Share some of your most hated music

Music is to be felt, not understood.
Well, improv is a big part of it. You won't like Indeterminacy, I guess.
Great and not kitschy like 90% of "traditional" paintings. Still, I prefer Mark Rothko.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

Then this is how Jazz Music is making me feel.

I don't know, maybe start from Normie Jazz (I mean, Smooth Jazz) and make your way up to Bop, Post-Bop, the more melodic Miles Davis and Spiritual Jazz of Alice Coltrane and Pharaoh Sanders and once you get them you can move onto the more Free Jazz stuff like Machine Gun or Ascension only later on.

The gold standard for perfectly articulating the gap between those who 'get' jazz and those who don't (and it very much can be used for all art forms that dare stray from basic formatting), is Lisa and Homer talking about the topic in the Simpsons


Lisa says it's about the notes that aren't being played.


Homer says he could have listened to them at home.


It understands the divide between these groups absolutely perfectly. And while I still think it's an empathetic scene in regards to Homer, he's after all trying to understand something that's important to his daughter, and his confusion almost makes sense as his response is almost purely logical....as we all know, no one wants to be a Homer. Homer is never right. You can always trust Homer to prove he's always at least one step behind.

The key is basically contemplation. To see something as a whole and recognize both what has been removed and what has been added and how these things change the emotional impact of the music and its structure.

Technically, yes, you can listen to what isn't being played at home. But it's understanding that there is something missing, and then witnessing what the other notes are doing in its absence, which makes the notes not being played resonate.

The closest example would be with humor, and how the best jokes leave out certain details for the listener to fill in. As a joke is funnier when we lead one to the funny parts for them to find for themselves, and not simply blurt it all out inelegantly. What isn't said is where the magic is.

Jazz is the same. As is impressionistic painting, amd art films, and poetry.

It's all the same

It's about listening. It's all about paying attention. And it has very little to do with intelligence. Mostly just patience and empathy

That crap they play on NPR is also playing in the reception lobby of Hell, I'm sure of it.



To my ear, complicated jazz is like listening to guitar shredding--virtuoso indulgence getting in the way of the melody ("Oh, you weren't expecting this note!). I love Joe Satriani, but at times his shredding is like a cheese-grater, shredding my patience. Not everyone is into that, at least, not all the time.



What is especially annoying are those people who hold up jazz as a sort of intelligence test--shaming others as Philistines for not loving "Bitches Brew." These people talk about jazz the way that Patrick Swayze talks about surfing in Point Break (a mystical source, a font of genius). The very same people who will defend relative preference in all other aspects of art sometimes get rather snooty about jazz, as if it is a failing not to like it.



Myself, I am neither into super smooth muzac jazz or super-complicated dissonant jazz that dares you to try to find comfort in the cracks of fractured chords and random notes.

I'm not referring to you specifically here, because for all I know you've actually got an obnoxious Jazzbo in your life who says such things. I'm only quoting this sentence because it's convenient.

But I find that this condescending jazz guy (or art critic, or Citizen Kane defender) is often imaginary. Yes, in contemporary society jazz has become associated with intellectuals but how often have any of us actually been called an idiot to our face for not "getting" jazz? Or are we just self-conscious on our own about our Philistinian ways and afraid of being called out on it so we invent a mean old jazz scholar that we actually haven't met?

I've never had musical training and I grew up with the standard white suburban boomer parents who liked ELO and Fleetwood Mac. There was nothing in my background to make the transition to jazz fan a smooth one. When I was in college I bought a "Best of John Coltrane" double-LP because my research had led me to the conclusion that he was one of the guys I had to listen to. So I expected to have my mind blown but that didn't happen. I didn't get what was "so great" about it, or what I was supposed to be listening for, etc. I now know that this LP was from his Atlantic years which is technically his "easier" stuff but even so I was lost.

