I meant: I'm not sure what you meant with "traditional sense LOL" Is something wrong with that? Is it bad English (btw I'm not a native speaker)?
no, at all, sorry for the confusion I just found it funny that you used the expression "traditional sense" as a reply to a post where I complain about the old ways
And he also said, "There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind.." Duke Ellington (1899-1994) I can definitely get with that. For instance, I might not find interest in a particular genre or individual artist/ band, like Rap in general or the band Supertramp, but I know that Supertramp is a great band and there is fantastic Rap music being made although I never go out of my way to listen or to explore it. There is a ton of crap also and I feel that I can without a doubt be the judge of that. Boring and unimaginative never turn me on, artistry always does. And like what Pine says about the sound of Jazz , "I can't put it into words.. When I hear it, I know". There is a nice mish of style that can fit under the big and colorful umbrella called Jazz, lots of room.
Can't wait for ...well, anything; one single jazz tune from you. Lol. making the word jazz ...meaningless? Last edited: Apr 18, 2018
You are not too far off point. If you see how many people have tried to explain what jazz is over the last 100 years in the history of it, some parts agree and some completely conflict, all from notable exponents in their field. Some descriptions are almost cathartic too. Probably searching for yourself will show you are not too far off the mark where any description is concerned i.e.
Even thought it's even more blatant when it comes to jazz as it is a dividing music, your statement remains true for all kind of genres. Define pop. Define Rock. Define Electro... We'd be well advised to keep in mind those words are, in the fist place, convenient tags to help consumers wander through store (virtual) shelves. So I guess the question could be : do shelve tags deserve endless debates ?
It goes deeper still. Critics seem to need to categorise everything with a label or try and define something aesthetically pleasing into a non-aesthetic description. It's like the endless categorising of a musician. For some reason a person saying "I am a musician" just does not seem to suffice for some people. They feel they need to clarify what type of musician they are. Why can't they just be a musician? Musicians have reviewers, critics and historians to thank for being put into a square box. In saying that the historical aspects of describing jazz to remain within some context of the thread that I mentioned are nonetheless documented.
@BaSsDuDe yeah, even wikipedos seem to have a hard time with it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz#Etymology_and_definition My point is if you stretch the definition too far, it becomes useless, a tautology => unenlightening (doesn't tell you anything you don't know already). Music for mass consumption; is not a musical form. Pop simply means popular (often implicitly lowbrow, because great unwashed) music. Much like fast food, a useful distinction. Jazz? Well, Baby Elephant Walk is jazz, so is atonal free jazz. So is Things in common? Nearly useless now, without a modifier. Originally meant uptempo I IV V blues. Modifiers (punk, stoner, etc.) make it somewhat more useful. Oddly, few try to teach "punk theory," "pop theory," or "folk theory." Now "jazz theory"
Lambchop - I never understood why people cannot simply enjoy something and say "I liked that" or conversely, "I did not like that". The inevitable question follows regardless of the positive or negative being: "What was that?" Therein is the beginning of the need to put something into a box. Perhaps we did it to ourselves. I don't even want to go there... it's a can of worms. But because we humans did categorise everything, people then found a need to describe in some detail what each contained, often with conflicting information. While sure there are definitely some clearly evident differences in music styles, with different ways to create that style,; The lowest common denominators are two things: Is it good or is it not good and do you like it or do you not like it. Last edited by a moderator: Apr 18, 2018
Thank you for listening and kind support. @Introninja I changed it. Please forgive my rudeness. I love you and appreciate your hard work (harder than controlling the US). I don't bash anyone or any genre. I just try to make meaningful music (regardless of traditionally imposed structures and mindsets) and support anyone does that. Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2018
First of all, I liked the way your bits recently moved the air in my environment! I find the term meaningful in the context of what is commonly referred to as music very exciting. Like most people who intentionally create sound waves, I occasionally think about the meaning of this action. Since I like to learn from other people's point of view, I would like to ask you: How would you realize that your attempt to make meaningful music was successful?
Hi Foster! I liked your track! The generated harmonies sound like a suspended chord chain that connect sequentially. It is a type of sound very common in Progressive Rock and New Age music. There is still a very clear relationship with minimalist aesthetics. You see, if I can relate styles and genres to the material you posted then there is the recognition of stylistic standards in relation to one or more genres that contain these same patterns. So there is structure in your track (not only because of these patterns, but also because of it!) even if randomly generated, in the sense that it is a hybridization between progressive harmonies and minimalist rhythmic patterns. So, even if you want to polemize by declaring that your music is totally free of standards, the fact is that they are present in your track (in one way or another)! best wishes! Last edited: Apr 22, 2018
Ups, I obviously missed this one during the week. Maybe the word "jazz" startled me? For me, the best I've ever heard from you. I would have liked it if the track had been longer. The end is somewhat abrupt, a bit.
