Hacker News Reader

Comment by scoot | Hacker News Reader

> Here's Martino playing John Coltrane's Impressions.

It starts off well, but soon crosses the line into "random with rhythm". Is that just jazz? Maybe. But arguably it fails the "musicality" test.

View on HN

I am ashamed to say that, having been trained in classical music, I used to think exactly the same thing about jazz. Jazz for me was either elevator music or random noises mixed together. Until I finally listened to it seriously and studied it. I learned more about music, harmony, music theory and playing techniques in a couple of years than in a decade of classical training and listening. Even as a very mediocre player, I can reach creative heights that I never could before, when I just played what's on the page.

Just because I did not understand what's going on because of a lack of the required background does not mean that it is not musical. Not everything is packaged in easily digestible bits, some things require more, much more work, and the reward is much better.

One thing I can assure you, despite being a pure improvisation, nothing in that performance is random or out of place.

So jazz isn’t random with rhythm, it’s pseudorandom with rhythm you can’t dance to. Still not feeling it.

Note that “jazz” without further context is referring to over 7 decades of styles.

You absolutely can dance to jazz, depending on the song and rhythm.

Jazz is not random, nor pseudorandom. (That would make it a lot easier for me in my solos, but also would ultimately make jazz a very boring genre). It may sound like that to a new ear - jazz is not particularly accessible compared to other genres. But for the most part it follows forms and has a regular structure.

It’s a living, mostly ephemeral thing. It’s a live conversation - listen to the interactions between the players, it’s not static.

I’m on mobile at the moment but here are some good songs/albums:

[0]: https://youtu.be/qjrGjomFhpQ

[1]: https://youtu.be/YovfrsCML48

[2]: (this album has two takes of the same song, so you can compare the solos and see how they handle them differently) https://youtu.be/Ykm517sOieE

what you are doing is picking up a copy of hamlet in a language you cant read, looking at it for 30 seconds, and then declaring shakespeare sucks

Thank you, I was trying to think of a way of responding to the GP, but couldn't do as well as this! It's a very good metaphor. Perhaps even closer: "and then declaring 'Plays suck'." (Also, Martino is hardly jazz's Shakespeare.)

>what you are doing is picking up a copy of hamlet in a language you cant read, looking at it for 30 seconds, and then declaring

I don’t like this elizabethan bullshit, i find it unpleasant, and rather than waste my time on something that I feel doesn’t deserve my time, I’m gonna read some michael crighton. or maybe some dean koontz, stephen king or heck, tom clancy. it’s my life and I like what I like, and I encourage everyone to like what they like personally, and not allow themselves to be goaded into reading taming of the shrew, even if that is the best thing ole billy boy ever wrote.

also before all you culture warriors jump all over me for liking shakespeare, i’m talking about the version of tots as portrayed on moonlighting with bruce willis and cybil shepherd

I don’t think anyone here is saying what one can and can’t like things. I personally was just responding to the idea that jazz somehow “fails the musicality test”.

If you prefer classical or whatever, awesome!

that’s because no one downvoting me understands what i’m saying. musicality is a property of music. i am not saying it’s not music, i’m saying it’s often not musical, especially to some. that’s a fact of the universe that you can either accept or continue to be ignorant. i feel like i’ve made a good faith effort to explain myself and expand the understanding of those on here who may care. moving on.

i actually like jazz, i play a lot of jazz, i bought an amazing guitar 25 years ago that has been recorded, not by me, on 17 jazz records that i find to be pretty amazing. so like, i get what you persons are saying, but like unmusical music is something you’d be exposed to in a well run music 101 class in college/university

19 actually

>jump all over me for liking shakespeare

I'm losing track of this

it’s a joke

I'd add on to this: when you listen to a piece of music, you subconsciously anticipate what will come next, and you get enjoyment from the way the piece meets or surprises your expectations. This plays a big part in the perception of musicality.

Jazz artists play with their listeners' expectations just like artists in any other genre of music, but people who listen to a lot of jazz have developed a set of expectations that others don't have. Jazz listeners find jazz musical and viscerally enjoyable in the same way listeners of other genres enjoy their music - it's not (only) an abstract intellectual appreciation, which I get the impression a lot of people suspect.