But because I have a personality that wants to understand things I don't get, I kept listening and also bought albums by other jazz guys. And after a couple of years I found that I had accidentally formed a pretty clear idea about what I liked and what I didn't like. I hadn't gained any formal musical knowledge in the meantime, so I still didn't understand the significance of what key a song was in or whether the soloist was straying out of it and so on, but I realized that "understanding" it wasn't the point. My only job was to listen to it and what I enjoyed or didn't was up to me. I now consider myself a "jazz guy", with more box sets than I'll ever have time to listen to.

So how much time is a person supposed to devote to understanding something? I get that not everyone is as interested as I was. So if you're inclined to dismiss it after one listen, that's your prerogative, but you should mention that in your discussions. I can work with "I haven't put much effort into listening to jazz" in a conversation. My response would be to tell the preceding story of my experience and an encouragement to give it another chance. On the other hand, if I'm confronted with "jazz is a bunch of guys playing noise and getting away with it because critics want to feel superior", then my response will probably be more like the obnoxious snob in Corax' original quote. I won't call the first guy a Philistine, but I will think the second guy is a jerk.

Don't be jerks, is what I'm saying.

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

Yeah, normies think jazz is 'noise' until you play them harsh noise and give them tinnitus.

Suffer, normies, SUFFER! MUAHAHAHAHA!!!

Very close to my experience.


I had to work backwards into it. None of the easy stuff for me. Coltrane's Ascension was the first jazz record that spoke to me, after finding the rest I'd heard, at best, as nothing more than pleasant background noise.


Then Coleman..then Ayler....then Pharoah Sanders


It was only having my brain melted I could then appreciate the more subtle shades of a Bill Evans or a Davis.


Then the pure joy of Armstrong's Hot Fives and Sevens.


And I still know nothing about music. Nothing. But it's amazing what just listening can do.


And it was through my know nothing appreciation about music that eventually informed my know nothing appreciation of film. Because it's all essentially the same thing, but movie uses images whwee music uses sound. You just need to find any way you can to live inside of what you are watching or listening to. Thats all it takes.

And to give enough of a shit.

Never really got into the jazz of the '50s & '60s. Don't hate it, but most sounds the same to me. As far as my jazz, I did enjoy many of the '70s artist ala, Tom Scott & LA Express, Weather Report, Return to Forever, Soft Machine, etc...

Not sure if itīs actually "music" if i have to "start slow" and "work" myself up to the point of actually "liking" it.

I am used to either like music or not and never thought about "working" on it to probably enjoy/like it some day.

Oh, I just remembered when i was in first grade school and had to go to bed. I always had to play the radio while listening to music, because i had a hard time falling asleep while being in total silence.

So, there was this radio-station, playing good music and then, every night at the same time (usually somewhere at 11 oīclock PM) they played JAZZ!

This was the time when i either already felt asleep and/or woke up, just turning the damn thing off, thinking to myself "Who is listening to this crap?".

The first times i realized this weird/strange "jazz-music" on the radio, I am sure i had the exact same look on my face as the meme i posted here.

Yeah, I should clarify that I didn't dislike the Coltrane LP I bought but I was disappointed that my mind wasn't blown as I expected. "Carlos Santana and Duane Allman are always raving about this guy in interviews, why am I not getting it?" But it was around this same time that I got Miles Davis At Fillmore, and even though that's a much more difficult listen, I gravitated toward it much sooner. I guess because I could recognize why this was considered out there, while the Coltrane sounded "old-fashioned" to me at that stage. (I've since come around of course).


This was the most important point of my post. Not everyone is required to give a shit, but those that don't should be upfront about it when discussing it. I'm not very interested in opera and have spent approximately zero minutes attempting to watch one. So you will never hear me complaining about anything that would require some experience with opera. I will say "I'm not particularly drawn to opera" but never "opera sucks and people only pretend to like it".

