The Ultimate Debate (Jazz vs. Classical)

This hasn't been done in recent memory, so it'll be interesting to see how the current group of PA members feels.

Like it or not, jazz and classical are the two key "intellectual" genres of music.  I personally think it's bullsh*t to claim that jazz and classical are inherently better than rock music, because all three function on entirely different levels, but there's nothing I can do about that.

Anyway, which do you prefer?


For me, I must admit I don't know either genre well enough.  Of the absolute most famous classical composers, I've heard two of Beethoven's symphonies, one of which was awesome (#5), one of which was somewhat dull (#2).  In the modern classical vein, I absolutely adore Igor Stravinsky, Bela Bartok, and others.  I love a good deal of minimalism (Steve Reich, Terry Riley, Moondog, etc).  I'm also starting to really enjoy Prokofiev.

But that just can't compete with jazz.  On any level.  Jazz is the perfect mix of intellect and a sense of primal urgency.  Jazz chords absolutely dominate anything found within your general set of major/minor scale chords.  The saxophone, which is rare in classical music, might well be my favorite instrument.  And then there's the actual examples of jazz music.  Charles Mingus on his 1963 opus, The Black Saint and the SInner Lady, essentially perfected the climax.  The controlled mayhem of the fourth movement is incredible.  Hank Mobley's Soul Station is irresistibly smooth.  You've got the wonderful experiments of John Coltrane and Ornette Coleman.  And the pure, spiritual bliss of Pharoah Sanders.  Suffice it to say, jazz is the most amazing style of music ever.  I think that, and yet I've only scratched its surface.

I think no music is inherently better than another. I do however think that music is best when it is comprised of many styles. That's one of the things that sets progressive/experimental music above the standards of each genre, the incorporation of many styles.

Jazz jazz jazz. I like me some classical music, sure. But jazz just seems to have deeper roots in the rock world than classical music does for the most part.

It's not just influence though. I think jazz just feels better, moves better, sounds better, and can be incorporated in many more widespread ways, in many different angles and genres. I also think it's more interesting structurally, due to the general seeming lack of it, officially (what I mean is the strong bearing towards improvisation that the genre stresses, typically)

Jazz, jazz, jazz. Just, the versatility of the genre, the many ways it can flex...what it can become, and morph into.

Don't get me wrong though. I love lots of classical music. Lots. But, here, it's jazz I think.

Edited by The Antique - August 15 2008 at 05:31

Jazz is beautiful. I don't listen to nearly enough of it. I used to, like three years ago. All the time. non-stop for a while. Dunno what happened. I still back it though, majorly, since it shows up in so much of what I listen to now and all that.

Influence and all that jazz, pun fully intended.

Pnoom! wrote: This hasn't been done in recent memory, so it'll be interesting to see how the current group of PA members feels. Like it or not, jazz and classical are the two key "intellectual" genres of music.  I personally think it's bullsh*t to claim that jazz and classical are inherently better than rock music, because all three function on entirely different levels, but there's nothing I can do about that. Anyway, which do you prefer?

jazz.. intellectual?  that's a new one to me...

jazz.. and it's brother.. the blues is about emotion, the heart. .soul.. not the intellect

jazz all the way


Edited by micky - August 15 2008 at 05:43

micky wrote: jazz.. intellectual?  that's a new one to me... jazz.. and it's brother.. the blues is about emotion, the heart. .soul.. not the intellect jazz all the way

That may be, but it's still more complex than blues, which is part of why critics liked it better.  Jazz is arguably of a comparable "difficulty" to classical, and in that sense is clearly more intellectual than, say, most rock music.

Part of why jazz is so great is that it manages to meld that complexity and need for virtuosity with such a strong basis in emotion.


Edited by Pnoom! - August 15 2008 at 06:02

'Classical' music for me. Much as I enjoy jazz, I find myself moved by classical music. Of course, there's plenty of improv in classical music, which just adds to the variety. With classical you get everything from a minuet to a cycle like Wagner's Ring. I even enjoy the fact that there's not one definitive performance: the serious collector can acquire many compelling versions of their favourite pieces.

Ricochet wrote: PS.: Sad there's a third option called "I don't listen to both", but not a much more special "I love both". I guess I can't vote, this way.

Well most people like both. The point of the poll is to find out which people prefer.  For example, I love both.  A lot.  But I still prefer jazz.  By a lot.

When it's done "right", Jazz can completely blow you away - but that seems to be rare. Most of the time it's aimless noodling - just a search for the spark that makes "proper" jazz.

Certif1ed wrote:   The biggest problem jazz has is the sheer numbers of drug-befuddled wannabes - people who think that taking hard drugs makes them play better, when all they actually do is play faster and higher widdle.   You don't tend to get so many of those in Classical circles.

Nah, only Hector Berlioz.