Sign in to follow this  
slaytonf

Reasons why jazz is better than movies.

70 posts in this topic

When you get a bunch of great jazz musicians together, you know you will get great music.  When you get a bunch of great moviemakers together, you don't necessarily get a great movie.

While doing something else, you can get more out of listening to jazz than by just sitting and listening.  To get the most out of a movie, you need to pay attention to it.

It does not cost $150 million to make a jazz record.

More people like jazz than like movies.  Ok, that may not be true, but I like the way it sounds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:huh: This sounds like devil's arithmetic to me. I mean, even if just 1 or 2 of these rather strange points could be agreed with, it wouldn't even be worth drawing a distinction between the two art forms.

The chief thing to state is that they're both American contributions to world culture. U! S! A! USA, baby! Foistest and bestest wit de mostest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, slaytonf said:

When you get a bunch of great jazz musicians together, you know you will get great music.  When you get a bunch of great moviemakers together, you don't necessarily get a great movie.

While doing something else, you can get more out of listening to jazz than by just sitting and listening.  To get the most out of a movie, you need to pay attention to it.

It does not cost $150 million to make a jazz record.

More people like jazz than like movies.  Ok, that may not be true, but I like the way it sounds.

As Louis said "If ya have to ask what Jazz is, you'll never understand" or something like that. Mystical, and moving from way back with King Oliver, through the Fletcher Henderson times, even restrictive Paul Whiteman songs could move one with jazz solos by Bix and Tram, and films with jazz personnel from the '30's and '40's are still great to see or any of those soundies. The two top movies about jazz figures I recall are Bird and Let's Get Lost, though the latter was more of a documentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

:huh: This sounds like devil's arithmetic to me. I mean, even if just 1 or 2 of these rather strange points could be agreed with, it wouldn't even be worth drawing a distinction between the two art forms.

The chief thing to state is that they're both American contributions to world culture. U! S! A! USA, baby! Foistest and bestest wit de mostest!

You sound like Perle Mesta, Sgt. Markoff with that "mostest" bit. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

:huh: This sounds like devil's arithmetic to me. I mean, even if just 1 or 2 of these rather strange points could be agreed with, it wouldn't even be worth drawing a distinction between the two art forms.

The chief thing to state is that they're both American contributions to world culture. U! S! A! USA, baby! Foistest and bestest wit de mostest!

The reasoning's clear and simple.  Something that can be counted on to be good is better than something that can't.  Something that you can multi-task with is better than something you can't.  Something that can be done for less than $150 million is better than something that can't.  And something that is liked more is better than something that is liked less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, slaytonf said:

When you get a bunch of great jazz musicians together, you know you will get great music.  When you get a bunch of great moviemakers together, you don't necessarily get a great movie.

While doing something else, you can get more out of listening to jazz than by just sitting and listening.  To get the most out of a movie, you need to pay attention to it.

It does not cost $150 million to make a jazz record.

And only a few movie directors ever died of drug overdoses.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

The reasoning's clear and simple.  Something that can be counted on to be good is better than something that can't.  Something that you can multi-task with is better than something you can't.  Something that can be done for less than $150 million is better than something that can't.  And something that is liked more is better than something that is liked less.

  1. I've seen more movies that I enjoyed than have heard jazz that I've enjoyed.
  2. If you can multi-task, then it's just background noise.
  3. I have yet to spend $150 million watching a movie. I don't make movies or jazz music. I consume them. Therein lies the fallacy of this point as it pertains to my experience.
  4. I like movies more than I like jazz music.

Those are my responses to your 4 clear and simple reasons. They are in no way meant to disparage those who think or feel differently, particularly jazz aficionados.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually a jazz fan but, I have to say:

  1. A bad movie is much more fun than bad jazz
  2. Free movies are much easier to understand than free jazz
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:
  1. I've seen more movies that I enjoyed than have heard jazz that I've enjoyed.
  2. If you can multi-task, then it's just background noise.
  3. I have yet to spend $150 million watching a movie. I don't make movies or jazz music. I consume them. Therein lies the fallacy of this point as it pertains to my experience.
  4. I like movies more than I like jazz music.

Those are my responses to your 4 clear and simple reasons. They are in no way meant to disparage those who think or feel differently, particularly jazz aficionados.

Whether you like any piece of jazz music has no bearing on whether it is great.

Listening to jazz while performing other tasks enhances the appreciation of the music and the performance of the task.  Performing a task, especially a physical one associates the music with it and embeds it in the memory better than simply sitting and listening.

