Magma, what's there to get :-)

heyitsthatguy wrote: Logan wrote: heyitsthatguy wrote: what is there to get? they're a musical group they make music you enjoy it or you don't simple as that "getting" things is a pretense made up by people who need some sort of vague reason to justify why they like something that many people may not but in reality its just all taste But your musical experiences and conditioning inform what you will/ do find enjoyable... From A to B to C and so on.  There is language of music that needs cognitive decoding (kind of musical semiotics/ signs and signifiers that you may not be able to appreciate due, in part, to lack of experience).  There is something to get, but you can "get it" (understand the music and make salient musical associations) without liking it.  I know that I've encountered music that  was initially hard to grasp (Schoenberg for instance) in a meaningful and enjoyable way, but "learned' to like it.  Sometimes when getting into a new style/ band, or even switching back and forth between genres, it takes a little rewiring of the brain.  But Magma is more likely to appeal to people who can appreciate jazz, quirky and rather weird offbeat music (and operatic stylings) as well as rock.  Not for the mainstream rock/pop listeners, though I'm sure some of them could enjoy it too. sometimes I debate with myself whether this practice is really 'learning to like something' or self brainwash

Haha, indeed.  I used the word conditioning, and that can be likened to learning and brainwashing.  There's a mental process involved in interpreting music; it can evoke revulsion or euphoria.  I'm sure a lot of it has to do with what with we've already been exposed to... Gateway music.  If I didn't like jazz, then I don't think I'd like Magma, but then many a jazz-lover wouldn't like Magma.  One may never like it, and I don't think one should try hard to enjoy it.  But if one was exposed to the right music and enjoyed it before approaching Magma, then the chances of liking Magma would be much greater.  I can still find Vander's vocals very grating (and ridiculous), but I accept it rather humorously, and of course there's so much much more. I do believe that there is something to get, and certainly it takes time to be able to really in a meaningful, analytical way understand and appreciate the language of music.  But indeed, people use "I don't get it" or "you just don't get it" in a pretty meaningless way.  I prefer to say, "maybe you're just not ready for it yet," which comes across as snobbish.

Well, there you have it...  Except that you make not like jazz as a genre (or pure jazz), but you like quite a bit of jazzy prog (as an element in the music), don't you?

... and play jazz, or very jazzy fusion music, and are heavily influenced by jazz (if I may be so bold).  Sorry, i really don't want to put words in your mouth.   Magma, at the official myspace page are defined as "Nu-Jazz / Rock / Progressive." Fusion of a kind, as tends to be Prog.  Of course it's very common in so-called Prog to have strong jazz elements in Zeuhl, RIO/ Avant, Canterbury, Jazz-Rock Fusion very obviously and in other progressive rock/ music, as you know of course.

Depends on how you define jazz, and there's lots of different jazz categories, but I'm bigger on music that blends jazz stylings and is jazz influenced that straight jazz bands. Of course improv is important o jazz whereas I prefer composed music that may have come out of improv sessions. I used to really love much jazz (some styles I dislike) because it's so good to watch live, and most of the "progressive rock" music I really like is very informed by jazz (some that is is too noodle-rific though -- too much improv jams).

Anyway, what i really love is jazzy music (music with  significant jazz-sounding qualities).