On the best jazz I've heard, you can almost get inside the person's head and 'hear' him composing on the fly. The ones that I admire most are the ones that are 'composing' faster than anything I can imagine...

You need to check this out:

Sonny playing by himself for the entire concert. Its fucking nuts. You'll catch him intertwining different famous riffs, then he goes off onto another plane, only to wind back to the same riff. Its one of the more unusual jazz albums I've heard.

Nope. Jazz didn't start out as an improvisational style, and there is tons of jazz that is traditionally composed and played. Jazz is about form (harmonic, with certain standard structures), not any one playing style.

Plus theres plenty of groups that only play 'standards', having not written any of their own material.

Leon Redbone was my entry to jazz. Hurrah for him.

There's exactly one thing I look for in music that I love: emotion. If it communicates emotion through music, I'm probably going to be interested. If it doesn't, I'm probably not.

Agreed. However, some music doesn't really have much obvious emotional content, but I love due to its ability to stir subconscious "feelings." Cerebral music, I guess. I'm thinking Herbie Hancock - Sextant, lots of modern classical, etc. Sort of hard to describe the intangible things you experience when listening to music, especially abstract music. Which is why we should let the music do the talking.

Icarium, maybe you'd like Charles Mingus - The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady. It's the album that got me interested in jazz again. Mingus is more accessible to fans of more "active" music, like rock and its child genres. Probably because it's both riotous (when appropriate) and meticulously crafted (always), and flirts with the blues and gospel music that inspired those genres. (If I've mis-assessed your tastes, I apologize.) Meanwhile, albums like Kind of Blue and A Love Supreme -- common "starter jazz" albums -- are less active and more... moody. Sort of foreign to those coming from a rock background.

Plus theres plenty of groups that only play 'standards', having not written any of their own material.

I said, "improvisational based", not "pure improv" -- one can improvise within a context or structure, and still improvise.

I'm not arguing with Jacob yet...but I'm not ignoring him, either, I just need to know more.

no such thing.

20th century classical, I meant.

edit: Most of it, at least. There's plenty of 20th century classical composers that composed "emotional" music.

then i would suggest taking all those music history and theory classes i took at conservatory.

I sure wish you could communicate with as much clarity as you do confidence. Can't you give us a 30 words or less definition? Saying it's "about" something is not the same as saying what it is.

PS If you have an essential book or something that you could recommend, I'll read it. (Don't start me with 10 -- start me with 1, maybe 2 max.)

Edited June 27, 200818 yr by Dusty Chalk

no such thing.

Why?

I know that.

Most people use the term "classical" to refer to orchestral erudite/art music from any time period. Myself included. I prefer it because the line between "art" and "popular" music is often blurred. And more people will know what I'm talking about. And I don't want to say "serialism and new complexity and minimalism and impressionism and blaaaaaaaagh blagh blagh," because saying "20th century classical music" is easier.

I can understand why you'd nitpick about stuff like that, though.

what about 20th century music that was written in the style of the classical period, like Prokofieff's (I prefer Prokofiew for some reason, why is that?) Op. 25?

it's 20th century orchestra Art music written in the style of Classical music.

because it's a neater looking transliteration?

that's a mouthful.

would just say 20th century orchestral music, or some such.

i don't believe that insisting on correct terms is nitpicking, but i can understand why you think it is and use the terminology you use.

Actually, you're right, it's not nitpicking. Sort of like "rap" versus "hip-hop." This is a jazz topic though, I think we're veering a bit off course.

what about 20th century music that was written in the style of the classical period, like Prokofieff's (I prefer Prokofiew for some reason, why is that?) Op. 25?

"Neoclassical" might be an accurate descriptor for that kind of thing. Not in the Yngwie (please, not in the Yngwie sense ) or Dead Can Dance sense, of course.

Not Jazz:

Jazz:

Problem solved. You're welcome.

That was useless, hungrych.

What I was trying to show is that it's pretty much impossible to define jazz. (unless your last name is Marsalis)

This book isn't for jazz aficionados, but it is a good introduction to listening to and understanding jazz.

Despite playing Alto sax from elementary school - 10th grade, I only recently began cultivating a real interest in jazz. I think it pretty much started with Time Out (Dave Brubeck Quartet) and Indestructible (Art Blakey). I've pretty much let my ears guide me, but having a list of musicians on albums has been crucial, as I've used those lists to expand my horizons and such.

I've not bothered with modern jazz, or at least not in any significant way. Mostly 50s-70s, thus far. There's a wealth of material from that era that dwarfs "classic rock" from a collector's stand point

What I was trying to show is that it's pretty much impossible to define jazz. (unless your last name is Marsalis)

As mediocre and loathed as Marsalis is he is doing a pretty cool blues album with Willie Nelson.