Jazz that Sucks

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.

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

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.
Reviews...

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....

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

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....

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...

My Last.fm

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

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.

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?

Edited by js - 05 Dec 2018 at 3:59am