The Ultimate Debate (Jazz vs. Classical)
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=50952
Printed Date: August 03 2025 at 07:43
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Ultimate Debate (Jazz vs. Classical)
Posted By: Pnoom!
Subject: The Ultimate Debate (Jazz vs. Classical)
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 02:59
|
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. |
Replies:
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 03:38
|
I vote for classical because jazz is a genre I've always found more rewarding to perform than listen to.
------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Moatilliatta
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 03:41
|
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. I side with jazz here. I'm not entirely into standard jazz, but the innovative jazz and jazz-fusion (if that counts here) really does it for me. I almost listen to Miles Davis exclusively these days, though Coltrane gets relatively frequent plays too. Classical music can be beautiful, and I admit that I am not too familiar with the vast realm of the genre, but as a general statement, classical is more mechanical than jazz. Jazz is all about being expressive and improvising, and with classical music its more about playing written parts, often written by someone else. Sure, you could study a piece and really get into it so it seems more artistic and personal, but like I said, generally speaking, you hardly get to hear personal feelings in classical performances or that special felt-out interplay between musicians. Also, I do love a good set of jazz chords!
Although, big band jazz is similar in performance to a classical piece, and while its still got some soul that I just don't feel in most classical music, it isn't quite the same as the stuff I'm into. And also on the flipside, chamber groups that can improvise and what not can be quite stunning too, but I am partial to the sound of jazz music as well. ------------- www.last.fm/user/ThisCenotaph  
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 03:47
|
I think it's safe to say that jazz has the most awesome "base sound" of any genre. Also, this isn't a poll to say one genre is better than another, it's to say what you prefer. |
Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 05:26
|
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. ------------- I'm a reasonable man, get off my case |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 05:31
| Jazz is like the intellectual heights of classical plus the primal intensity of rock plus the holy f**king sh*t awesomeness of improv, with the added bonus that it uses a lot of saxophone and trumpet, which are probably both in the top five instruments ever. As is piano when used to play jazz chords. |
Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 05:33
|
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. ------------- I'm a reasonable man, get off my case |
Posted By: Man Erg
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 05:37
|
I like both
I also like it when the two genres mix i.e.Gershwin,Modern Jazz Quartet,Dave Brubeck,Duke Ellington etc. ------------- 
Do 'The Stanley' otherwise I'll thrash you with some rhubarb. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 05:42
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  ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Pnoom! wrote:Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 05:55
|
^How is jazz not intellectual? ------------- I'm a reasonable man, get off my case |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 06:01
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. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 06:20
that is what I thought you meant... you weren't talking about jazz.. but a particular subset of it. .which is complex. Jazz though... is not... to answer the other guy who asks why it is not intellectual.. there is well know joke amounst musicians... that speaks of jazz "being better than sex, and it lasts longer' again.. jazz is not about the brain... it is the body, the heart. And is no more complex than the blues.. different of course.. but VERY VERY related. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 06:21
| '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. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 06:23
|
I never pick favourites in classical, I think any musician with studies and a growing career in this now-so-called "genre" (back and during centuries ago, until the XXth, it was simply music) can't ultimately pick favourites - influences? preferences? sure; but simple composers as favourites - nothing special. So, leaving the digression aside, I grew up with classical music, I play classical music, so it's basically the special "ingredient" of music that makes my life worth. As for jazz, I discovered it after prog, I was knocked out, I love it very much. I have much more to discover from the jazz Universe. With the risk of being booed by prog fans right here in their home (  ), I find classical music together with jazz the ultimate forms of musical expressions. If classical music is simply divine, jazz is a modern replica, of great characteristics and totally unpredictable uniqueness. So no favourite-picking here from me, cause as long as both a symphony and a jazz album raise me up in cloud nine, it's a simple "tie" between the two. 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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 06:38
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. |
Posted By: the_binkster
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 07:14
| Jazz...Classical is wonderful music to really get absorbed into...but Jazz will always put a great big smile on your face. There is nothing like the sound of screaming trumpets to make you happy. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 09:09
|
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.
Intellectual Jazz is a reality, from Lennie Tristano onwards, and it can be astonishing stuff.