I am not talking about your experience, but rather the relative value of jazz to movies.  The underlying rationale is that a good created for less money is better than a good created for more.

I have admitted the possibility there are more people who like movies than who like jazz.  However, I have not entirely conceded the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, GGGGerald said:

I'm actually a jazz fan but, I have to say:

  1. A bad movie is much more fun than bad jazz
  2. Free movies are much easier to understand than free jazz

To paraphrase Duke Ellington, there are only two kinds of music, good--and the other kind.  And that isn't music.  As for movies, if there is any fun in it, it can't be all bad.

I'm trying to think of something pithy in response to your second statement, but it's late and my brain is tired.  It is funny, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooo, good point of congruence.  I suppose then, the movie would be better than itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread reminded me of a great Dave Brubeck tribute several years ago on TCM. TCM broadcast a movie I thought was called "Brubeck on Brubeck" that was fantastic.

I was sorry I didn't record it because I haven't been able to find it anywhere. All I can find is the excellent TV show JAZZ CASUAL with Brubeck as guest, in which he explains the structural design of his compositions combining math & expression.

I think "free form" music is best appreciated by those who actually play music. And a true audiophile WILL just sit and listen to recordings, keeping the experience in the foreground.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 7:08 AM, slaytonf said:

When you get a bunch of great jazz musicians together, you know you will get great music.  When you get a bunch of great moviemakers together, you don't necessarily get a great movie.

 

Can you cite any particular movie that might have created this opinion?  :blink:

Are you saying for example( or in actuality) that you didn't like  TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE ?  :o

But true too;  When you get a bunch of great jazz musicians together, you DO get THIS!  ;) 

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been to a couple of jazz bars and enjoyed the experience. The customers or "aficionados" there were civilized. No sign of the kinds of jerks that can be found elsewhere.

I don't pretend to understand jazz, just respond to it.

Having said that, good, bad (well, maybe not bad so much) or indifferent, my love is for the movies. Jazz ranks far behind them for me. In fact, there's other music I will pick over jazz anytime (some classical, Gershwin or some easy listening; give me Sinatra singing a romantic ballad to the accompanying sounds of Nelson Riddle).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, slaytonf said:

Whether you like any piece of jazz music has no bearing on whether it is great.

Listening to jazz while performing other tasks enhances the appreciation of the music and the performance of the task.  Performing a task, especially a physical one associates the music with it and embeds it in the memory better than simply sitting and listening.

I am not talking about your experience, but rather the relative value of jazz to movies.  The underlying rationale is that a good created for less money is better than a good created for more.

I have admitted the possibility there are more people who like movies than who like jazz.  However, I have not entirely conceded the point.

Jazz has the fewest number of listeners,  as well as 'purchased' listening of any musical genre.   E.g. a common discussion at jazz forums is 'why is jazz dead'.     I believe there are far more people that like movies than who like jazz.   Like a ratio of 1,000 to 1.     E.g. almost everyone see movies.   It is my understanding less than 2% of Americans listen to jazz willingly (i.e.  make a decision to play and listen to a jazz song).

Most of the jazz musicians at these jazz forums can't get gigs here in the USA but can in the EU, Japan and Hong Kong.

I do agree that overall there are less poorly created jazz albums there there are movies (on a percentage basis).    This is because those making jazz albums are mostly the pros-of-the-pros.    E.g. you won't find an album by me!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

. . . It is my understanding less than 2% of Americans listen to jazz willingly (i.e.  make a decision to play and listen to a jazz song). . . .

 

 

 

 

Wow, that's a small percentage, especially considering all the styles of jazz that are out there. I've always enjoyed jazz, and I am not a musician. I didn't realize I had so little company stateside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

( For the sake of this argument, let's say smooth jazz is jazz)

In the early 2000's, they came up with a device that can determine which station a driver is listening to simply by aiming this device at the car. And they felt this would give a more accurate reading on how popular each station is for rating purposes. For example: More men who claim to listen to hard rock, in reality listen more to soft rock.

Well, at first they found that smooth jazz scored very poorly. So these radio consultants advised eliminating smooth jazz as soon as possible. Especially as the 2008 crash hit radio hard.

Now, come to find out the readings were all wrong! It seems the fact that jazz tunes tend to use softer tones, the device wasn't able to read their signals. So even if drivers were tuned to a smooth jazz station, it wouldn't get a reading.

