What did you think of Pitchfork's Best of the 1960's list? - Music

PurpleHazel

Viibes wrote:

Jazz is an incredibly important genre for music as a whole, but I can't think of anyone that still listens to it, no matter how good the albums from the 60s might have been.

Hayden wrote:

But yeah, nobody listens to jazz, yuck.

If you look at the lists of top members and mods here, you'll see quite a few people who still listen to jazz.

DJTommy wrote:

Nowadays jazz is kinda dead. Let’s be honest.

Dead's kind of harsh. Modern jazz, with relatively few exceptions, has never been a mass art form -- combine that with the collapse of the traditional music industry and promotion and it's become much harder for artists to break through.

Fischman wrote:

for me, Jazz has made something of a comeback of late. My top 10s in recent years are sprinkled with jazz albums. Artists like Marcul Miller, Brad Mehldau, Henry Threadgill, Ambrose Akinmusire, and even some old heads like Pat Metheny and John Scofield are putting out some strong material.

I think jazz did peak in the fifties and sixties, and was better in the seventies than the eighties (though in the eighties there was a resurgence), better in the eighties than the nineties, and better in the nineties than the new millennium. I also think rock peaked in the sixties and seventies, and that it was better in the nineties than the eighties and the new millennium.

Henry Threadgill and Dave Holland have been consistently putting out great albums since the early eighties. Some of their best albums were in the eighties as well as in the ensuing decades. Both Scofield and Metheny (I prefer his straight-ahead and experimental albums) have been releasing some very good albums off and on since the eighties too.

Hayden

Location: CDMX

PurpleHazel wrote:

If you look at the lists of top members and mods here, you'll see quite a few people who still listen to jazz.

Twas sarcasm, got nothing against jazz (you might like the #2 on my chart).

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

Jazz is only dead to those that (a) are fixed among the general populous and so listen to the artistic dumpster fire that is modern pop/rock radio (and the like), and don't branch out any/much further than that; (b) whose music ideals are not based in content (emotional/conceptual depth), but rather form with minimal content -- they primarily listen to music for an immediate gratification and lack the patience and/or knowledge/experience to assimilate much more than that; or (c) don't abide by "a" or "b", but are simply unaware of how many superb albums have and are being put out by Jazz musicians/composer's that, on average, are far more talented and extraordinary than almost all Rock musicians/composers.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

DJTommy

AfterHours wrote:

Jazz is only dead to those that (a) are fixed among the general populous and so listen to the artistic dumpster fire that is modern pop/rock radio (and the like), and don't branch out any/much further than that; (b) whose music ideals are not based in content (emotional/conceptual depth), but rather form with minimal content -- they primarily listen to music for an immediate gratification and lack the patience and/or knowledge/experience to assimilate much more than that; or (c) don't abide by "a" or "b", but are simply unaware of how many superb albums are being put out by Jazz musicians/composer's that, on average, are far more talented and extraordinary than almost all Rock musicians/composers.

I think rock is kinda dead too TBH

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

DJTommy wrote:

I think rock is kinda dead too TBH

Yeah, I agree in a similar sense as the quote above, in that one could pretty much insert "Independent" and "Experimental Rock" (and similar offshoots) instead of "Jazz".
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

PurpleHazel

DJTommy wrote:

I think rock is kinda dead too TBH

As long as you're being equal opportunity -- and you obviously know classic jazz to some extent -- I respect your opinions. I'll be more diplomatic and say both have been in decline for a long time.

Jimmy Dread
Old skool like Happy Shopper

Location: 555 Dub Street

Moderator

AfterHours wrote:

Jazz is only dead to those that (a) are fixed among the general populous and so listen to the artistic dumpster fire that is modern pop/rock radio (and the like), and don't branch out any/much further than that; (b) whose music ideals are not based in content (emotional/conceptual depth), but rather form with minimal content -- they primarily listen to music for an immediate gratification and lack the patience and/or knowledge/experience to assimilate much more than that; or (c) don't abide by "a" or "b", but are simply unaware of how many superb albums are being put out by Jazz musicians/composer's (sic) that, on average, are far more talented and extraordinary than almost all Rock musicians/composers.

Whether or not you intended to come over like it your points (a) and (b) suggest that one has to not only be 'different' from the 'general populous' but also more well-versed musically, tolerating (since when did listening to music become a chore?) and - dare I say it - a pretentious twat to appreciate jazz. Now I'm sure that's not true, and that you don't think those mere serfs who don't find fulfilment in what in some cases (but by no means all) is tantamount to formless noodling are lower down in the pecking order of 'music fans' than jazz devotees.

