VirusKiller
Member
Obviously jazz is a huge genre; what I'm referring to is some of the classic jazz - Miles Davis, Coltrane, Cannonball, Parker, etc. I'm not talking about the more "tuneful" stuff like Getz's latin jazz or Desmond's "Take Five".
Am I just talking about modal jazz?
My question has probably been answered implicitly throughout many threads, but not having done a jazz theory course, I'm struggling to find the technical vocabulary to explain why jazz sounds the way it does.
- Is it the rhythm? (think double-bass pounding out the rhythm in 4/4 together with brushed percussion).
- Is it the cadences (chord progressions?) which differ from non-jazz genres like rock and blues?
- Is it the use of non-"classical" modes and chords - e.g. heavy use of dorian minor? (though I found out recently that Eleanor Rigby is in dorian mode).
- Is it all of the above?
- Is it something else?
I ask this as I'm trying to work out why I'm still not sure if I like (modal?) "jazz" or not. I wouldn't be alone in suggesting that the majority of solos, whilst they can be technically brilliant and full of emotion, lack the traditional tunefulness that is pleasing to the/my ear.
Is it because, growing up listening exclusively to the pop/rock, blues and classical genres, the jazz modes and cadences are essentially alien to me?
Or are non-jazz modes and cadences more popular for a reason: they genuinely sound nicer? And that jazz aficionados position themselves on the intellectual high ground "above" the more popular genres. A case of "The Emperor's New Clothes"?
I'm not a jazz hater. I like "Kind of Blue". I think that "Persuance" on "A Love Supreme" is an amazing example of the conveyance of emotion, even though it is not "tuneful".
Given my existing musical exposure, I'm sure that I will appreciate jazz the more I listen to it, become familiar with it, and understand it. But will I like it?
Am I just talking about modal jazz?
My question has probably been answered implicitly throughout many threads, but not having done a jazz theory course, I'm struggling to find the technical vocabulary to explain why jazz sounds the way it does.
- Is it the rhythm? (think double-bass pounding out the rhythm in 4/4 together with brushed percussion).
- Is it the cadences (chord progressions?) which differ from non-jazz genres like rock and blues?
- Is it the use of non-"classical" modes and chords - e.g. heavy use of dorian minor? (though I found out recently that Eleanor Rigby is in dorian mode).
- Is it all of the above?
- Is it something else?
I ask this as I'm trying to work out why I'm still not sure if I like (modal?) "jazz" or not. I wouldn't be alone in suggesting that the majority of solos, whilst they can be technically brilliant and full of emotion, lack the traditional tunefulness that is pleasing to the/my ear.
Is it because, growing up listening exclusively to the pop/rock, blues and classical genres, the jazz modes and cadences are essentially alien to me?
Or are non-jazz modes and cadences more popular for a reason: they genuinely sound nicer? And that jazz aficionados position themselves on the intellectual high ground "above" the more popular genres. A case of "The Emperor's New Clothes"?
I'm not a jazz hater. I like "Kind of Blue". I think that "Persuance" on "A Love Supreme" is an amazing example of the conveyance of emotion, even though it is not "tuneful".
Given my existing musical exposure, I'm sure that I will appreciate jazz the more I listen to it, become familiar with it, and understand it. But will I like it?