However, I never fail to wonder at the marvels that can be found in the world of Classical music - the best composers were often notable improvisers too - it ain't all theory and intellect, y'know - even the "hard" stuff - and it influenced jazz just as much as jazz influenced modern Classical.
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 - you get people who are into it because of music - and the self-indulgence is more subtle, because Classical music is interpreted very differently - it's no less free, of course.
Maybe that's a bit of an unfair generalism, as I do like quite a lot of jazz, but it kinda makes the point. It's like the difference between Krautrock and "Proper" Prog.
Classical for me if forced to choose. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Luke. J
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 09:18
I could not have said it better
 To me, classical music is the "listen" music, so expressious (does this word exist?), music to create moods. And to me more diverse than jazz (which already is very diverse, but classical just exists and develops longer). Jazz to me is the "play" music. Though I sometimes enjoy listening to jazz, it is much more fun to play and just see what comes out. The "surprise"-element is it what makes jazz for me, but I find it hard to be surprised after I heard some move already the third time.
Classical..
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 09:29
Nah, only Hector Berlioz.  -------------
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 10:12
And a lot of classical is aimless light and airy nonsense . For the record, while I'm still mostly exploring just the jazz giants, I haven't yet found one jazz musician whose music is anywhere close to aimless noodling.
I honestly don't know where you're getting this. There's just as much poorly executed classical as there is poorly executed jazz in my experience.
As in Jazz>Classical just like Krautrock>"proper" prog |
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 10:24
|
I prefer Jazz.
------------- 
|
Posted By: song_of_copper
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 13:55
Same here... 
I've picked jazz, and I agree with your comment completely.  What completely floors me, however, is when you get jazz AND classical components together.  |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 14:01
coughtzadikreissueofWadadaLeoSmith'salbumReflectativitycough |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 14:07
| Vastly prefer jazz, insomuch as I'll very often turn on a jazz FM station in the car and be satisfied, whereas I almost never do this with classical. I don't "get" classical yet in that I certainly appreciate the beauty, complexity, etc. of a lot of it but for now it just doesn't connect like jazz will, or (obviously) progressive rock. |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 14:09
|
I put that I don't listen to either. It's not fully true, but I only rarely listen to either. I dig Herbie and the really, really old Abelard, Pérotin medieval classical but I'm more or less ignorant about both and not really attempting to rectify that lack of knowledge.
(this isn't much of an ultimate debate to me) =P ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: song_of_copper
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 14:23
Oh dear, that's a nasty - but strangely eloquent - cough you have there. Thanks, I'll check it out... |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 14:28
It's a good 'un.
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 14:42
|
My vote went to don't listen to either. In reality it is I rarely listen to either. My jazz listenings are mostly Bill Bruford related and my classical listenings are mostly Emerson Lake and Palmer related. ------------- 
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 14:47
hahahhahh....... hahahhahahha post of the week there... have some clappies... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 14:56
| Just curious... what makes that post great? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 15:06
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 15:29
|
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 18:28
|
im going to answer based on what albums i have. i have way more jazz-related albums than rock (non-jazz-rock) and classical albums. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm 
|
Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 21:49
|
OMFG JAZZ FTMFW! ------------- I'm a reasonable man, get off my case |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 22:00
|
equally wonderful, equally important.. I give it to Jazz for being able to incorporate other forms so easily (including classical), but you can't ignore the greatness of 20th Century classical, truly phenomenal |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 22:05
Best post in this thread. |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: August 15 2008 at 22:06
|
Well I have seen good live jazz and fabulous live classical , which seemed more pleasurably than alone with the stereo BTW! Too much to choose from , so no WALL please ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: August 16 2008 at 04:40
A monster of a post coming up.
Jazz IS, intellectual music. Just because something is intellectual, doesn't mean it can't have emotional impact. At it's absolute base, maybe jazz and blues are related, but start delving into theory on a serious level, and you'll find in many cases, the two have little similarity (also artist dependent obviously). You can effectively learn to play the blues in a short period of time, certainly wouldn't take years. Jazz, however, to be truly harmonically astute, you need a serious understanding of theory. I've been studying theory for a while, and I'm capable of negotiating jazz chord progressions to a degree since I have a very good understanding of the relationship between major scale modes and the chords within, but since my knowledge of the melodic minor modes and the chords within are as of now severely underdeveloped, it has locked me out of playing many of the more harmonically challenging jazz chord progressions. jazz.. and it's brother.. the blues is about emotion, the heart. .soul.. not the intellect MUSIC is about emotion (to me anyway), nothing says that blues is more emotional, more about heart and soul than anything else out there. I hear just as much heart and soul poured into death metal as I do the blues, just happens those two genres emote completely different emotions to me. Emotion, heart, soul and intellect are the core basis for being able to create complex music, whether it's technical progressive death metal, jazz fusion or 20th century classical music.
