2. misc-audio
  3. 169601-165740

Is improvisational jazz to impressionism art as smooth jazz is to realism art?

So, I’ll acknowledge up front, I’m an engineer. Civilian and Warfighter lives can be in the balance depending on whether our company products perform as required or not. As a result, I try very hard to drive the entropic world we live in towards black and white as much as possible. I need to put order to chaos. When i look at art, impressionistic art requires a lot of mental work to make sense of. I just don't see it or get it, appreciate it or like it. I also find, as hard as i may try to enjoy improvisational jazz, that i don't get it, appreciate it, or like it. Instead, I love Realism art and instrumental smooth jazz!!
Reading from Audiogon forum pages for a couple of years now, i feel like i should feel inferior because 1. I don’t appreciate the free flow of expression that is improvisational jazz and 2. I love that there is a tune and thread in smooth jazz. I love the guitar artistry of Chuck Loeb, Chris Standring, and Acoustic Alchemy; the trumpet expressions of Rick Braun, Cindy Bradley, and Chris Botti; and the bass works of Brian Bromberg. 
I’m curious if there are many others out there that equate order (or lack there-of) in their music tastes to that of their taste in the visual arts?
Also, are there many other music lovers who would rather enjoy a good smooth jazz listening session than improvisational jazz?  If so, who do you listen to?
estreams
twoleftears's avatar
twoleftears
5,327 posts
 
Endless scope for inexact analogies.

Like: Kenny G. is to Andy Warhol as Charlie Parker is to......................


onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,348 posts
 
Pat Metheny on Kenny G.
secretguy
1,853 posts
 
As a professional musician, these posts make me want to kill myself.
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
10,274 posts
 
Song title on the debut album (entitled Gorilla) of The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band:

"Jazz, Delicious Hot, Disgusting Cold".

More facts about Jazz: The music requires the most technique of all non-Classical musics to be able to perform well. Lots of music requires no more than average in that regard, but lots of Jazz is not only difficult to listen to, but also to play. That is---I contend---part of it’s snob appeal.

Jeff Hamilton (Diana Krall’s drummer) gave a talk at a late-90’s Los Angeles Custom & Vintage Drum Show, and talked about he and his Dad watching The Beatles’ first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show, and laughing at the playing of Ringo Starr. There’s some of that Jazz attitude: Technical ability alone defines the quality of a musician’s playing, and the combined technical abilities of a musical ensemble the quality of the music they make.

Would the music of The Beatles have been "better" if Hamilton rather than Ringo was their drummer? Or could it instead have been less good?
edcyn
1,876 posts
 
@bdp24  Yeah, there are more than a few out there who listen to difficult, non-straightforward music simply to demonstrate how "intelligent" they are. I have to say, too, that my first exposure to atonal, polytonal, rhythmically complicated music (using the word "complex" would be too snobby) did hurt my sensibilities. 

I was still close to the single digits in age when my dad gave me LPs of Stravinsky's Petroushka and a "Divertimento for Orchestra" by Nicolai Lopatnikoff.  I put 'em on and hated them. I think my dad hated 'em, too, which is why he pawned them off on me. The thing is, it wasn't long before I was enjoying the heck out of them. They expanded my mind. I'd drive my friends crazy by putting them on the record player. Long story short --  If the music speaks to me on an emotional level I'll listen to it no matter how noisy, crooked or straight it might be. For me it's the art not the science that counts.  But still -- Live and Let Listen!
More to discover