Printed From: JazzMusicArchives.com
Category: Jazz Music Lounges
Forum Name: Jazz Music Lounge
Forum Description: General jazz music discussions (no polls)
URL: http://www.JazzMusicArchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1916 Printed Date: 06 May 2024 at 10:41am Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 10.16 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Jazz that SucksPosted By: Amilisom
Subject: Jazz that Sucks
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2012 at 9:56pm
Is it possible to really stumble across a "bad" or "poor" post-bop/cool jazz/hard bop jazz album by a famous artist?
I mean, in rock music it can easy to find a bad album by a good artist. But that bad album is usually as a result of bad composition. Since in jazz music genres like those listed above (as well as other genres) most of the emphasis is on the improvisation rather than on the composition, is it possible to find a bad jazz album by, for example, Bill Evans? I am aware that the improvisation skills of jazz musicians change over time, but a professional jazz soloist should always be able to create a, at least, decent solo. Right?
------------- "Pay no attention to what the critics say; there has never been a statue set up in honor of a critic."
-Jean Sibelius
Replies: Posted By: js
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2012 at 10:23pm
I don't know it you would call it a bad album, but since you mention Bill Evans, I'm not crazy about the albums where he duets with himself, something sounds kind of off to me.
Other than that, Bill Evans lifting the cover off of a piano is usually worth five stars.
Posted By: dreadpirateroberts
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2012 at 10:36pm
^ tough question, I don't know any albums from those genres which truly suck, but I don't think it'd be hard to find an album where the artist treads the same or similar ground as in previous albums, and one that does so in such a way that every step becomes too expected for the listener, and thus feels unoriginal and therefore could be unenjoyable.
The above is probably only true for a fan who knows a significant chunk of an artist's discography though - an album that's 'too' similar to another is only similar at first if you hear it second. Eg (Curtis Mayfield's Curtis is amazing I think, but its follow-up Roots I don't enjoy as much because it is very similar in some ways - but that doesn't mean I'd say Roots sucks however. And if I heard Roots first I may have liked it more than Curtis.)
I guess if an artist turned out an album that sounded a bit like a parody of themselves it might be rather unsuccessful and could 'suck.'
------------- We are men of action. Lies do not become us. http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/dreadpirateroberts%28member%29.aspx?reviews=all/" rel="nofollow - Reviews...
Posted By: Amilisom
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2012 at 11:43pm
So then, does this mean improvisational music cannot be rated lower than 3 stars? I could never see myself giving an album 2.5 stars simply because the artist didn't break new ground compared to previous albums.
------------- "Pay no attention to what the critics say; there has never been a statue set up in honor of a critic."
-Jean Sibelius
Posted By: js
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2012 at 11:54pm
I'm sure there are some 0.5 improvisational records out there, I'm a record collector and one part of my collection is really bad music. The worst fusion album I have is "Madagascar" by Gregory James. I was so impressed with how bad it is I have two copies now.
Posted By: dreadpirateroberts
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2012 at 12:32am
Amilisom wrote:
So then, does this mean improvisational music cannot be rated lower than 3 stars? I could never see myself giving an album 2.5 stars simply because the artist didn't break new ground compared to previous albums.
Nah, my reasoning is one possible reason only.
I'd say certainly not for failing to break new ground, but an 'artist repeating themselves' I've rated lower in the context of their whole discography.
In the end though, the review itself is much more important to me than rating itself, of course. But to get back to topic, I also think I don't own enough albums (out of hundreds) to have one that sucks though I will keep looking
------------- We are men of action. Lies do not become us. http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/dreadpirateroberts%28member%29.aspx?reviews=all/" rel="nofollow - Reviews...
Posted By: dreadpirateroberts
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2012 at 12:32am
js wrote:
I'm sure there are some 0.5 improvisational records out there, I'm a record collector and one part of my collection is really bad music. The worst fusion album I have is "Madagascar" by Gregory James. I was so impressed with how bad it is I have two copies now.
Cool, I wanna hear that one, will have a look around
------------- We are men of action. Lies do not become us. http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/dreadpirateroberts%28member%29.aspx?reviews=all/" rel="nofollow - Reviews...
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2012 at 7:24am
Well, I'm sure some of these 40's and 50's album were recorded in poor conditions, but sionce the availability of recording studios was minimal, there was probably little chance that some bad amateurs would be given the chance to record their "garage jams or rehearsals" like it is possible nowadays
And even in the case of that someone did access to a recording studio, the labels that released and distributed the albums under their name had a right of life and death over the future album's life.
Even in rock, the labels had the right to re-record the tunes of these 50's and 60's groups that couldn't possibly play correctly music... Then the mid-60's happened, and the kids refused tht studio rats play their parts all over again.
Soooo yeah, the risks of encountering a truly weak 40's & 50's album (by that decade's industry and artistical standards, of course) is relatively insignificant, that we can say it nears 0.
------------- my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2012 at 9:58am
With jazz it's hard to gauge what "sucks". Usually in Jazz, the musicians are very technically capable so usually it can't "suck" but it could maybe be boring or unoriginal. I've heard some post-bop type jazz where a guitarist was soloing for 17 minutes before letting someone else take over, or go back to the head. I'll admit, it was a little too much. It's all subjective, but some of the free-jazz from the 60s might seem.
Most jazz albums I've heard from local groups or college bands are rarely exciting, and I usually give one listen and then I'm done with it. Again, usually the players are competent, but they're not doing anything I haven't heard 1000 times before.
And then there's that stuff commonly called "smooth jazz", but I'll be the first to admit that there's occasionally good stuff there too.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: Amilisom
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2012 at 1:26pm
dreadpirateroberts wrote:
js wrote:
I'm sure there are some 0.5 improvisational records out there, I'm a record collector and one part of my collection is really bad music. The worst fusion album I have is "Madagascar" by Gregory James. I was so impressed with how bad it is I have two copies now.
