I think what you've described is called - growing up.
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year!
Whats rock? Does that include all of the great folk music from the 60's and 70's? Is it the stuff with Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Elvis, The Beetles,etc......I can still get into that. But you are right jazz is where its at, especially during an intermission of classical music. I'm not trolling either. :-)
I started shifting away from most rock about five years ago, I listen to Jazz or newage for the most part. I think it may be an age thing for me, I don't seem to relate to a lot of the rock songs the way I use to and the SPL's that bring rock alive give me a pain in the head. I use the lower half of my old rock speakers for subs most of the time.
Not completely, but at this rate it might, the 'recommended jazz' thread has surely been a big influence on alot of my recent purchases. I feel very lucky to be just discovering all these gems. Many thanks to 'sdcampbell' and all the other knowledgable participants of this thread. Enjoying 'Jazz Samba' right now.
Most pop music, including rock, is very repetitive. Yeah, there might be a guitar solo in there somewhere, but unless the lyrics are really deep or really clever, there's not much else going on.
Good jazz, by contrast, is endlessly inventive, so it can hold your interest longer.
That said, I probably own roughly similar quantities of jazz and rock CDs (and a lot more rock LPs, because they partially predate my own shifting musical taste), and listen to both about equally. It depends on the mood.
Disclaimer: I'm partly serious and partly having fun with this thread. I will always respect other people's tastes in music no matter how arcane or obtuse it may strike me....
"Momma let tha boy play some rock n' roll, jazz is much too crazy he can play it when he's old..." Gerry Doucette
Hard-core jazz as a musical gendre? Sounds to me like a bunch of individual musicians all playing their hearts out completely oblivious to what the rest of the guys on stage are doing. Absolutely amazes me that they all finish playing at the same time, must be some sort of internal jazz-clock that goes off. I'm not sure I understand why they call it a band, it's not as though they're playing together.
Light jazz? What you think is melodic I find mind-numbingly boring. If you love that soft jazz thang go to CES, every room is playing pretty much the same thing. Oddly enough when you ask them to put on some rock (you happen to have with you) the folks in the room are quite happy to listen to something other than the same damned light jazz they've listened to for x number of hours. It's like elevator muzak after a while.
Now before you guys jump down my throat, yes I've heard pretty well every style of jazz imaginable. I attend the International Jazz Festival in Montreal every year and listen to all sorts of stuff. Ditto for traveling to areas of the world that thrive on jazz. For what it's worth I like jazz influenced rock bands (Zappa, Steely Dan, others) too.
I'm thinking you folks need to read the thread on the best lead guitar solos then sit and listen to ALL the recommendations posted. Once you get done re-educating yourself to the joys of rock, let's see if jazz still strikes you as exciting!
Let's the poison darts and rock throwing begin!
Rock 'n Roll Jeff
The bulk of my collection is rock-always has been & always will be. One of my very good friends is a jazz aficionado & has turned me on to a lot of different jazz over the years & although I enjoy it, I listen to & enjoy rock as much as I did in the 60's.
So the answer to your question is no, jazz has not dulled anything.
Poor digital transfering, and the voicing priorities of many high end components can really hurt some pretty good (especially rock) recordings. Apart from that, the last few decades have produced thousands of releases that help to blur or reconfigure the descriptive verbage and alot of the arbitrary boundries that we try to impose on music. Miles Davis, Zappa, McLaughlin, Holdsworth, Torn, Fiuczynski, (and many others) have delivered the kind of visceral whomp that most would describe as rock without confining themselves to established rock idioms. Some stuff that might be thought of as rock is often way more challenging and sonically complex than most of what is in the BMG or Columbia House jazz catalogs. The old Duke Ellington truism about there only being two kinds of music seems to hold. Well informed or not, the listener will decide if the music is good or bad/(boring or interesting).