Now if 'conceptual depth' is your bag more power to you, but we're all different and hence respond to different music in different ways, probably down to our age, upbringing, environment (for example, could someone on the sub-continent whose idea of musical perfection is a raga played on a sitar see jazz in a similar light once exposed? Could they 'assimilate it' in the same way as a guy in front of a computer in the West? Would discovering these wonderous formed and free-form stylings see them abandon the formulaic structures of the music they've grown up around and been influenced by?). Don't assume that because some of us like to dance, to pick up a tennis racquet and pretend it's a guitar, or wind down the car window and belt a song out at the top of their voice rather than rate and re-rate everything they've ever heard objectively (and prizing said critique over emotional response) we're any less likely to be jazz fans as anyone else. With the majority of modern music being escapist anyway, what makes jazz the zenith of 20th century musical expression? Perhaps there's music elsewhere in the world with just as much going for it that you (or a like-minded critic you often get compared to, mentioning no names) haven't (bothered to) encounter(ed) yet. Personally, I see music in the same way as a psychoactive, something with the power to alter mindset and behaviour as well as be anything from an emotional crutch to when you're a spotty 14 year old kid who thinks the world's against him to a signpost that reminds you of someone you love when it's played at their funeral. I get you don't have that relationship - or if you do it's lost inamongst reams of critique - but it doesn't devalue my opinion as more low-brow than anyone else's.

I guess my main gripe with the above is your likening of listening to jazz as some sort of elevated quest where only those with the necessary 'gift' of 'taste' and free from being slaves to the whims of radio station playlist makers are able to fully engage and embrace it. Just because 'rock' is more of a working-class, blue-collar concern in general doesn't mean that it's any less admirable and its proponents any less talented. I'm sure it must take a lot more effort (and one could argue ability) to write an uplifting, 3-minute earworm that winds up on the radio and have people singing it as they walk down the road or drive around town than spending hours jamming your tits off and saying 'hmm, that'll work, and even if it doesn't some cat'll dig it'.

Now, part of me does understand where you're coming from here (for example, I wish more people looked beyond Marley when it comes to 'reggae', but I understand people don't always invest the effort, much like I imagine you feel about people who dismiss jazz because Kind Of Blue or A Love Supreme doesn't blow them away on first listen), but for someone like me who has after 40+ years only just started to find a couple of jazz LPs which float my boat comments such as yours are nearly enough to make me reconsider bothering. I want the music I embrace to force a reaction, not debate the tits off it and certainly not let it blend into the background. As of yet jazz doesn't do that for me - no jazz LP has sent shivers down my spine or consumed my soul, although I'm hoping that a kind user will drop a rec in my diary that blows my mind. In the meantime I'll carry on being a pleb, ta.

Anyway, rant over. Maybe you can drop me a decent jazz rec and we'll have a pint (or a white russian if that's your tipple).
_________________
'Reggae' & t'ing
Folk 'n Stuff
SHAMELESS RECORD DEALER PLUG

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

Jimmy Dread wrote:

Whether or not you intended to come over like it your points (a) and (b) suggest that one has to not only be 'different' from the 'general populous' but also more well-versed musically, tolerating (since when did listening to music become a chore?) and - dare I say it - a pretentious twat to appreciate jazz. Now I'm sure that's not true, and that you don't think those mere serfs who don't find fulfilment in what in some cases (but by no means all) is tantamount to formless noodling are lower down in the pecking order of 'music fans' than jazz devotees.

Now if 'conceptual depth' is your bag more power to you, but we're all different and hence respond to different music in different ways, probably down to our age, upbringing, environment (for example, could someone on the sub-continent whose idea of musical perfection is a raga played on a sitar see jazz in a similar light once exposed? Could they 'assimilate it' in the same way as a guy in front of a computer in the West? Would discovering these wonderous formed and free-form stylings see them abandon the formulaic structures of the music they've grown up around and been influenced by?). Don't assume that because some of us like to dance, to pick up a tennis racquet and pretend it's a guitar, or wind down the car window and belt a song out at the top of their voice rather than rate and re-rate everything they've ever heard objectively (and prizing said critique over emotional response) we're any less likely to be jazz fans as anyone else. With the majority of modern music being escapist anyway, what makes jazz the zenith of 20th century musical expression? Perhaps there's music elsewhere in the world with just as much going for it that you (or a like-minded critic you often get compared to, mentioning no names) haven't (bothered to) encounter(ed) yet. Personally, I see music in the same way as a psychoactive, something with the power to alter mindset and behaviour as well as be anything from an emotional crutch to when you're a spotty 14 year old kid who thinks the world's against him to a signpost that reminds you of someone you love when it's played at their funeral. I get you don't have that relationship - or if you do it's lost inamongst reams of critique - but it doesn't devalue my opinion as more low-brow than anyone else's.