My old sister in law was an opera singer, so I tried in that respect to listen. She bought me a Kathleen Ferrier album which I occasionally give a shot, but I have yet to develop any appreciation for that singing style. It's probably one of two musical genres that eludes me (the other being, very specifically, R&B from the late 80s to early 90s). But, like you said, that's all on me. It's not the genres fault I haven't bothered. It's mine.


And speaking of Santana, I recently listened to Santana III for the first time in years, and that shit cooks.

Umm, you have to have the passion for it. Otherwise, it feels like homework. It should also happen naturally, not like "OK, today I'm moving 2 points up in the difficulty scale. Oh yeah, this album should be a good challenge!". Anyway, some of my all-time favorite music was something I wasn't crazy about the first time I listened to it. And I'm pretty sure a lot of my now-favorites are albums that I couldn't even listen to some 15 years ago. Like, Death Metal - I couldn't stand growls as a teenager. But now I find clean vocals in metal gay.
I don't know, I listened to like 50 hip-hop albums before saying I hate the genre. If you listened to like 2 jazz albums, if even that, how the hell do you know if you hate it or just aren't used to it? I actually had to condition myself to watch classic American movies. I preferred all these "challenging", "slow", and "artsy" films and I had no difficulty getting them or loving them, but American movies seemed inferior to them. And honestly, that's because they were. I still think they're inferior as a whole, but I "learned" to like them. And there are some American movies better than most of the "art" stuff. So, your taste evolves with you as you experience more music. It's not like, say, you listened to 50 jazz albums, and now you love the genre, it's not like you love it superficially. You genuinely love it. Because your taste has evolved and your tastes have expanded.

Umm, I'm starting to think you're irremediable.

It is just music (ok, not sure if Jazz really is "music" after all) youīre talking about here, so donīt make it a bigger thing than it really is.

Get it, you just don't take music as art and you aren't a melomaniac, etc., etc. Fine, stick to whatever you like. But imagine somebody said something like that about movies: "It's just movies (ok, not sure if French New Wave is "movies" after all) you're talking about here, so don't make it a bigger thing than it really is."

BTW I disliked this masterpiece on my first listen. Listened to it again after a few years and I was blown away.

Yeah, giving things seconds or third chances isn't work. You do it because you are curious. And sometimes things click, sometimes they don't....but it's never work. It's not punishment. It's not hard to do, if one is legitimately curious about a specific strain of music.


Wanting things just to immediately be appealing all the time, and just not bothering if they aren't, while obviously everyone's right to do, certainly doesn't give me much hope that they are really that interested in music much in the first place.


Expanding horizons is fun. It might be the only thing that even matters in art. Who would want to keep things safe? Zzzzzzzz

They actually used to torture people with noise. Bloody hipsters these days would enjoy it and ask for the artist's name.

Sometimes going out and meeting a normie can be a revelatory experience.

- What's the last great album you've listened to?
- Oh, I don't really listen to albums. But I enjoyed the latest rap single they play on the radio.
- Umm, okay. Listening to anything apart from rap?
- Yeah, I love me some classics.
*Sounds promising. The guy probably means Velvet Underground, or The Beatles, or something like that.*
- Like what?
- Umm, like Rihanna and Eminem
- You bloo... *tries to simmer down* You like metal?
- Yeah, I love metal.
- Favorite metal band?
- Metallica!
*Almost dies*
- Favorite Metallica song?
- I don't know, Master of Puppets, I don't really know their songs
- Anything apart from Metallica?
- Yeah, like Nickelback
- YOU BLOODY NORMIE GET THE HELL OUTTA HERE I LEFT MY APARTMENT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN TWO WEEKS AND NOW I SEE IT WASN'T WORTH IT!!!!!!!11
*Calms down*
- Any good films you've seen lately?
- Yeah, the new Marve...
*I DON'T EVEN GIVE HIM TIME TO FINISH AS I SWING MY FIST INTO HIS NORMIE MUG SCREAMING LIKE JUNKO ON SLEEPING BEAUTY (YOU WON'T GET THIS REFERENCE, NORMIE), AND THEN WHEN HE'S ON THE GROUND I GIVE HIM A FEW SOLID KICKS TO THAT NORMIE BUTT OF HIS. HE'S STILL CONSCIOUS AND BEGGING FOR MERCY SO I GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT BECAUSE I STILL HAVEN'T ASKED ABOUT POP. BUT I BET HE LOVES K-POP IN WHICH CASE HE'D BE DEAD, THE WANKER.