I appreciate and enjoy rock as well as jazz. Personally, I listened to mostly rock through highschool and college. Post college, I just couldn't relate to rock anymore, and picked up jazz. Wow, I can actually listen to a recording for more than 20 times and not be bored with it. As someone already mentioned, it was tough to pull away from the melody but once that's out of the way, jazz becomes immensely enjoyable and the possibilities seem endless. The levels of creativity, musicmanship, interaction, etc... take on new meanings for me. I'm in my late 20's now, and still enjoy an occasional rock album from my musical past, but for the most part, it's jazz. Call it growing up if you will.
Oh Elizabeth, this is just another phase you're going through, just like the piercings the Goth outfits, and the Donny Osmond posters. You have to admit now that you were never really 'in love with him!'
Actually the older I get the more I believe that if you don't enjoy all music you don't enjoy music. I refer to good quality, well played music, not just some crappy knock-off of any particular style. My tastes have broadened over the years to include many things I did not enjoy before.
I listened to Ella Fitzgerald and Cab Calloway last night. I'm pretty sure it was the first time I ever had those two on the CDP in such close proximity. Before that I listened to ELO, so what does it all mean?!?
As long as the racoon and I are happy, I guess it doesn't matter.
Very interesting discussion. A good friend sent me the link. We’ve had many discussions about this very topic. Very much a rock fan in the 60s/70s, but towards the end of the 70s found rock lacking. Interestingly, did make an attempt at Jazz/Blues years ago. Finally gave up on music completely. Long story short, the aforementioned friend guided me into finer two channel audio a few years ago.
To say the least, I’m disappointed in most rock recordings of this genre on two levels. One, most of the CDs including expensive re-mastered selections still sound awful. Cramped, compressed, tinny, just not pleasurable to the ear. Hopefully not sounding snobbish , but like to listen for the depth and soundstage on recordings now. I possess no Doors albums, and have given away two re-mastered attempts. Anybody have any suggestions on good re-mastered Doors? Any suggestions on Duane Allman’s Anthology set? Two, some music simply didn’t age well. Some of the more poetic rock did. At least to my tastes. Amazingly, I listen to Jazz/Blues recorded in the 40s and 50s and am literally stunned at the reproductions. Kind of Blue by Miles Davis would be an example. Ageless.
Older rock still is played and enjoyed. Who can’t enjoy a good Chuck Berry session? In fact at this juncture, am listening to Mott The Hoople and David Bowie (early 70s stuff) Would have to agree with Mhu, for me this "history remembered" phase can only last so long, and back in the cabinet. Jazz, Blues, and Classical can be played over never seeming to become weary. Actually the time has arrived, and Transformation by Bruce Katz is going in the black hole next.
What a great topic and great responses! I have been blessed with having the genes of my father in my diversity in musical interests. Since I grew up with rock and heard many of the groups of my interest during the formative years, it will always hold a place dear to me. On the other hand I always found music of different genres interesting as early as I can remember including swing, rag, New Orleans, bop, and classical, must be the exposure. So I would agree with Nrchy, my tastes have broadened nor were they ever completely defined by a particular musical form. What I will never tolerate is "formula" music, designed rather than created by the record industry to appeal to a particular style rather than focus on creativity and substance. I also believe that much of the music being made today is directed towards that end and with the near death of music appreciation in our schools and society in general, feel that it has lowered the level of creativity and interesting new popular music. So I spend more time exploring music from different cultures which seems more worthwhile.
Short answer: No.
I liked the one word definitions of Froggerz40. I still find that good rock energizes me. The sound of an electric guitar almost always brings a smile to my face. I've mused many times that it's going to be weird listening to this stuff when I'm 80, but I expect (hope) that I still find it energizing.
I also don't believe that rock died in the early 70's, and that nothing good has been produced since. Somebody mentioned Linkin Park - one of a kind artistic virtuousity? Of course not, but a whole lotta fun. Tool, Dream Theater, Jane's Addiction, Joe Satriani, Peter Gabriel, Radiohead - much of my favorite music, and I listen to it regularly. My listening habits have certainly changed since I was 20, so I probably don't listen to these CDs with the same intensity or repetitiveness I did their peers when I was 20, but I also have broader tastes and more music to choose from these days.