I agree, although again, there is a strong need for emotion in any music we would want to listen to, whether it's jazz or classical or whatever.
Again, very much about the brain as it is emotional content. Tell a guy that's never played jazz before to solo over a chord progression that has say, B Dominant b6 add 9 as the starting chord. It will just sound like rubbish and wont sound emotional at all because the guy has no idea you need to know the B Mixolydian b6 scale in order to play around that chord, let alone what ever other chord changes/scales/modes he might need to know. It doesn't matter how much you tell him to play "with his heart", as long as he doesn't know the theory to make it sound musical and thus emotional, it will just sound terrible. With the blues, you almost always get away with using one scale over a 3 chord progression like I-IV-V (unless it's a jazz-blues progression ).The amount of theory you need to know and how complex jazz can get compared to blues is so far away more challenging and "intellectual" than blues it's almost staggering for the faint hearted. The reason why a jazz player is gonna really start sounding so emotional when he plays is pretty much because, he's learnt all the theory, the intellectual side of it, but............ because it's so ingrained into his being, he can just play without having to consciously think of what notes he's using, because he knows what the scale will sound like without needing to intellectualize it anymore, and now he can stop consciously thinking about all that and instead think of how to articulate the notes, how to make the phrases all different etc. That is what sets apart just intellectual and mechanical, to actually being able to apply the intellectual brain side of things so naturally, it's as if all you can really do is now just play from the heart with the intellectualism complementing the music and your feelings/heart in a perfect balance. Bill Evans (Whom unfortunately succumbed to the drug abuse Cert described earlier in the thread, Lennie Tristano.... just to name 2 guys, were both theory monsters, and importantly, made music that inspired people with it's power. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: August 16 2008 at 11:15
It's surprising how much we often agree with each other...  ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: August 16 2008 at 15:53
|
There should be a Jazz Archives. Who wants to make this happen??
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
|
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: August 17 2008 at 17:12
|
I have to give the edge to jazz. Listening to classical radio for more than two years has demonstrated that the vast majority of "classical" music is very homogeneous and largely forgettable. The more song-based composers are pretty good (Satie, Poulenc, Holst, several others) but the really avant stuff tends to be horrible. Now jazz can fall into the "homogeneous" category as mentioned above, but it doesn't seem to do so on such a large scale. The creativity and song-strength found in jazz is remarkable. Now I'm not too hot on so-called traditional jazz, but when you give me melodic, slower, more experimental avant-jazz or jazz-fusion, I melt. The kind of jazz that maudlin of the Well and Kayo Dot borrow from, Frank Zappa's fusion albums, or the Weather Report's smooth sound make me want to pick up a saxophone and play along. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: August 17 2008 at 22:24
|
Intellectual vs emotional music is a false debate. Doesn't everyone listen to music for its emotional appeal? Some people just find some music very moving that others find "cold" and "intellectual".
I honestly can't say. Lately I've been listening to more jazz than classical, but I can't say which one I prefer more. I will agree that a lot of classical is boring, but I would say the same for jazz. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: August 17 2008 at 22:34
|
I've listened to more "classical" than I have Jazz, but I'm far from even moderately familar in either of them. I think the odds would be stacked a little in "classical" music's favor. It's been around much longer than Jazz and spans a much larger variety of styles. If we were to consider just Classical composers I would most likely be siding on the side of Jazz. However, being able to include people such as Tchaikovsky, Cage, Ives, Schoenberg, Stravinski, Dvorak, Riley, and Reich I will vote against Jazz. Mostly just for emotional value, as Jazz tends to leave me feeling cold most of the time despite my enjoying it. EDIT: Forgot to include Penderecki ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Novalis
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 02:11
 |
Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 07:45
|
Classical for me, as jazz on contrary to a lot of what people have said, doesn't portray enough emotion for me. I like them both very much though and they are both the backbones of the musical world. But classical has the edge for me, simply put because it has generated so much genius over the years: Bach, Handel, Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Liszt, Chopin, Schumann, Scarlatti, Beethoven, Holst, Sibelius, Stravinsky... the list is almost endless. Jazz has only given birth to one or two artists that emotionally touch me as much as the classical greats have.
