated what I was hearing, but I sure as hell didn't understand it from a theoretical standpoint. Liking what I was hearing made me want to understand it in order to learn to play it. But I didn't at all need that understanding in order to appreciate it.

I guess you could say that understanding the difficulty and complexity of what goes into improvising jazz effectively would increase your appreciation of it. But that's not really necessary.
 
That is a sad definition of jazz if it must be understood to be appreciated.
It would maybe be sad, but I didn’t think anybody actually said that. I have to admit I don’t understand all of it, which is a bit odd having been in academic position where I was teaching it.

Maybe I do know a bit more than many, but I don’t think you have to understand a flat five substitute or so-called modes of a melodic minor.
 
It would maybe be sad, but I didn’t think anybody actually said that.
+1
At least it’s not what I meant. I don’t need to be convinced nor do I need understanding to love jazz (although the latter can help with some styles).

But I do know people who don’t understand why anyone would like jazz, quite a few, and some of them great musicians.
 
I’m always a bit mystified by people talking about ‘understanding’ music. Especially the idea that you can’t like it unless you understand it. I don’t really know what they mean. My appreciation of music has always been at a more basic level. Do I like the sound of it? That’s it. Music is thus divided into music I like, music I don’t like and music I’m indifferent to (probably the largest category). Genres are a waste of time - too much time categorising and not enough time listening. Understanding it would involve knowing how my brain works so there’s no chance.
 

Social

New! Social Feeds

Look out for the navigation icon:

Follow CafeSaxophone

Latest Song of the Month

Trending

Forum statistics

Topics
32,045
Messages
577,848
Members
8,111
Latest member
Simonob
Back
Top Bottom