Prog vs Jazz

Sorry about the typos. I typed that in a bit of a hurry

I always like to think that if jazz began in the end 60's / 70's it would be part of prog. 

Edited by DDPascalDD - October 17 2016 at 07:42

Cambus741 wrote: I was with a member of my family yesterday who has no timer for any kind of rock music. Radio 3 played Memphis Blues  by Louis Armstrong. He told me that there is more music in that than all of progressive rock I told him that was nonsense. Yes it swings which prog doesn't do and its good at doiing what it does which is feel good music. But there was no intensity. No building to any kind of climax,   There wasn't the enormous amount of musicianship that goes into progressive rock, not to mention  the constant desire to push the envelope that exists in prog. Nor any sudden changes in direction. No subtleties to reward further listens. And most of all. No intensity. I must admit I do love intense prog. But as far as he is concerned there is no music in rock and jazz is a million times better.  And he really believes that. I think that is bollocks and with the possible exception of some classical, progressive rock is musically superior to any other genre of music.  By its very nature and ambition. What do other people on here think?

Cambus741 wrote: But there is a lot if rubbish classical our there. Stravinsky and Shoshtokovitch spring to mind.

The latter genius happens to be my favorite composer of all - and not rubbish. Prog's got nothing on Shostakovich (or Stravinsky).

Cambus741 wrote: But there is a lot if rubbish classical our there. Stravinsky and Shoshtokovitch spring to mind.

>Stravinsky and Shostakovich
>Rubbish
Pick one.

Honestly, I much prefer Igor Stravinsky to Beethoven or Mozart, as important and influential the two were. Stravinsky is in fact one of my favorite composers alongside Bartok, Bruckner, and Messiaen. But, of course, that tells nothing. Anyway, could you please elaborate why you think Stravinsky and Shostakovich are rubbish? I'd love to know what makes people say such things. I understand you don't have to love them, but saying they are rubbish denies the quality of their music, from my perspective.

Cambus741 wrote: But there was no intensity. No building to any kind of climax,   There wasn't the enormous amount of musicianship that goes into progressive rock.

May have been just that one track. I fail to see how jazz does not have any intensity or does not build any kind of climax.

For example, solos on Charles Mingus' "C Jam Blues" from Mingus at Carnegie Hall build extremely strong tensions, have numerous climaxes.



And if by any chance you happen to say that jazz does not require an "enormous amount of musicianship that goes into progressive rock", take the first video of Allan Holdsworth, Charlie Parker, Scott Henderson, Chick Corea, Keith Jarrett (I could go on for hours).




Edited by ALotOfBottle - October 17 2016 at 10:01

So you're just continuing the cycle of hatred that your family member started? This topic is pointless.

Cambus741 wrote: I think that is bollocks and with the possible exception of some classical, progressive rock is musically superior to any other genre of music.  By its very nature and ambition. What do other people on here think?

I think your opinions are bollocks.
/thread]

Seriously, do you really believe what you're writing or are you there just to start a flamewar like any maniac troll would do (and, then, sit in a comfy sofa and watch the world burn...)?

Progressive rock, musically superior to any other genre of music? In which or whose terms?
"By its very nature and ambition"? We're discussing a branch of Progressive ROCK, a genre which would be disimissed and mocked by true connoisseurs of Classical music or Jazz - and I'm only talking about Western music, I don't even dare to venture in the domain of Indian, Japanese or Chinese musics (and don't forget about African traditions in which polyrhythms are too complex for Neil Peart).

Maybe I shouldn't answer to this thread as I only slept 4 hours this night and it makes me a little irritable... But this thread would bring no more than negative opinions.

Mascodagama wrote: But FWIW jazz has given us some of the most innovative, creative and ambitious music to be made in the last hundred years. Nobody is forced to like it of cohurse.

Edited by Tillerman88 - October 19 2016 at 04:02

^I'm not a prog nut by like some of it as much as any other popular music or 'high art' (or Art Music, for that matter). But just can't agree with devaluating some music in order to elevate your subjective individual preferences.

Tillerman88 wrote: Mascodagama wrote: But FWIW jazz has given us some of the most innovative, creative and ambitious music to be made in the last hundred years. Nobody is forced to like it of cohurse.   These are some of the most common objective standards that I've heard about prog rock on prog sites. Again, as I said above, you are rejecting the view that artistic evaluations are simply matters of personal taste.    And this thread can perfectly lose any kind of sense by saying that music is too personal a medium to support an absolute hierarchy of values.

I don't particularly mean to generally reject the idea that artistic evaluations are matters of personal taste, which is actually something I largely agree with. This doesn't necessarily entail that ALL evaluative statements concerning music are entirely subjective, however. Is a piece of music "good" or "better than" another piece? I would agree that is purely subjective. But to look at the terminology I actually used:

Innovative: This is reasonably capable of objective assessment. Had anyone played piano the way Art Tatum did before Art Tatum came along? To the best of our knowledge the answer is no. His playing is well known and has been much discussed. Commentators at the time and subsequently have failed to identify an obvious precedent for his style; it was singular. There are fields of serious intellectual and practical endeavour where the question of what is innovative is treated as an objective one - notably patent law.

Ambitious: Somewhat more subjective, but not entirely subjective. It's reasonable to suggest that undertaking the composition of the St Matthew Passion was an endeavour of larger scope than the one the Macc Lads took on when they sat down to write Sweaty Betty. That doesn't make Bach "better than" the Mac Ladds, obviously.

Creative: You largely have me here, anyone doing more than playing a piece learned by rote is unarguably doing something "creative" and even the rote player is creating something. Yes, what is "more" creative is largely subjective. Though again it doesn't seem utterly subjective to suggest that there was more creative juice involved in Charlie Parker's solo on Lover Man than there is in a kid playing Chopsticks. Still, it's a pretty sloppy term to use, no argument.

I'm not a philosopher of course. And thank God for that   

Edited by Mascodagama - October 19 2016 at 04:55