I guess my main gripe with the above is your likening of listening to jazz as some sort of elevated quest where only those with the necessary 'gift' of 'taste' and free from being slaves to the whims of radio station playlist makers are able to fully engage and embrace it. Just because 'rock' is more of a working-class, blue-collar concern in general doesn't mean that it's any less admirable and its proponents any less talented. I'm sure it must take a lot more effort (and one could argue ability) to write an uplifting, 3-minute earworm that winds up on the radio and have people singing it as they walk down the road or drive around town than spending hours jamming your tits off and saying 'hmm, that'll work, and even if it doesn't some cat'll dig it'.

Now, part of me does understand where you're coming from here (for example, I wish more people looked beyond Marley when it comes to 'reggae', but I understand people don't always invest the effort, much like I imagine you feel about people who dismiss jazz because Kind Of Blue or A Love Supreme doesn't blow them away on first listen), but for someone like me who has after 40+ years only just started to find a couple of jazz LPs which float my boat comments such as yours are nearly enough to make me reconsider bothering. I want the music I embrace to force a reaction, not debate the tits off it and certainly not let it blend into the background. As of yet jazz doesn't do that for me - no jazz LP has sent shivers down my spine or consumed my soul, although I'm hoping that a kind user will drop a rec in my diary that blows my mind. In the meantime I'll carry on being a pleb, ta.

Anyway, rant over. Maybe you can drop me a decent jazz rec and we'll have a pint (or a white russian if that's your tipple).

I meant it exactly as stated, no more no less. While you are certainly free to receive it however you wish, it could stand as is without the additional baggage you've exaggerated upon it. For instance "a" does not just mean "among the general populous" but means the whole line as stated (not just part of it contextualized without the rest). Etc.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Interesting points Jimmy.

I can say for certainty the reason why I like classical music is because I've seen it live... And a lot... Since I was like 8 years old.

I likely would find classical music boring if I only had recordings to go from. A recording of classical music, which I've seen live, often is pretty flat and boring in comparison. I realize this could be true of any form of music.

I suppose I'm speaking to the point made that different people interpret different things for various reasons and I'm curious if jazz, although I was the bassist for my high school jazz band, I have not seen more than a few live jazz performances... And more than 50% of that was in Central Park.

On another note, after hours, I don't think when people say they listen to everything, they mean they are willing to, not that they actually have listened to everything. I don't think that makes them any less of a music lover or even less cultured. It'd be like me saying you are less cultured because you haven't seen or read Nathan der Weise. But I know that's not true. (Absolutely beautiful story by the way).

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

sethmadsen wrote:

Interesting points Jimmy.

I can say for certainty the reason why I like classical music is because I've seen it live... And a lot... Since I was like 8 years old.

I likely would find classical music boring if I only had recordings to go from. A recording of classical music, which I've seen live, often is pretty flat and boring in comparison. I realize this could be true of any form of music.

I suppose I'm speaking to the point made that different people interpret different things for various reasons and I'm curious if jazz, although I was the bassist for my high school jazz band, I have not seen more than a few live jazz performances... And more than 50% of that was in Central Park.

On another note, after hours, I don't think when people say they listen to everything, they mean they are willing to, not that they actually have listened to everything. I don't think that makes them any less of a music lover or even less cultured. It'd be like me saying you are less cultured because you haven't seen or read Nathan der Weise. But I know that's not true. (Absolutely beautiful story by the way).

My little aside about people's listening habits wasn't meant to be taken completely literally (though I have had many such conversations, there is no actual animosity whatsoever). It was just an amusing aside, that's all.

If you told me (or adjudicated) that I am rather ignorant of literary history and not the best judge or surveyor of its all time masterpieces, and if you recommended that I should dedicate myself more thoroughly and seriously to it as an art form before I asserted such judgments, you'd be ... absolutely correct. That doesn't mean I am not perfectly able to become such, given due time, knowledge and experience, but yes, that would be an assessment that is absolutely correct. And if I started proclaiming that Beverly Cleary and Roald Dahl books were the greatest of all time, and this caused you to suppose that I probably wasn't familiar with the great literary masterpieces of history, or hadn't assimilated them fully, then your educated guess would very likely be spot on.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings