Is jazz overly intellectualized?

[Kalo]

Define "over".

Mike

←

No - wait - define "jazz".

Mike

←

Hold on - define "is".

Mike

←

[Kalo]

This question is so broad that it's like a Rorscach blot.

Jazz is no longer a popular music, even though it is broadly listened to. That implies that it has become almost exclusively an intellectual music. Whether over- or under- is a matter of player, critic, or individual listener.

But nowadays even the latest rap record or Brittney Spears tune is automatically over-intellectualized by some critic or listener. Meanwhile, a five-year-old is hearing Sonny Rollins or Bubber Miley at this very moment... and dancing!

Edited August 23, 2005 by Kalo

[Ed S]

I am not referring to anyone specific that over-intellectualizes, but interested if some felt there is too much emphasis these days on rationalization of content, format etc. versus whether the music is simply good or not good depending on what the listener is hearing and feeling.

←

Like I said above - n the last few years, I have been able to divide jazz into two main categories - stuff I like and stuff I don't like.

I just got sick and tired of listening to something and analyzing it as to who is playing, what influences do I hear, is it a rip off or too derivative, is it too poppish or to danceable, does it groove enough or too much etc etc etc. As an entrant into jazz in the fusion focused 70s, I dig a lot of the electronic stuff I hear by Truffaz, Hargrove, Stefon Harris. I'm so sick of having the stuff compared to Miles I think I'm gonna I don't care - it grooves and it please me so I listen to it. Same with the early 70s BN stuff, Pat Metheny, John Scofield and a lot more guys who on various boards over the years have been analyzed to death over whether they're jazz or not or creative or not or their technique is good or not. I've been able to enjoy awhole lot more music than I ever thought possible - yes even the 70s Donald Byrds. I dig 'em for what they are even though when they came out when I was a fusion head, I thought he was the biggest sellout going. Now I listen to them and think of one thing - they're fun. Sometimes that's enough.

[Jazzmoose]

Twinkies are a delicacy for some folks and junk food for others.

←

Dr. Egon Spengler: Well, let's say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area. Based on this morning's reading, it would be a Twinkie thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.

Winston Zeddemore: That's a big Twinkie.

←

I dunno about overintellectualized; all I can say is I've heard shit that would turn you white!

[Kalo]

Leave it to the 'moose to put it all in perspective.

edited for incoherence.

Edited August 23, 2005 by Kalo

[jlhoots]

It depends on what the meaning of is is.

Someone famous once said that.

[Kalo]

It depends on what the meaning of is is.

Someone famous once said that.

←

Wittgenstein?

[Rosco]

It depends on what the meaning of is is.

Someone famous once said that.

←

Wittgenstein?

←

Close. But no... er... cigar.

[JSngry]

I think that the appreciation of the music has frequently become overintellectualized in some quarters. I'm all for thoughtful and exploratory analysis, but only after you can spontaneously let out a good loud whoop (and I mean a GOOD whoop, not some corny ass approximation of what you think one ought to sund like) when the shit gets good to ya'.

But that's just me.

[Claude]

It depends on what the meaning of is is.

Someone famous once said that.

←

Wittgenstein?

←

Close. But no... er... cigar.

←

Bill Clinton?

[rostasi]

But that's just me.

That's why I love you MAN!

Whoops, hollers, and all!

[Dr. Rat]

And don't ferget to request Freebird.

[JSngry]

Q.E.D.

[John L]

I think that the tendency toward overintellectualization in jazz derives in essence from the fascination with the tangential underworld, the "Parkerisms" and their offshoots, so to speak, that have so haunted the naive realism paradigm that had become all but second nature to the true forefathers of the music.

[Free For All]

I think that the tendency toward overintellectualization in jazz derives in essence from the fascination with the tangential underworld, the "Parkerisms" and their offshoots, so to speak, that have so haunted the naive realism paradigm that had become all but second nature to the true forefathers of the music.

←

I just like the pretty colors.

[clifford_thornton]

To answer the original question, I'd say no.

But then, in popular consciousness, it's often portrayed as either dinner-music or the area of effete intellectual affect.

So...

Shit!

[Dr. Rat]

I think the answer is "It depends."

Depends on what purpose or audience jazz would be OVERintellectualized in regard to. For the typical musical buyer? Yes, probably a lot of jazz is too sophisticated for those folks.

For me? Yes, some jazz is too "intellectualized" for me if by that you mean in the musicians' shop talk sense. There seems to be a fair deal of "music for musicians" out there. But is that a sin? No, there's at least as many musicians out there as there are ex-grad student rat enthusiasts who like songs about food. At least last I checked.

Too sophisticated to be a popular music. Yes, probably, but we passed that gate about 50 years ago.

Too sophisticated to survive in the present form (supported by school programs, artistic institutions, grants, etc., etc.)? Maybe.

--eric

[John L]

I think that the tendency toward overintellectualization in jazz derives in essence from the fascination with the tangential underworld, the "Parkerisms" and their offshoots, so to speak, that have so haunted the naive realism paradigm that had become all but second nature to the true forefathers of the music.

←

I just like the pretty colors.

←

Yea, that's what I meant. The colors. Yea...

[Kalo]

I'd submit this thread as evidence that jazz is, just maybe, underintellectualized...

Or would I?

[Kalo]

way to commit myself...

[Spontooneous]

So how 'bout that Dale Earnhardt Jr.?

[BERIGAN]

It depends on what the meaning of is is.

Someone famous once said that.

←

Yeah, Mike Fitzgerald a few posts back!

[Jazzmoose]

I think that the tendency toward overintellectualization in jazz derives in essence from the fascination with the tangential underworld, the "Parkerisms" and their offshoots, so to speak, that have so haunted the naive realism paradigm that had become all but second nature to the true forefathers of the music.

←

Well, yeah; that's what I meant to say...

[montg]

at the risk of overintellectualizing, here's a quote from one of my all time favorite artists:

“Art never responds to the wish to make it democratic; it is not for everybody; it is only for those who are willing to undergo the effort needed to understand it.”

-Flannery O'Connor

I don't believe she's taking a swipe at the illiterate audience; instead I think the 'effort' required from the audience is found primarily in the heart. One thing jazz does, as Blakey said, is wipe the dust away--there's a spiritual/enlightening element to jazz (to all art)...it's an ongoing effort to meet the art in this place. Unfortunately, crass commercialism characterizes a lof of the 'music' industry and so this aspect of art tends to be obscured.