------------- "Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value." Arnold Schoenberg |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 08:11
Indeed - just who I was thinking of
A lot, true, but not most.
Heh - keep searching - it won't be long until you start finding them.
I wasn't talking about the execution, I was talking about the means of creation (which is different, because it includes composition as well as execution - the whole shooting match).
I've heard some butchered classics, it's true - and many conductors that I would happily steal the baton from, but there's no escaping the fact that jazzers do that "higher and faster" thing a lot more than classical musicians.
Yeah, 'course it does...
Ah... maybe I might have been a little harsh on you... ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 22:33
|
I really enjoy the compositional beauty of Classical music more than Jazz. Jazz has some beautiful moments though. It's just that I feel that plenty of the great 18th century composers had such a great sense of what intervals and chords work and how the tones made such emotion. I may be biased cause I play in my local symphony.
I guess part of the question is if somebody likes composition or improvisation more. I suppose I think improv is cool, but I think the best stuff comes out thouroughly thinking out your music before you present it.
However, jazz pwns. I just like Classical more. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 22:41
|
I would have held them both in equal quality if I had not discovered minimalism/avant-garde/20th Century classical music, which is now my music of choice.
Also, I'd never like to hear the argument "Apples and Oranges" ever again. As I've said before, both are fruit, and can easily be compared, and I like apples much better myself. A better argument would be "Apples and Kicked" because one is a noun and the other is a conjugated verb. But even then, both are words and "Kicked" has a certain spice to it I like. |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 22:49
You a Zorn fanboy. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 22:50
What about bicycles to rugs? ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 23:08
Those are both nouns, and both words, and too easily compared. The ideal would be something like ";;;;¨¨¨¨ünter" compared with " " because neither can readily be described, let alone compared. |
Posted By: Novalis
Date Posted: August 19 2008 at 00:41
Jazz and Classical are both forms of music and can also be compared. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: August 19 2008 at 04:16
I agree. My problem is that you got blues-scale jazz, and avantgarde jazz, and I tend to prefer the latter. Cecil Taylor & Anthony Braxton mm... got more in common with 20th century classical music than with Louis Armstrong (On the other hand you got freejazz pioneer Ornette Coleman, with the blues intact). And classical? that's something like 500 years of almost umcomparable music. So since both genres got apples and oranges within the genres jazz (Dixieland < avantgardejazz) and classical (electroacoustic > operetta), the correct answer is depending on what I'm thinking of while answering. I do own and listen more to jazz, though. But the main reasons for that is that its easier to find information and albums. And when I find it, I can usually feel certain that I got the ultimate recording by the best ensemble. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: August 19 2008 at 04:19
|
I have seen the Jazz vs Classical debates up close in person. The guy defending classical said that "the more instruments the more expressive it is". My jazz friend said "Then how can you say that a 3 piece jazz combo can't be as expressive as a 91 piece orchestra?" and the arguments got ugly............