So, in actuality there are lots of jazz fans. Its just the conglomerates who refuse to use the jazz format for radio. And most people still listen to the radio for music. And without any exposure, its difficult to expand the base of jazz fans. They can't enjoy what they don't hear and not know about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GGGGerald said:

( For the sake of this argument, let's say smooth jazz is jazz)

In the early 2000's, they came up with a device that can determine which station a driver is listening to simply by aiming this device at the car. And they felt this would give a more accurate reading on how popular each station is for rating purposes. For example: More men who claim to listen to hard rock, in reality listen more to soft rock.

Well, at first they found that smooth jazz scored very poorly. So these radio consultants advised eliminating smooth jazz as soon as possible. Especially as the 2008 crash hit radio hard.

Now, come to find out the readings were all wrong! It seems the fact that jazz tunes tend to use softer tones, the device wasn't able to read their signals. So even if drivers were tuned to a smooth jazz station, it wouldn't get a reading.

So, in actuality there are lots of jazz fans. Its just the conglomerates who refuse to use the jazz format for radio. And most people still listen to the radio for music. And without any exposure, its difficult to expand the base of jazz fans. They can't enjoy what they don't hear and not know about.

Well at least you said "For the sake of this argument, let's say smooth jazz is jazz" because otherwise there would be an argument (ha ha).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 7:08 AM, slaytonf said:

When you get a bunch of great jazz musicians together, you know you will get great music.  When you get a bunch of great moviemakers together, you don't necessarily get a great movie.

While doing something else, you can get more out of listening to jazz than by just sitting and listening.  To get the most out of a movie, you need to pay attention to it.

It does not cost $150 million to make a jazz record.

More people like jazz than like movies.  Ok, that may not be true, but I like the way it sounds.

Ok, but I think what you're really saying is, music is better than movies. All these things you say about Jazz, you could substitute almost any kind of music  (especially classical). 

Not that I have a problem with jazz, I love it, and agree with all those things you say about it. But, again, those things apply not just to jazz, but to just about any kind of music.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 7:08 AM, slaytonf said:

When you get a bunch of great jazz musicians together, you know you will get great music.  When you get a bunch of great moviemakers together, you don't necessarily get a great movie.

While doing something else, you can get more out of listening to jazz than by just sitting and listening.  To get the most out of a movie, you need to pay attention to it.

It does not cost $150 million to make a jazz record.

More people like jazz than like movies.  Ok, that may not be true, but I like the way it sounds.

Actually, I should make it clear: I agree with the good things you say about jazz music; I do not agree with the negative comparison you make of jazz to movies.

Aside from anything else, I'm sorry, slayton, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it's a silly comparison. There is no need to compare the two, it's the old apples and oranges thing.

I love them both. I love music, and I love movies. I don't think in terms of comparing one to the other and deciding one is better than the other, because they are both so different. Completely different experiences, different art forms, different entertainment forms. Both really great. And fortunately, since they are completely different types of art and entertainment, there is no need to compare them.*

*edit: lazy writing: I feel like I used the word "compare" about ten times in this post. My excuse is, it's about -15 degrees C. where I live, and my brain is frozen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

"There's more old drunks, than there are old doctors..." :rolleyes:

Has anyone ever counted them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Jazz has the fewest number of listeners,  as well as 'purchased' listening of any musical genre.   E.g. a common discussion at jazz forums is 'why is jazz dead'.     I believe there are far more people that like movies than who like jazz.   Like a ratio of 1,000 to 1.     E.g. almost everyone see movies.   It is my understanding less than 2% of Americans listen to jazz willingly (i.e.  make a decision to play and listen to a jazz song).

Most of the jazz musicians at these jazz forums can't get gigs here in the USA but can in the EU, Japan and Hong Kong.

Sooo, there's a well of jazz listeners around the world.  This bears investigating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GGGGerald said:

( For the sake of this argument, let's say smooth jazz is jazz)

In the early 2000's, they came up with a device that can determine which station a driver is listening to simply by aiming this device at the car. And they felt this would give a more accurate reading on how popular each station is for rating purposes. For example: More men who claim to listen to hard rock, in reality listen more to soft rock.

Well, at first they found that smooth jazz scored very poorly. So these radio consultants advised eliminating smooth jazz as soon as possible. Especially as the 2008 crash hit radio hard.

Now, come to find out the readings were all wrong! It seems the fact that jazz tunes tend to use softer tones, the device wasn't able to read their signals. So even if drivers were tuned to a smooth jazz station, it wouldn't get a reading.

So, in actuality there are lots of jazz fans. Its just the conglomerates who refuse to use the jazz format for radio. And most people still listen to the radio for music. And without any exposure, its difficult to expand the base of jazz fans. They can't enjoy what they don't hear and not know about.

That sounds. . . . .creepy.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us