I also haven't, and hope that I never do, lose my taste for a well done pop tune. Simple, yes, but simple is vastly underrated in my opinion. Sure, there is a lot of drone-on sameness to the pop scene, but I love finding great pop tunes.
Then there is the matter of definition. There are a lot of "jazz" bands that are not the jazz that seems to fit the definitions being used here. Obviously, there's a whole spectrum. Anyway, a lot of my favorite music that I've 'found' in the past few years is in this area - Galactic, Soulive, Ronny Jordan as examples.
I do like and listen to, or attend concerts of, jazz artists regularly. I saw Stefon Harris last month and it was really engaging. On my worst days, jazz strikes me the way R&R Jeff described it above. In face, light jazz always strikes me that way. But on good days, I find shows / albums like Stefon Harris enthralling.
What listening to jazz recordings has dulled is my taste for rock recordings. Some are excellent (Tool), many are listenable since I like the music, some are just so bad as to make things unlistenable no matter how much you might care for the music. -Kirk
When I was a teenager, all I listened to was straight-ahead jazz. The Marsalises, Art Blakey, Monk, Miles, Train, Rhasahhn, etc. I was a musician then (and now) and learned a lot about music theory. Now I actually am enjoying rock MORE. I find that music is just music, and the whole genre thing is becoming less and less important.
I like Crazy's sentence, too.
I can and do enjoy equally many jazz and rock cuts (to the extent one can neatly segregate it all) in addition to other "genre". There are different kinds of enjoyment for different kinds of music. When I hear anyone define their choice of preference in one type of music over another as "growing up", I always feel the only thing "up" is probably their nose. Sorry.
Wow 4yanx I never thought of Elizabeth as snotty or stuck up. But then again who does she think she is prefering jazz over rock? There is no reason for the ugly head of musicism to be raised on this politically correct website.
I'm not guilty of musical stylism, I'm just schitzoid. I go from classical, to opera, to rock, to jazz, and even in moments of weakness even to a little country music.
Am I too discriminating, or not discriminating enough?
...an' dats da name a dat tune!
I share some of your "schitzoidism" UMF, but nowhere did I direct the fickle finger of fate at Liz. I see where the the intial post in this thread professes a disdain for rock, anyone's privledge. OTOH, I specifically based my comments with respect to those that claim to be more "grown up" by preferring one type of music over another. Unless I've missed something, that is not quite what the original poster has said.
I dont think Jazz dulls my sences for rock,its just there is no good creative groups out there anymore.Too many corporate designers image groups that recycles the 60-70's true rock bands.No more fresh music out there..its all about image right now,the core of talented rock artist are going the way of a DODO birds..AC/DC still rocks though.
Six weeks later: Listed to Santana's ABRAXAS, (because found it on LP in good shape with a copy of the first Santana LP in the other side of the gatefold!.. for $0.23 and in VG++ shape too) Anyway, decided to have a listen. Noticed the growth in the groups' playing from the first LP to the Abraxas LP. Found it interesting, as I hadn't listed to it for a few years.
Still on the Jazz roll, looking for all the classic Jazz recordings.. Still enjoy Classical too. And I do find the best Rock stimulating...
I find the improvisation of jazz is what keeps people excited, where rock acts come along and kick ass...the get mimiced for 3-4 years. This makes it dull. Then the process starts again.
I have personally been delving deeper into jazz as of late, but hate the snobbery that is assosciated with it. Oh well, I love it all.
I still love listening to rock, but it seems like a long time since something new and really good has come out. If I do listen to rock it has been re-masters of the glory days. I guess if you count blues/rock there has been some really good stuff.
I don't think I'll ever tire of a good rock riff though. Sometimes you need that primal kick that another style of music just won't give you.