Am I now back on the subject of Get Up On It by Miles Davis?

You can imagine how many times it took me to get used to Kid A. It's a pretty common album not to get on the first go. It took me a while to get to its general experimentation. I'm now under the impression that it's their best album. It translates outside genres like IDM into a rock album very well by making sure the emotional tones of each song are not only consistent, but just as important as the actual focus of the album. I still find it just slightly too bold, like the first third or so of The Downward Spiral, but overall it helped teach me a lot about the importance of balancing diversity and consistency. As a result, I tend to gravitate towards more diverse albums in an effort to see if their diversity remains consistent.

Some very good examples of this type of album include:

Miles Davis - In a Silent Way (Jazz)
Beach Boys - Pet Sounds (Pop)
Nirvana - In Utero (Grunge)
Sonic Youth - Sister (Indie Rock)
Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's (Psych Pop)
Kendrick - To Pimp a Butterfly (Hip Hop)
Nine Inch Nails -nThe Downward Spiral (Industrial Rock)
Coil - The Ape of Naples (Electronic)
Pixies - Doolitle (Indie Rock again)
Tyler the Creator - Flower Boy (Hip Hop)
Swans - Children of God (Post-Punk)
Arcturus - The Sham Mirrors (Metal)
Minnie Riperton - Come to My Garden (Pop Soul)
The Clash - London Calling (Punk)
Dead Can Dance - Toward the Within (Darkwave)
Stevie Wonder - Innervisions and Songs in the Key of Life (Soul)
Fleet Foxes - Fleet Foxes (Folk)
Death Grips - Exmilitary (Experimental Hip Hop)
Love - Forever Changes (Psychedelia)
Low - Hey What (Experimental)
Hell - Hell II (Drone Metal)
Boris - Feedbacker (Drone Metal again)
Blood Brothers - Crimes (Post-Hardcore)

The general idea of creativity is to see how much you can do with the genre you play. In many cases, the best choice is to include influences from other genres like many of the albums I listed do, but there's also the risk of that backfiring. When following an absolute vein of consistency by linking emotion through one sound and then with another sound that previously explored a different emotion, like the switch between maniacal anger and teenage moaning we get on In Utero, one can also use a specific kind of production, like Albini's famous noise rock style, to cover grounds that grunge is already known for, including the poppy alternative, the noise punk and the Melvin's sludge.

While albums that follow a single genre can also risk being monotonous, occasionally we get something that takes that one genre and boasts an enormous level of creativity without going into other genres, like Michael Chapman's Fully Qualified Survivor, Leonard Cohen's debut, or the screamo album Document 8 by Pg. 99. And even if you could also tag that last one as a second genre: emoviolence, both genres are largely present on each song, so that hardly matters as the overall genre goal of each song is the same. Those 20 minutes showcase a range of everything emoviolence is capable of without help from other areas.

Obviously, diversity isn't the only thing that matters. Songwriting quality is an absolute must when making a perfect album. Certain songs may not even be in the same league as the rest. The four best personal examples I can muster are Tame from Doolittle, Rape Me from In Utero, Piggy from The Downward Spiral (too long at the end), and especially The prophet's Song from A Night at the Opera. Not every album has to be amazing, but it helps if you have quite a few amazing songs to balance out the same number of great-although-not-amazing songs. A fine example of that would be Children of God by Swans, where songwriting quality can vary a little depending on where the repetition is applied in each hypnotic song.

Correct!
(Caravanserai is my favorite.)