• Reminder: Do not call, text, or mention harrassing someone in real life. Do not encourage it. Do not talk about killing or using violence against anyone, or engaging in any criminal behavior. If it is not an obvious joke even when taken out of context, don't post it. Please report violators.

    DMCA, complaints, and other inquiries:

    [email protected]

Why are F/Ns good at Music?

Sue Lightning

IS SHE TALKING ABOUT ME?
Forum Clout
119,215
I'll disagree here. I forgot the name of the Jew who said it, but - I learned this in university so it's considered politically correct and not a conspiracy theory - jazz was promoted as a more "convenient" form of classical music in the sense that it can be performed by as little as one musician, therefore clubs that would dole out or sell drugs (and pay off some musicians this way) had far less overhead this way.
Wait, huh? This is sort of the problem with this conversation. Jazz and classical are extremely broad terms. Most classical music is one person in front of a piano, much cheaper than the quartets, quintets or big bands that clubs employed in the early days of jazz. I’ve also never heard of jazz being played by one person, especially back then. So obviously yes, orchestral renditions would be more expensive, but most clubs were not doing these instead having one piano player.
Besides, the powers that be have never opted for elevated transcendental music like classical, instead always debasing music further and further.
Oh boy this is gonna get me going. The only “powers that be” that exists in art is the “industry” which is the universities, art critics, and patrons who shape tastes in art. Profit is also a major incentive in this but etc…technique plays a factor too. Lets take visual art. In the Renaissance we relearned the idea of controposto (making the body anatomically accurate) like the ancient Romans were able to do and it ushered in an age of realism. Then around the 1900’s after we went to Africa and saw how “unique” and primitive African artworks were we adopted that (see: cubism or any Picasso portrait.) The goal for artists, broadly, then became “how can i express emotion through the most abstract of means?” No longer did you need to paint a large beautiful landscape to invoke emotion…what if you could just do it by painting a circle on a canvas?

My whole spiel about that is how it relates to music. Around the 1920’s you saw a major abstraction of music that was reflective of the changes in all arts. Its where you have shit like free jazz which follows no coherent scales and is chromatic. (What people think of when they see Jazz - chaotic unstructured noise.) But then you have Jazz music that is just like classical - I.e, that the musicians who composed it have an extreme understanding of music theory and are freestyling or writing extremely complex musical pieces under what you’re flat out hearing.

It should also be noted that classical arrangements vs jazz arrangements are MASSIVELY different in terms of their compositional structure. When you think of an orchestral classical song a lot of the instruments accompany each other to form a cohesive sound or chord (for lack of a better word.) With Jazz it often feels like instruments aren’t “in sync” with each other due to the constant call and response rhythms that form a disconnected but overall cohesive sound. The whole point is that a small classical band is a lot more restricted than a small jazz band, where each player serves a unique role and has a chance to improvise and play around with their instruments.
I'm not even saying all jazz is bad, just that it was an early step in the direction we've gone. You could argue, "well what about rock music?" but rock stems from folk music, and folk isn't on the same track as classical. Just because some jazz musicians are impressive means, to me, that they're underachievers. Beethoven could play the piano fluently at like 4 years old because his dad beat him, and then could compose music deaf. Jazz musicians are degenerate junkies.
Most jazz musicians go through the exact same thing as Beethoven. Most are players since extreme youth and faced massive trials to get where they were, especially those who were considered the best in their field. My personal opinion is that Jazz has nothing to do with the degeneration of music and it’s not even the first step. The first step was, honest to god, fucking Elvis and pop music in general like the Beatles. The commodification and accessibility of music starting around the 50’s - 60’s killed the artform. Lets put it like this: No kid in the 20’s looked at some fuck like Miles Davis and thought “I want to be just like him!”, no, they wanted to play the Trumpet like him and be as talented as him. After the 60’s? Every kid didn’t want to play as good as the Beatles but he as famous as them, have the women, etc. That’s why most if not every band to get popular is extremely derivative. Rock isn’t even close to the degeneration of music because it was the next progressive step of classical music after jazz. There are hundreds of rock albums that might as well be classical compositions from the 1700’s only they use electric guitars. A lot of talented fucks in that field. But you can’t name the next logical progression from there because there is none. Virtually every music genre is completely perverted and, going back to my whole abstraction of art point before, no one is writing extremely complicated “talented” music pieces because they can get the message across through a simple rap beat.
 

