Jazz listening: Is it about the music? Or is it about the sound?


The thread title says it all. I can listen to jazz recordings for hours on end but can scarcely name a dozen tunes.  My jazz collection is small but still growing.  Most recordings sound great.  On the other hand, I have a substantial rock, pop and country collection and like most of us, have a near encyclopedic knowledge of it.  Yet sound quality is all over the map to the point that many titles have become nearly unlistenable on my best system.  Which leads me back to my question: Is it the sound or the music?  Maybe it’s both. You’ve just got to have one or the other!
jdmccall56
Having played professionally, it’s the quality of the recording AND the composition.  I never listen to some of my favorite rock recordings due to poor recording sq.  Jazz musicians know a lot of their commercial success is in the equipment/method of the recording, not mass appeal.
@mijostyn
sound quality and the music itself are both examples of the aesthetic and become purely a matter of taste.
Excellent point. I do think taste is more objective than that famous quote intends, as we have so many points on which we agree and even have reasons and arguments about taste. Then again, I don't think objectivity means what most think it means. [Tables topic.]

I’m sorry the Kierkegaard quote mentioned "ethics." Misplaced word in this discussion.

The better contrast is between the Apollonian preference for rational order, patterns, objectivity and Dionysian for feeling and spontaneous abandon. They’re both tastes.


I can lose myself more easily with jazz these days, especially with recordings from ECM and just about everything by Bill Evans (the Complete Village Vanguard sounds brilliant on cd; a great vinyl pressing of the full set would be apocalyptic). Listening to "Trio '64" yesterday was mesmerizing. Piano in the center of the living room, drums off to the right, bass over to the left. I almost looked for a waiter to order a drink from. 

No, I couldn't name a single title on that disc, while I can tell you stories about most U2 songs. But when I was in my 20's music meant something very different than it does now. It was much more social, whereas jazz and classical are today much more solitary pleasures for me. And the (generally poor) SQ of most U2 recordings in the '80's and '90's was irrelevant then. I suspect the pleasures I derive from music have changed as a result of age. Not in the sense of "growing up" or maturing, but simply changing. Evans, Miles, Trane, Jarrett, Jamal, the contemporary Scandinavian stuff on ECM: it all sounds great, but I listen to all of it alone. And I expect the very best SQ. But when I put on "Achtung Baby" or "War," or most of the rock I grew up with, I'm looking for someone to share it with, and SQ isn't nearly as important.

Except with "Quadrophenia" and "Who's Next." Go figure. . .
It sounds like having a limited library perhaps points toward your relying on your CD collection.  If this is the case you might be a great candidate to stream music and get a Tidal subscription for $20 per month.  I have a BlueSound Node 2i and it only costa $550.  I have an OPPORTUNITY 105 and I don’t miss having to get up from my sofa to change the CD.  By having my BlueSound I can now listen to hi-res recordings.  What is also nice about streaming is being able to remain seated and listen to a few songs by some artists and switch over to something else by using my iPhone as a remote.  You are missing out on a being able to hear music from an enormous library.  This expand you taste for jazz.  You can also create a custom play list.  This is handy when having company over.  I have created playlists to create different moods.  This also allows for you to concentrate on your guests.

i haven’t used my CD’s for the past two years.  I personally think CD’s are becoming a thing of the past.  The real game changer is the ability to use such an extensive library.