Cool, I wanna hear that one, will have a look around
Wow, me too. Is it just simply because the players have no skill or is it difficult to explain in words?
------------- "Pay no attention to what the critics say; there has never been a statue set up in honor of a critic."
-Jean Sibelius
Posted By: js
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2012 at 6:17pm
^ Its on a small label out of San Francisco. the band was based in Menlo Park, so more than likely the band members work in the computer industry or scientific research. They seem to be fairly adept musicians, but their feel for rhythm and group interaction is terrible, the music is very clumsy with no groove.
Its an 80s album and the sound is that awful thin plastic early digital sound. The guitar sound is horrible. The icing on the cake is tuning problems. The flute player has a special flute that can do quarter tones, needless to say they are in well over their heads on that one. The guitar is out of tune too.
They did a second album that was an improvement, at least the tuning problems were fixed, but they still couldn't keep a beat together. I always feel a bit guilty ragging on them because they are probably nice geeky high tech types, but that one album is just awful.
Both of their albums will show up in Northern California thrift stores and used record stores. Some day i would like to make a compilation CD of the worst songs I have found while record collecting.
Posted By: Kazuhiro
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2012 at 8:47pm
I want to know the album which felt that you are bad. The sense of values that people have if preference is divided may be thereby different. In any case I did not feel charm for the side project that a musician performed. Personally.
Buckshot Lefonque
Black Dub
Strata Institute
etc....
Posted By: andyman1125
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2012 at 8:26pm
Pat Metheny's Zero Tolerance for Silence is pretty awful, and that's coming from someone who can get into avant noise jams.
-------------
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2012 at 5:49pm
Speaking of Metheny, I could never get into "Song X", and I'm a big fan of Pat Metheny, and enjoy everything else I've heard from Ornette Coleman... " rel="nofollow">
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
Posted By: idlero
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2012 at 10:48pm
^ 'Song X' is the only Metheny I really like(beside his latest release)
------------- I think the problem with a lot of the fusion music is that it's extremely predictable, it's a rock rhythm and the solos all play the same stuff and they play it over and over again ... Ken Burns
Posted By: idlero
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2012 at 10:49pm
I think there is music we like and music we don't like. Music that sucks would be music nobody likes.
------------- I think the problem with a lot of the fusion music is that it's extremely predictable, it's a rock rhythm and the solos all play the same stuff and they play it over and over again ... Ken Burns
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2012 at 4:13am
Of course there is jazz that sucks. How can any genre have perfect music? For me there's just stuff I like and stuff I don't.
-------------
Posted By: bytor2112
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2012 at 10:19pm
js wrote:
I'm sure there are some 0.5 improvisational records out there, I'm a record collector and one part of my collection is really bad music. The worst fusion album I have is "Madagascar" by Gregory James. I was so impressed with how bad it is I have two copies now.
-------------
Posted By: davidrydelnik
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2013 at 2:28am
There was a trumpet player, and I can't remember his name--but he was being played on the DirectTV jazz music station, and when I heard him, I thought he sounded TERRIBLE. It just really sounded like he didn't know how to improvise well, and his tone wasn't all to great either, and the only reason why I have any grounds to say this is because I myself am a trumpet player...otherwise I wouldn't say this. But ya know, us trumpet players have that "ego" about us.
------------- Jazz Trumpeter, Vocalist, Trombonist, Guitarist...internet marketer and fitness geek. <a href="http://davidrydelnik.com" _fcksavedurl="http://davidrydelnik.com">
Posted By: Frederic_Alderon
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2018 at 2:58pm
To start the thread out, here's exhibit 1:
Proto Cosmos by Allan Holdsworth. Now, I hope I am not the only one who says "what the is this?" to this piece of "music". Does this sound even a small bit like music to you? I mean, I guess to some musical prodigy with close to full understanding of chord theory, substitutions, scale and mode theory, the sound produced by one of the most famous Jazz Fusion guitarists of all time will make sense.
This is obviously WCR we are talking about here so I might be in the ignorant minority. But seriously, who the can appreciate this sort of music? I'm sure 99% of the population have absolutely no idea what I am talking about when I mentioned the above musical terms, and an even lower percentage can comprehend that as music.
I'm not trying to be mean to Jazz and Jazz Fusion or whatever the hell this is, since it's already got no friends anyway. I'm just trying to "understand" what's so alluring about this musical genre, one that requires a scary amount of musical education to even appreciate. I mean, do people actually treat this as music? I could pick up a ukulele (an instrument I haven't played before), bang it on my head several times and that will probably be slightly more comprehensible than this type of BS.
I am looking for constructive comments such as "well you're a retarded fuckwit who's too dumb to understand such amazing musical structures that are chaotically perfect".
I'm by no means saying ALL Jazz is like this. In fact a lot of Jazz music is freaking awesome music and popular music as a whole would not have been the same without those pieces. But of all the musical genres I do listen to, Jazz Fusion is the genre that I cannot possibly comprehend.
And finally no, this isn't about taste either, at least in the conventional sense of "u liek jazz and i think jazz sux so u sux". What I am trying to understand is how Jazz people can stand listening to this and then declare it music.
So, am I a musical bigot or is what I have shown you just bad Jazz?
Posted By: js
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2018 at 6:24pm
Your video links are not working. Post it as a cut and paste and I will show you how to make it a live link.
Amilisom wrote:
'Song X' is the only Metheny I really like(beside his latest release)
is this?" to this piece of "music". Does this sound even a small bit like music to you? I mean, I guess to some musical prodigy with close to full understanding of chord theory, substitutions, scale and mode theory, the sound produced by one of the most famous Jazz Fusion guitarists of all time will make sense.