Why do humans like jazz?

[Ralph_Cramden]

Do people that like rock like each and every rock artist? Do people that like classical like each and every composer?
Sorry but the original question makes zero sense, since jazz has many sub genres. I'd say I like jazz, but I most certainly don't like every jazz track ever recorded. These generalizations never worked and never shall.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Fahzz]

Interesting point.

When I think about many of the 'standard/normal' music listeners I know...improvisation is anathema to them. Even at a concert, they want the song played like they hear it on the radio...

You can get a vibe for this when you mention Phish, The Dead, The String Cheese incident, etc. Many people want the same experience every time.

I'd put many of the jam bands into a similar category as jazz. Maybe I should have mentioned that more specifically. Same kind of experience!

My guess would be that the playing style of the bands you mention were heavily influenced by the spontaneity of the jazz improvisers of the 40's 50's and 60's.

 

[Timcognito]

Sorry but the original question makes zero sense, since jazz has many sub genres. I'd say I like jazz, but I most certainly don't like every jazz track ever recorded. These generalizations never worked and never shall.

I think smooth jazz is not technically jazz just like rock the solos are minor variations, no spontaneous change in rhythm, no spontaneous change melody, very few chromatics variations. This what real jazz fans want to hear and what those ho don't like or understand. Why not leave a good melody alone, I'm lost, but musicians and listeners are not lost they are involved. In visual art it is similar to realism vs abstraction of the same subject, in music Julie Andrews' version of "My Favorite Things" vs John Coltrane's. As I said it is like bitter beer or coffee it's not obvious what is going on in fact it seems not a pleasing flavor to most at first. It the improvisation and communication of timing among the artists during the abstracted parts that make it jazz and that is what the OP was getting at, IMO. The same could be said about classical music which seems to have about as disdain as Jazz by many. If they are playing the same piece where is the variation? In that case the nuance comes from more subtle aspects that are not so subtle to fans who follow it. So maybe I made your point, but what you call or others call jazz may not be jazz and some like real jazz because despite it's frequent variations they can follow along and share the theme with the musicians. Give a can of Chef Boyardee spaghetti to an Italian chef and ask them if it's spaghetti.

 

[pablolie]

I think smooth jazz is not technically jazz just like rock the solos are minor variations, no spontaneous change in rhythm, no spontaneous change melody, very few chromatics variations. This what real jazz fans want to hear and what those ho don't like or understand. Why not leave a good melody alone, I'm lost, but musicians and listeners are not lost they are involved. In visual art it is similar to realism vs abstraction of the same subject, in music Julie Andrews' version of "My Favorite Things" vs John Coltrane's. As I said it is like bitter beer or coffee it's not obvious what is going on in fact it seems not a pleasing flavor to most at first. It the improvisation and communication of timing among the artists during the abstracted parts that make it jazz and that is what the OP was getting at, IMO. The same could be said about classical music which seems to have about as disdain as Jazz by many. If they are playing the same piece where is the variation? In that case the nuance comes from more subtle aspects that are not so subtle to fans who follow it. So maybe I made your point, but what you call or others call jazz may not be jazz and some like real jazz because despite it's frequent variations they can follow along and share the theme with the musicians. Give a can of Chef Boyardee spaghetti to an Italian chef and ask them if it's spaghetti.

I think this actually makes my point.

 

[Timcognito]

I think this actually makes my point.

Yes but it's true for many genres. People debate what is classical, metal, hip-hop, etc. but in every one of those genres there are core musicians and music that would be irrefutable. Jazz Charles Mingus yes, Frank Sinatra maybe not? I think the OP premise goes to why someone who likes John Coltrain "my favorite things" can tell you what about it that makes it intriguing. Franks singing style may not be Jazz but the Nelson Riddle Orchestra who backs him up is definitely Jazz. Forget discussing Frank's "Fly Me to the Moon" because some other poster would say that's not Jazz and encourage off topic discussion about things that are peripheral to the key premise. So, what makes the core stuff intriguing to those of us that will not listen to Julie Andrews. I listen to Frank but mostly to hear Nelson et al. Saying Jazz is a mile wide and mile deep does not invalidate the topic.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Jazz is kind of boring to me
Except Hiromi for example

 

[sonitus mirus]

I've been intrigued by our conversation about the appeal of jazz. While I admire the skill behind free jazz, its intricacy often goes over my head, making it harder for me to connect with it emotionally. My preference leans toward the more straightforward and melodic jazz styles, where the blend of rhythm and melody creates a comforting yet engaging listening experience. These forms of jazz resonate with me more, offering the right mix of familiarity and surprise within their harmonies and improvisations. Perhaps the improvisational nature of jazz, mirroring life's spontaneity, is what makes it resonate so deeply with us, offering a sense of connection and understanding.

I can provide an anecdotal experience. I had read about the work involved in the creation of Captain Beefheart's 'Trout Mask Replica', and I was confounded to learn that they had practiced so much to perfect the final, recorded version. All I can say to anyone who does not appreciate jazz is to give that album a listen, while understanding that what you are hearing was intended and reproducible.

 

[EJ3]

Interesting point.

When I think about many of the 'standard/normal' music listeners I know...improvisation is anathema to them. Even at a concert, they want the song played like they hear it on the radio...

You can get a vibe for this when you mention Phish, The Dead, The String Cheese incident, etc. Many people want the same experience every time.

I'd put many of the jam bands into a similar category as jazz. Maybe I should have mentioned that more specifically. Same kind of experience!

