and I understand it, I've been in love with jazz, ever since I first heard chet baker, a couple of years ago. I think many paople could actually like it, but well...
Jazz was popular in the mainstream to, but then it was already commercialised. I like the jazz from the '20's-30's because it was pure then, it wasn't that boring at all.

[quote]Originally posted by drkatz
[b]math rock may be complex, but it's the most annoying sub-genre to ever exist. it's needlessly complex and loses the artistic expressionism. but that's straying from the point

I think your'e a cool guy Drkatz, (seriously, you seem like a smart guy) but that's the stupidest thing you've ever said! "Sub-genre?" Can you play any musical instruments? And if so, how long have you played, and how many bands have you played in? "Needlessly complex?" Are you talking about Jazz, ccause that's what Jazz is....I could list some really talented bands that display severe musical talent, and you'd have to admit that they're good even if you don't like that style. But what kind of "artistic expressionism" are you even able to comprehend if you don't play any musical instruments? "Most annoying sub-genre to ever exist?" That's harsh! Then again, you like the Yeah Yeah Yeah's, so maybe I'm talkin' to someone who will never understand the power that all Metal and Hardcore bands can exhibit. There's got to be worse "sub-genre's " like coffe house folk, or new age modern rock, or somethin worse....most annoying of all-time? Damn!

I'm not saying that math rock is the only overly-complex genre, jazz often has been also. yes i do play, but this is not a debate for this forum.

my main point was that jazz continues to miss out on mainstream popularity because it's only watered down jazz that gets put out to the mainstream. And also, whether you love it or hate it, understanding its complexity makes it more enjoyable.

Yeah, but I fail to see what's so complex about Jazz. It's all improv, held together by playing in key, and it's really just about taking turns doin' solos.....
Old Jazz was cool, cause' PEOPLE were cooler back then, everybody dressed up all the time, and we didn't have this trendy, fast-food, rat-race hell-hole that is America today......
Class, in some forms, isn't timeless.......

For once we agree on a subject homeless cop

I may not know as much about jazz as other users, but from what I have heard this is exactly what makes it so complex, never quite playing the same solo twice, and as we are talking about jazz not being as popular in the main stream market as other types of music (e.g. POP), this makes jazz a lot more complicated than the average pop songs which has:

3 major cords, 1-2 minor cords and 1 - 2 solos (if lucky).

Combined with live performances which are so “polished of” and ridged that they require the listener only to hear the latest CD to know primarily what the live show will be and as such does not demand a lot of attention from the audience. In jazz however I feel that the performers record a song, and in the live performance they try to improvise and manipulate the song to a degree where, yes it is still recognisable, but has a more fluid yet complex feel to it and therefore will demand more from the listener. I believe it is not as popular as other types of music as it does not follow the "rules" of song writing and performance which have became the norm and demand the musicians to virtually re-produce there CD recordings as live performances, coupled with the fact that when you produce a song which is not based on these basic music theories you are quite likely not to get much air play and therefore your song will not become as popular as it is not heard asmuch.

I think what Homeless cop is getting at here is that jazz, being based on improv, lacks the most often overlooked key to complexity, and that is composition. Being able to jam and being able to play fast is a bit of talent, but it isnt complex. There are no different movements or key changes. And the "most basic music theories" as you refer to them are not 3 major chords, 3 minor chords, and 1-2 solos. The most basic theory is the basis for 99% of classical compositions, the sonata, it consists of 4 movements: 1) the intro, 2) the variation on the inro 3) the minuet or scherzo(faster piece generally played in a major key) and 4) the rondo. After looking at it from that perspective it makes alot more music look alot less complex. But alot of good bands play their instruments well and dont stray far from the good old 12 bar composition that the blues gave us.

How deep does your jazz listening go, mate? Any Ellington? Early 70s Miles Davis? Brubeck's "Blue Rondo Ala Turk" or "Take 5"? Coltrane's "A Love Supreme"? Can you really listen to any of that stuff and say there's no complexity?

To quote Dave Mason: "We just disagree"...

-

I am no jazz expert,, but part of the reason I don't listen to jazz as much as rock is because jazz does often require more demands on the listener (I am talking about good jazz, not this soft Kenny G crap)... I assume Homeless Cop that your background in Jazz is limited... The jazz I have been exposed to (Coltrane, Miles, Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, Brubeck, Sonny Rollins, Ornette Coleman) is pretty darn complex stuff to listen to at times (of course a lot of these artists did mellower works as well)... I think you should expose yourself to some of this stuff and your opinion may change...
-
To say that Jazz without vocals "isn't all that ground breaking" just shows your lack of background in the form... I don't mean to put you down, but such statements are just ignorant... A lot of jazz innovations have led to entire genre of rock music including the death metal you mentioned.. Who do you think were the first to use atonal riffs over melody, fast paced technically demanding tempos, modal like experimentations, and more... All this started with jazz.. It was first incorporated into rock mostly in experimental 60's psychedelic music and then taken in different directions in prog, hard rock and various forms of metal.... These are all very important and ground breaking elements.. Also, the standard vocal style of rock was established in Jazz... I could go on and on, but I think my point is made.. I won't deny that a lot of jazz jams are repetitive,, but there is a whole lot more to jazz (and its' importance) then just extended jams... I also won't say that there isn't a lot of less complex jazz,, there is,,, and a lot of it is really cool....


-

I have to agree with you. I still say, that jazz can be very complex. If you look at the first jazztunes, not the crappy thing, you hear how difficult. Also I know a lot of goood musicians, who aren'r able to play jazz, because they aren't creative enough. Jazz isn't all about a chorus, a refrain a bridge. It's more complex then that. Also jazz is very difficult to play together. Those people, when they perform, they don't really say to each other: "now, I"m gonna do this, and you that". There's so much improvistaion in it, which makes it really hard. They have to listen to each other very well.
For the people who don't agree:
Have you ever listened to the contrabass in jazz? It's sometimes so complex, that you have to focus on it really well, to understand how it fits in the music. Have you ever heard the beautiful voice of Billie Holliday, who could make a song with stupid lyrics, soo beautiful and so original, that it almost hard to believe...I couldn't do it myself.