Hacker News Reader

Comment by wbl | Hacker News Reader

Kenny G might deserve your comment. But Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, Charles Mingus...

I think some people may have a misunderstanding about what jazz is. I know one friend of mine did. Some jazz may be easy listening, but it's not made for easy listening, it's made to bend the boundaries of music theory. And also a lot of "easy listening" that sounds like jazz isn't really jazz.

So what is jazz

The term covers a variety of styles, with old ones hanging around as new ground is broken. Perhaps it is a "meta-genre". There are various articles around explaining its history which might be worth looking at, if you're interested. I'd expect to hear some degree of improvisation in jazz, but not in easy listening.

The devils music.

"If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know." Apocryphal quote by Louis Armstrong.

jazz != smooth jazz

JavaScript != Java

These are everywhere…

New Age rhymes with Sewage

It is an approach to music (more than a genre) that relies on elaborate harmonic structures, freedom of interpretation of melody and personalising the harmony, interesting rhythms and time signatures and a general approach of trying to push the boundaries of music making. It is meant to be listened actively as opposed to having it as background music. The capitalisation of music has led us to the commoditisation of music and treating it as audio content as opposed to art.

> It is meant to be listened actively as opposed to having it as background music.

The masterpiece hanging in the museum was fully intended to be actively appreciated. The background on the box of cereal is ... just a background on a box of cereal. It's still art though.

That would be the distinction between "fine art" and "decorative art". Jazz as GP meant it is "fine art", the smooth jazz you hear in the elevator could be classified as decorative art.

I think that's a function of the effort, expertise, and intent. I don't think it changes the genre. Smooth, big band, blues, etc - it's all still jazz.

A low effort watercolor by an amateur is still (an attempt at) art and remains a watercolor even if no one appreciates it.

in my personal opinion, which is as valuable as the piece of paper i’m writing this on /s

art has no function except to be observed by an audience. if they enjoy it or not is immaterial. its purpose is to be observed.

the design of a box of cereal has a purpose - to sell you the box of cereal by making it attractive/stand out/fit the brand.

graphic design, when it has purposes beyond being observed, is not art — it’s a craft.

like engineering.

although graphic design/engineering can become art when it has no purpose except being observed.

edit — enjoyment is immaterial and the bits about graphic design can be art etc.

Most of the masterpieces you see in museums were used as decoration at some point.

The Pope needed something for his ceiling.

Most masterpieces where literally hanging in the background of some rich person's summer houses, and hunting lodges, and other properties. Thrown out and replaced on a whim.

Or melted down to make spears and helmets.

Art was used by the rich and famous to show off their wealth. In the 19th century countries got into the game (the idea that Dutch masters were ending up in American collections was a national embarrassment).

I feel like there’s some kind of analogy between jazz cats and hackers.

In short, a cultural tradition. At length:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68zOvCLwcL8

I found it easier to "get" when I started thinking of jazz as the beat poetry of music.

the ‘sound of surprise’

jazz is what you can get away with.

delightful mental pain, like a cold plunge

Normal people care about music theory as much as they care whether you use jemalloc vs tcmalloc. "Easy listening" is a much more useful everyday definition for them than whatever musicians may want it to be.

Kind of Blue is far from “easy listening.”

Compared to Anthony Braxton, "Kind of Blue" is elevator music.

There's nothing easy about Cecil Taylor.

Normal people who don't care about music at all, sure they can call it "easy listening" and I won't bother arguing. For anyone who cares about music or even history at least a little, it's worth knowing that jazz is very important to the history of music.

It's possible to care only in some modes of your being.

Interesting that your first counterexample is Charlie Parker. I've been listening to a lot of Phil Schaap's Bird Flight recently (https://www.philschaapjazz.com/sections/bird-flight). It's funny to see how many of the episodes are Phil describing a recording session more or less like this:

"The Bird showed up two hours late to a three and a half hour recording session. They recorded one take each of six tracks, but the recording engineer was surprised when they started so he missed the first half of the first track. And that's how we got the five tracks on <INSERT CRITICALLY-ACCLAIMED ALBUM HERE>."

goes to show, lines of code doesn't equal quality.

If I'd want to crash a party I'd totally play Ornette Coleman.

All jazz artists started as insignificant band members before they found their voice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com