To me, a better analogy than reading Shakespeare in a language you don't understand is watching a sport you don't know the rules to. We're both watching the same people make the same moves, but if you don't know the rules, you don't know what to expect, and every move looks random and purposeless. Someone who knows the rules watches the same thing and is able to enjoy the interplay between the expected and unexpected, to appreciate the skill and the moments of brilliance and drama, on what I think few would claim is not a visceral level.

if you understand music the way you claim to you’re not a mediocre player, although you could be transitioning from ‘mediocre’ to ‘pretty good’

jazz is a personality thing. there are many great musicians who can’t stand jazz and don’t respect jazz players. i’m not saying that’s correct, i’m just saying that is. A range of opinions exist at all levels of the art, and since it’s art, the artists are right to have their opinions.

all that being said, i’m with scoot

I am a really mediocre player. But one can be a mediocre cook and understand and appreciate fine cuisine, or a couch athlete and understand the subtleties of football strategies. It's the difference between passive analysis and action.

And I certainly understand if someone dislike jazz. But saying it's not music is like saying Picasso's paintings are like a three-year old's drawings.

My programming skills are awful, meaning, I dont know too many languages and tools.

But I understand program architecture pretty deeply, and complex systems architecture is something I deeply just grok so the analogy you make makes sense to me.

scoot didn’t say it wasn’t music, and i’d rip him a new one, metaphorically, if he did. he said it wasn’t musical. many people say that to mean it doesn’t have a melody they like or can attach themselves to. i also think he may have meant to say use the word ‘lyrical’ which some use in the same way. i get you though.

try listening to einstein on the beach. there’s a lot of bullshit non musicality going on in there, specifically to contrast with the more lyrical elements. that’s one of the greatest pieces of music of all time in my opinion.

picassos paintings are like a 3 yr olds drawings. that’s why they’re so special. the wonder of a child with the experience of a man. breathtaking artist.

rtsil - i also very much agree with your first paragraph there.

as i get older and progress as a musician, i am more aware how bs the "right to their opinions" is. you can tell how good a player is within like 2 bars most of the time. its not ambiguous, and people generally go through a similar musical maturation path. also, can you name a great instrumentalist who doesnt respect "jazz players"?

yes, but i won’t

one of the more amazing comments ive seen here on hn

Also, your two bar theory is utter bs in my experience.

Just to be clear, you’re pro allowing people to have their own opinions? Or anti?

i think the person who designed the juciero is a better engineer than nikola tesla

did the person/persons who designed the juciero design anything else that would maybe support your contention?

i get the point that you’re trying to make, and I appreciate that the juciero is a great example of a bs product, but I don’t take your point because I don’t think our arguments are comparable.

i mean, that may sound flippant, but i think it’s a reasonable response to

> i am more aware how bs the "right to their opinions" is

While I enjoy jazz, I can at least agree that this particular example is not very listenable for the uninitiated.

The pace is quick, and the backing under Pat's solo is very sparse - just some drums and a quick walking bass, the keyboardist is barely audible for half the piece. Easy to lose track of where they are in the changes unless you know the piece well. If you know a jazz standard well though, it becomes easier to appreciate where the soloist subverts or plays around the changes.

There is nothing random in that solo, he never even really plays anything that a typical jazz player would consider outside playing.

Was that your first listen?

Some music/art requires several exposures before you begin to understand or appreciate what the artist is up to.

so, funny enough i always thought this as well. i have since stopped condescending to others about what they should or shouldn’t like.

nothing remotely random. if you want to understand, learn to play. in about 10-15 years you could look back and laugh at your comment here. since you for sure wont do that, ill just say that basically what hees doing is phrasing all over the bar. its so funny... putting every eighth note right on the money at 300 bpm, let alone with lines that good, is so hard. very few people can do it well, and millions of people aspire to.

It's not random at all, he's just playing the changes, it's not even outside. Random notes would sound a lot different, maybe it's just rapid stream of notes that don't sit well with you, that's the bebop sound, maybe you would appreciate (slow) blues improvisation more, or cool jazz.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com