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 19 2008 at 05:39
|
^That's a non-argument, as any fan of Beethoven's String Quartets can verify ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 19 2008 at 07:43
I kind of share this sentiment |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: August 19 2008 at 13:00
|
Is Kenny G jazz ? Chuck Mangione ? Is Yanni classical ? Or Mahler for that matter ? How about contemporary composers versus country performers ? Does it matter than Jonny Lang is blond, or can he still play the blues ? Because Kenny Wayne Sheppard has 3 names, can we shorten it to KWS like SRV, or is it a bit too presumptious ? Is country music not country if it's played in another country ? Isn't all music Folk music, cause, well ... it is played by folks ? Even the computer generated stuff starts off with folks flicking the ON switch. Can Chamber music only be played in certain rooms ? Can Canucks play Krautrock / DO they want to ? Should DT and PC fans unite and defeat once and for all the E D ettes ? Will John leave Polly ? Should Mary give up on her eldest - Levi ? Tune in, turn up, and turn on people you disagree with ? Turnips free of charge, tourniquets available, but in tight supply ... All to say I don't know what to say ... oh, and that I like good music, dislike bad music; and can't see why we can't disagree to agree on what we like  ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: zicIy
Date Posted: August 19 2008 at 14:18
| JAZZ, coz i like popular music more than Classical music, although i llke Mozart so much (btw he was 100% genius "pop" composer/ musician at his time, originaly). |
Posted By: SolomonsMarbles
Date Posted: August 19 2008 at 15:37
|
There's really not a debate here... music is not a competition. Classical music is more of a mind-based genre, predominantly recorded by Whites, while Jazz is more of a feel, heart-based genre, predominantly recorded by Blacks. I prefer Jazz, but it's merely a personal preference; either is capable of taking you to a transcendental, albeit completely unique musical world. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: August 20 2008 at 05:25
Just a side note. Jazz is obviously an africanamerican invention, and I'm not really disagreeing with you. Still, one pleasant bonus while discovering all these fantastic bands, artists and albums of the 50-60 and 70's, is that while the audience, recordbuyers, the journalists back then, seemed to be stuck in different kinds of black and white thinking, most of the jazzgroups were mixed (with an owerweight of blacks, of course). Jazzplayers must have been way ahead of their time in that area of openmindedness, as well. Without making a big deal of it, black & white americans, asians, latinamericans, and europeans etc, were creating incredible music together. I tend to think than when jazz is at its best, the mind is as present in the music as the heart. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: August 20 2008 at 13:06
Not anymore, there are lots of white jazz players, especially in Europe. The most famous ones are black, but that's because they were first. And implying that the differences in "mind" vs "heart" (which is a false dichotomy in the first place) are due to racial lines is a terrible idea. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 20 2008 at 14:57
Qft |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: August 21 2008 at 03:32
|
I pick Jazz quite easily, however I love Classical music as well. My musical background is heavily rooted in classical training (classical guitar major, woo!). However, I have spent much time working on Jazz too, be it with a teacher, friends, or alone. To me Jazz is musical perfection. It sounds equally simple and complex at the same time. It can be enjoyed easily by anyone. The harmonic and melodic ideas that go on are incredibly appealing to me. Granted both styles of music share and borrow many characteristics from each other, but the forms used and ultimately playing style are the key ingredients. I like that swing. VERY MUCH. Be it Miles, Coltrane, Armstrong, Ornette, Mingus, Monk, etc. They all have something incredible to say and say it in the most incredible way. I also find it more enjoyable to listen to the works of Jazz artists because unlike Classical music you generally get to hear the actual composer playing his/her work. Where as, many of the big composers in the "classical" field died before recording was a possibility. Who better to interpret a work than the composer him/herself? I also find the looser attitude/feel of Jazz is more fitting to me. Classical music is often more rigid in sound and just impression (for me). I sound like I'm ragging on classical music, but I don't mean to. I love it very much. I practice my Tarrega, Giuliani, Villa-Lobos, Bach everyday, I just much prefer listening to Jazz.
|
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: August 21 2008 at 12:36
|
If I have to choose, I choose classical, simply because it's 1000+ years worth of music as opposed to jazz's 100+. So jazz is bound to sound more homogenous, and it does. Pretty much the opposite of what Avantgardehead says. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: August 21 2008 at 12:42
Valid point, but I think of the period of classical music as something that starts a couple of hundred years later. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: August 21 2008 at 13:05
Fair enough, but it doesn't contradict my original point, I guess. Not that I'm adamant about it, after all classical has produced awesome stuff I'm yet to find in jazz, and vice versa. And another point - when jazz sells out you get Marsalis-type retro and smooth jazz. When classical sells out, you get stuff like the soundtrack to Star Wars. And the latter I can actually listen to, from time to time. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 21 2008 at 14:11
That is correct, when referring specifically to the Classical period, but it's understood (even among academics) that "classical music" more generally refers to almost any acoustic or electro acoustic non-folk/popular music from any time period. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: August 22 2008 at 21:07
|
Star Wars music "Contemporary Classical Music"??? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
|