Hacker News Reader

> and there have not been any groundbreaking new jazz artists in the last 30 years.

I strongly disagree with this statement, the music is out there if you were to look.

Jazz has moved past the standard 'swing and ballad' forms that were popular throughout the late 20th century, and most listeners can't shake the roots of the genre from what defines the modern equivalent; It would be akin to die-hard old school rap fans denying that rap in it's current state should even be considered rap.

>That is what makes singing and rapping unique, you are able to tell a story combined with music.

What makes jazz (particularly the instrumental kind) unique is being able to invoke emotions and tell a story without being bound to some language barrier, an abstraction that transcends spoken word, that speaks to the pattern matching automata of the language part of our brains, regardless of race, language, or background.

> Jazz has moved past the standard 'swing and ballad' forms that were popular throughout the late 20th century

I mean, that's not really saying much. Jazz moved past the standard stuff with Ornette Coleman, Coltrane etc in the late 50s and early 60s. Miles Davis' Bitches Brew led to the whole jazz fusion thing a bit later.

I somewhat agree with the GP about no groundbreaking new jazz artists. There are many great musicians great at their instruments today, for sure. But I just don't hear anything radically new happening. Although I do admit that it may be due to my own biases.

If you don't look for the radically new, you won't find it, when competing with a larger volume of tracks being released that aren't radically new.

Here is just one example out of the hundreds: https://stevelehman.bandcamp.com/track/bamba

Stylistic change isn't meant to be groundbreaking anyway, I believe it is from the gradual stretching of boundaries over time that leads styles to be unrecognizable from their origins that inspires new styles to be developed.

Thanks for sharing. I'm familiar with his records with Vijay Iyer. They're amazing!

Isn’t the ability to invoke emotions without being bound to a language something that all instrumental musics have?

You are right, I over-specialized my definition I suppose, but I still stand by my point of this differentiation between instrumental music and lyrical music.

With Instrumental music, the challenge becomes conveying ideas over a non-verbal medium, a challenge which is non-existent in music with heavy lyrical emphasis.

>The human voice is the ultimate instrument.

I strongly disagree. A voice is so limited in every single way. There is so much more that can be done with a proper musical instrument, especially those capable of multiple simultaneous notes. The piano is a good example.

Traditional (not electric) piano have very inflexible tuning options. Human voice, violin, trombone, ... much better in this regard.

Even if you not thinking about "exotic"(at least for westerners) scales, but simple&clear western accords like just intonation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation#Singing_and_sc...

edit - music recommendation:

https://ziaspace.bandcamp.com/album/drum-n-space

You can always have multiple people singing if you don't count that as cheating. If limits are the deciding factor of an instrument's ultimateness, then I raise that a computer with quality sound hardware + hard drives full of real world audio samples + programmable oscilators is the ultimate instrument.

Now that I played my role as captain obvious, fuck it, piano is really the best! (No sarcasm)

> Strange Fruit

For the uninitiated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ughAVo2ZAag

This is a song whose musical substance is conveyed through the lyrics. This is a perfect example of a song that cannot be played on the piano alone.

You turn the author's argument around and then make a statement even more pretentious and wrong. Neither piano nor voice nor even orchestra are ‘ultimate instruments,’ for the simple reason that timbre- and rhythm-oriented music exist.

Saying that any particular instruments or styles are the measures of ‘musical substance’ is equal to asking that there be less of different music—which is the ultimate arrogance that you can apply to music.

The human voice is the original musical instrument, and humans have evolved to specifically listen to the human voice. I love the piano, but I don't think it is a stretch to say that for humans, the human voice is the ultimate instrument.

I don't mean to sound pretentious, but if you just look at the popularity of different instruments, voice is the runaway favorite. The majority of the world listens to mostly voice as the primary instrument.

To call it the ultimate instrument is not a stretch at all since it is the oldest and most popular instrument in human history.

A piano rendition of a song previously only sung can still be recognized as that same song. However if you sing a song previously only heard on piano, recognizing that song might not be so easy.

Although now that I think about it, the only instrument that can really compete with throat singing is the Jew's harp. So in that limited respect I think you might be right.

This album?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egauj-7RnJc

(with 120 upvotes 384 downvotes at time of posting).

I'm not sure about critical acclaim, but it seems many youtube watchers at least don't like it.

No, this album by Kendrick Lamar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9fN-8NjrvI&list=PLu4sMtaJ7f...

Billboard, Rolling Stone, and Pitchfork's No. 1 of 2015. Grammy nominated for Album of 2015, Grammy won for Rap Album of 2015.

It features jazz musicians such as Lalah Hathaway, Robert Glasper, Kamasi Washington, Thundercat, Ambrose Akinmusire, and Terrace Martin.

Robert Glasper deserves a mention in his own right: he's released albums spanning jazz, R&B, and hip hop and often crossing between genres.

Hey that album is actually good!

> Words can not be expressed on a piano.

True, but Herb Alpert comes very close to making a trumpet talk! Maurice Andre has a better tone, but Alpert's beats everyone in expressiveness.

> there have not been any groundbreaking new jazz artists in the last 30 years.

Speaking of ignorance...

> [rap] literally incorporates and uses so much jazz.

It incorporates a lot of jazz via sampling, but otherwise unless we're talking about freestyling then it's missing the central component of jazz.

> It incorporates a lot of jazz via sampling, but otherwise unless we're talking about freestyling then it's missing the central component of jazz.

No it doesn't. Rap uses a lot of the same vocal licks that jazz uses, and uses a lot of the same rhythmic ideas too.

Also, rap's focus on the improvisational aspect of their work is very much related to jazz. So many of the best rap songs in the world were partly improvised on the spot. You even have rappers like Jay-Z and Lil Wayne who don't write down their lyrics, they just go into the booth and rap.

esperanza spalding? jacob collier?

> there have not been any groundbreaking new jazz artists in the last 30 years

Amy Winehouse

Amy Winehouse had a beautiful voice and really smart backup producers and musicians that refreshed and rehashed old styles of music as new. Beautiful and enjoyable, but not groundbreaking.

As I really enjoy her take on jazz, a genre I'm not really a big fan of, it's groundbreaking as far as I'm concerned :-)

I wouldn't agree she had a beautiful voice, either (Julie Andrews has an incredible voice). It was the way she used it that was new and great. She wrote her own music, I don't think she was a tool of the music producers. I haven't heard anything like her take before or since.

> The human voice is the ultimate instrument

Thanks to biology, not everyone can sing.

Barring physical disability, musical instruments are accessible to a much wider audience. Not to mention that there are a wealth of instruments to choose from.

> Thanks to biology, not everyone can sing.

According to this, nearly everybody can, with training. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/everyone-...

I used to be a singer when I was younger, and I was good. But then I gave it up and without the continuous practice, my ability to carry a tune tunefully has severely diminished - my biology remains the same (well, add a few years), but my level of skill has dropped off, and hence so has my singing.

Tone isn't the only issue. Some people simply lack range.

Tonic and dynamic range can both be improved with an exercise regime, just like any other physical activity.