I never felt that way: I much prefer the live versions of most songs & music that I listen to & love going to live concerts for "what & where they are going to take the song next?"
If they are going to play it exactly like it was on the original for radio/or streaming service (with all the constraints to time, beat to "hook" you into the song, I'm not interested). I can play the FM/ streaming song at home at home (& it will likely never be what the artist intended do to the constraints imposed by these formats).
On the other hand, if the core of the song is so far gone that it's hard to tell what it was originally, that may or may not be good.
A couple of examples of the best (IMHO) of the former would be the evolution of Frankenstein by Edgar Winter & the evolution of Rod Argent's "Time of the Season" over the years.
If you check out the various recordings & video's of these 2 songs you can see a great evolution while yet sticking to the core of the song.

 

[ahofer]

I never felt that way: I much prefer the live versions of most songs & music that I listen to & love going to live concerts for "what & where they are going to take the song next?"
If they are going to play it exactly like it was on the original for radio/or streaming service (with all the constraints to time, beat to "hook" you into the song, I'm not interested.

Me too, I like live albums, when the band takes the song ideas a little further, and with more spontaneity. One extreme example is John Mayer, whose songs are often meh, but he's a great guitar player and improviser, and always does something a little differently.

I read an online interview with Jon Herington, who has been playing with Steely Dan live for decades, and is tasked with interpreting some of the most iconic and well-known solos in guitardom. He and his fans describe it as "interpreting", because he doesn't do them exactly like the albums, but he tends to present and riff off of the same themes and sounds. So they are recognizable but different. It's very well done, if you've ever seen them live.

 

[Jaxjax]

Never enjoyed jazz that much till my early 30s at least.. but recently it just clicked. Not sure why but 80% of music I listen mostly is Jazz.

Especially Japanese jazz.

There is that Japanese label "three blind mice". And every album for me is like pure gold. It's just the mix of amazing artists and recording quality.

I see myself upgrading my system for this genre.. the recording quality is just phenomenal compared to stuff I considered previously as "very good"

They are indeed very very good.!!!!!!
I like how they show the recording chain also..

 

[Pearljam5000]

It's unclear to me why
It's probably the most boring music genre

 

[sonitus mirus]

This is a nice little time waster if you want to read about music genres in an interactive, visual method.

Musicmap | The Genealogy and History of Popular Music Genres

Musicmap provides the ultimate genealogy of all popular music genres and combines any information regarding music genres, such as their relations, sociology, history and music examples, in one dynamic map, serving as both an educational tool and a framework for music databases.

musicmap.info

 

[EJ3]

That like classical and opera ?

I have actually heard ('some') classical live that Liked, I can't say that about Opera (Dead or Alive).

 

[Chrispy]

I have actually heard ('some') classical live that Liked, I can't say that about Opera (Dead or Alive).

Yeah more the way I roll on these.

 

[pablolie]

I have actually heard ('some') classical live that Liked, I can't say that about Opera (Dead or Alive).

Opera has some cool overtures. Not a fan of the singing part myself.

 

[EJ3]

Opera has some cool overtures. Not a fan of the singing part myself.

If the singing was left out, it's possible that some infantismal amount of opera would be tolerable.

 

[Soandso]

Back in 1946 the jazz dance performer R. Pryor Dodge wrote in the music magazine ‘The Record Changer’ the following: “The essential element in jazz … the melodic line … [has] … an existence and development of it’s own quite apart from the tone or texture qualities … enthusiasts are attracted to jazz for various reasons. Some are highly sensitive to intonation, others to rhythm and playing style. I believe the greatest musical significance is to be found in the musical line.”

As for “… the aesthetic (melodic line) and the sensuous (tone) in music let us investigate which of these aspects we like most in jazz …. [T]he sensuous quality can exist by itself … however, the sensuous is never isolated as we always have some tune, however simple and short, to carry it along. [W]hen thinking of the aesthetic or melodic line we always have whatever sensuousness an instrument has itself …. Our musical appetite is quickly appeased at any one hearing [by sensuousness]… pleasure is static because we have no … expectancy … no leading into something else.“

”The aesthetic of a composition, when we become familiar with it, takes on a shape that unfolds … the fulfillment of anticipation … gives us our greatest delight. To be held in that position for some time makes for an engrossing experience … [t]he longer we are held the more memorable the experienc…. In jazz the motor action of the strong beat and rhythmic suspension is physically so exhilarating that when combined with the tone quality a minimum of aesthetic [melodic line] is needed.“

Pryor Dodge in that same year (1946) also discussed jazz improvisation in the English music magazine ‘Jazz Forum’ writing: “To take content from a tune and still not explicitly state the tune in any part of it’s variation the improviser must have the tune safely buried in a substratum of consciousness … the improviser can sustain two voices running through his head. It is not counterpoint … [it’s] … a situation where the theme, matrix to the variation, is playing the part of the inner voice, the audible version being the newly created variation.… [t]he true improviser is not merely releasing a perfect obbligato for the tune in his head … he is creating a new derivation which will be heard alone, will have to stand by itself…’’

” It is the comprehension of the place of harmony plus the maintenance of the intact unity of the tune that distinguishes a great improviser... the [weak device] of circling around a succession of tuneful single notes with runs and rhythms does not vary the tune. [A] simple[r] way of improvisation consist in forgetting the tune and improvising on the harmony as carried in the head or sustained by the orchestra … but lack of a cementing continuity of melodic thought keeps such improvisations from holding together. Unless the improviser can, on the moment, create a new unity of tune we get much choppy activity - and little musical material.”

EDIT: pardon this comment‘s text shifting to italics; it is unintentional and just an artifact of no significance.

 

[Ambient384]

Because Jazz was the heaviest genre before Extreme Metal & Noise/electronic showed up in the early 90s?.