Riccardo Bosi

has janny powers
Forum Clout
70,203
Oh boy this is gonna get me going. The only “powers that be” that exists in art is the “industry” which is the universities, art critics, and patrons who shape tastes in art. Profit is also a major incentive in this but etc…technique plays a factor too. Lets take visual art. In the Renaissance we relearned the idea of controposto (making the body anatomically accurate) like the ancient Romans were able to do and it ushered in an age of realism. Then around the 1900’s after we went to Africa and saw how “unique” and primitive African artworks were we adopted that (see: cubism or any Picasso portrait.) The goal for artists, broadly, then became “how can i express emotion through the most abstract of means?” No longer did you need to paint a large beautiful landscape to invoke emotion…what if you could just do it by painting a circle on a canvas?

My whole spiel about that is how it relates to music. Around the 1920’s you saw a major abstraction of music that was reflective of the changes in all arts. Its where you have shit like free jazz which follows no coherent scales and is chromatic. (What people think of when they see Jazz - chaotic unstructured noise.) But then you have Jazz music that is just like classical - I.e, that the musicians who composed it have an extreme understanding of music theory and are freestyling or writing extremely complex musical pieces under what you’re flat out hearing.
I can't find the literature, but if you look him up for yourself - I'm 95% sure this is the guy I'm thinking of - Max Horkheimer and his "application" of things such as jazz on the culture. Both he and Adorno were from the Frankfurt School, with Adorno critiquing jazz and Horkheimer seeing it as a mere tool that requires "less effort and energy" than an orchestra or whatever.

I had to write an essay on these cunts back in my university days; if I'm thinking of the wrong guy, ah well fuck it.

It should also be noted that classical arrangements vs jazz arrangements are MASSIVELY different in terms of their compositional structure. When you think of an orchestral classical song a lot of the instruments accompany each other to form a cohesive sound or chord (for lack of a better word.) With Jazz it often feels like instruments aren’t “in sync” with each other due to the constant call and response rhythms that form a disconnected but overall cohesive sound. The whole point is that a small classical band is a lot more restricted than a small jazz band, where each player serves a unique role and has a chance to improvise and play around with their instruments.
I'm not saying that jazz is inherently bad or that all of it is bad, but

a) classical musicians being more restricted or tighter, I don't see as a negative. I see it as discipline, it's no different than a sports team whose players work in concert and compliment each others' strengths. This can happen in jazz, but due to the "free" nature of it I often find it atonal and distracting, and

b) there's a tendency for the worst aspects inherent to jazz to come out more frequently than not. Now, that's just my experience and I can't back it up objectively, but I liken it to rock music where it seems that the overwhelming majority of it is actually garbage and despite my favourite music being rock, I actually dislike most of it. I can't compare these to classical music where, okay, I'm no expert, but I've never really heard any bad stuff from the genre.

I kinda view jazz as a feature of other music, but not its own thing. I love the jazzy elements of early Megadeth and Sabbath, I think it puts them over the top of many of their contemporaries. Put it this way: jazz is a spice, and too much of it spoils the meal for me.

Most jazz musicians go through the exact same thing as Beethoven. Most are players since extreme youth and faced massive trials to get where they were, especially those who were considered the best in their field. My personal opinion is that Jazz has nothing to do with the degeneration of music and it’s not even the first step.
I'm not saying they're bad players, I'm saying I don't like their composition or playing most of the time. I'll disagree here and call jazz a lower form of something else, i.e. classical.

The first step was, honest to god, fucking Elvis and pop music in general like the Beatles. The commodification and accessibility of music starting around the 50’s - 60’s killed the artform. Lets put it like this: No kid in the 20’s looked at some fuck like Miles Davis and thought “I want to be just like him!”, no, they wanted to play the Trumpet like him and be as talented as him. After the 60’s? Every kid didn’t want to play as good as the Beatles but he as famous as them, have the women, etc. That’s why most if not every band to get popular is extremely derivative.
Virtually every music genre is completely perverted and, going back to my whole abstraction of art point before, no one is writing extremely complicated “talented” music pieces because they can get the message across through a simple rap beat.
100% agree. It's total bastardization.

Rock isn’t even close to the degeneration of music because it was the next progressive step of classical music after jazz. There are hundreds of rock albums that might as well be classical compositions from the 1700’s only they use electric guitars. A lot of talented fucks in that field.
You ever read the theory that what separates metal from rock is that metal descends from classical? You can even hear it in big albums like Master of Puppets, where they've removed old NWOBHM aspects i.e. rock. Disposable Heroes is definitely not rock and roll.
 

Chapel

Dirty Bastard
Forum Clout
11,127
Only “rhythm “ the bastards had came from dancing at the end of a rope, which is where Kanye or whatever that retarded darkie is calling himself now belongs
 
Top