| Glad to see Vince Guaraldi prominently mentioned here. Like the author, I got into Guaraldi via the Peanuts music, then found I loved the rest of his stuff as well. I think Guaraldi is almost like a jazz version of Erik Satie, who’s been discussed here a few times. His music seems very simple, almost simplistic, but his taste and feel are superb. It’s just really good and easy to listen to, which unfortunately means it gets dismissed as “easy listening”. |
| |
| ▲ | aczerepinski 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Easy listening implies that there’s not much of anything there. Nothing surprising or unique about the song or the performance. No insightful message and nothing worth reflecting on after. I don’t think the alternative is “difficult” for its own sake. Rather, those who would use the term as a pejorative are likely seeking new experiences and viewpoints in their music and get bored by same old diatonic melodies over plain inoffensive grooves. Novelty is a source of dopamine for some. A lot of jazz music is difficult to the untrained ear, and I have distinct memories of hearing albums that I now feel are too conservative but in my youth thought they were too chaotic. I now understand that it was never difficult from the performer’s perspective - just high level musicians playing the music they hear. I wish everyone could hear jazz just once through the ears of a jazz musician. | |
| ▲ | chrisweekly 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | IME it's basically synonymous with "muzak" and "smooth jazz", the kind of bland and mediocre background atmosphere inflicted on mall shoppers (often substituted with the same handful of mindless holiday tunes this time of year). | |
| ▲ | analog31 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think that playing any kind of live music requires a bit of a two-way accommodation between the needs of the audience and of the musicians. I don't think it needs to be difficult per se, but there needs to be something in it for the musicians. This might sound self centered, which is a frequent stereotype leveled against jazz musicians, but on the other hand, why bother? There are other things we could be doing with our time. And I don't think that playing "difficult" music is incompatible with delivering a high quality performance, which is always my mission. | | |
| ▲ | iainmerrick 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think it’s worth distinguishing “difficult to perform” and “difficult to listen to”. Something like hard rock or metal with lots of flashy solos can be technically impressive, but it’s not difficult to “get” -- when done properly it just gets you in the gut. The accusation usually levelled at cutting-edge jazz (fairly or unfairly) is that it’s so niche that it is difficult to get; that it’s left behind any pretence at being popular music. Many listeners would even go further and sneer “they’re just playing notes at random!” or “you’re just pretending to like it!” I do wonder whether good-sounding, easy-to-get music is purely a matter of fashion (being just different enough to be interesting, but conventional enough to be accessible), or if to some degree there’s another axis of skill/difficulty in great pop music, of making it catchy and universal. | | |
| ▲ | analog31 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think that since at least from the time jazz began to mature, like maybe in the 1940s, there has been a back-and-forth between crowd-pleasing and dance-able music, and more exploratory and artistic music. The Stan Kenton Orchestra traveled with two separate "books," one for dance gigs and another for concerts. Ellington's material, of which there was a lot, is quite imaginative. To me that's OK. When jazz ceased to be responsible for forming the backbone of popular music, it triggered a more experimental period, including some ventures that were pretty far out, such as free jazz and free improv. Jazz also experienced a shift in focus -- not uncontroversially -- by becoming an object of academic study. I think we're in a period right now when bands are seeking more audience friendly material. Now, the big-band I play in is in some sense "enthusiast" music. We have a small but loyal audience of people who happen to like this kind of stuff. But in another of my bands, two of the players are actively composing new material, and it's arguably listen-able by any standards. Maybe we're in a third era, where we're free from responsibility for making popular music, but also free from responsibility for establishing the stature of jazz as a "serious" art form, and can return to the business of pleasing ourselves and our audiences. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Nifty3929 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If it's not painful it's not good. If you're enjoying it you're doing it wrong. | |
| ▲ | mesrik 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Using "easy listening" as a pejorative has always baffled me. Why does music need to be difficult? Yes, I agree with you, it shouldn't and doesn't need to be. But some things like music be it Jazz or something else isn't always just matter of listening but way of self establishment, way of life living or pursuing life, way how they seeing themselves and communicate themselves to others. I'm not in to this or studying this or anything else, but it's known behaviour model and you find studies if you like to read about it more. Right, some Jazz aficionados tend to be like hipsters. Who despise and keep unorthodox anything but their likes would grok. A way of self establishment and having reason to keep themselves different. At least a bit better than others. I'm not claiming everybody are, but I certainly have met few of those quick to classify someone things they like. I find my self like more West Coast Jazz bands and artists performances older I get. And if I'm not completely wrong it might be a more common trend their share has increased over the past ten or so years playing in radio stations too at least where I live. |
|
