How did I become a jazz snob?

[Guy Berger]

I still listen to rock occasionally, and like a lot of it (mostly pre-'75), but it doesn't spend much time on my MP3 player and I haven't bought a pop/rock CD in over two years.

Guy

[robviti]

how many of us were snobs to begin with, and only later found jazz?

[sidewinder]

I put my own case down to adverse reactions to the airwave bombardment 24/7 back in the day by The Osmonds, Bay City Rollers, David Cassidy, Mud, Slade, Sweet, Showadywaddy etc..

[Eric]

I was a jazz snob for maybe 15 years and then in the last 6 or 7, started listening to rock again. Generally speaking, these dates correspond to the years I was married (the first 15) and then free (the rock resurgence era). It has been a blast to get back to the music of my youth (mid-70s schlock, and then punk/new wave) and discover some great new stuff along the way. My listening today is 50/50, with no discernable pattern whatsoever!

[Dan Gould]

I still listen to rock occasionally, and like a lot of it (mostly pre-'75), but it doesn't spend much time on my MP3 player and I haven't bought a pop/rock CD in over two years.

Guy

You're not a jazz snob, you're a jazz listener.

You're only a snob like me if you look down on people who listen to crap.

You're also a jazz snob if you especially look down on anyone who says they are a jazz fan and then lists Najee and Boney James as their favorites.

[JSngry]

How did I become a jazz snob?

I still listen to rock occasionally, and like a lot of it (mostly pre-'75), but it doesn't spend much time on my MP3 player and I haven't bought a pop/rock CD in over two years.

Guy

If the majority of your jazz listening conforms to the time frame of that of your pop/rock, you're not becoming a jazz snob, you're becoming an old fart.

Not that there's a helluva lot of difference...

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

What is a jazz snob and how do I know I'm shakin' it?

MG

[Ed S]

The term that I use for jazz snob is jazzhole. Sort of a play on a-hole.

Anyway, I was a jazzhole until about 5 years ago. I was pretty much a hard bop jazzhole and reformed fusionhead. I think I started to change when I started to listen to different styles of jazz - particularly older stuff and the Rare Groove material. The Rare Grooves particularly sent me down a path to more soul and funk. My kids getting older and wanting to listen to rock helped me rediscover some of that stuff plus explore some new acts. I even took my older guy to see U2 for his 11th birthday. Have to say it was one of the best concerts I ever saw. I'm really digging the blues these days as well.

I'll tell you one thing, not being a jazzhole really helped with the dating scene as well. My girlfriend likes jazz, but loves blues and popular music - especially the Canadian rock scene.

One thing I have to say is that I'm having a lot of fun listening to a wider variety of music.

It's all good.

[jazzbo]

Ed, I like that term, "jazzhole." Wow. I might be one.

I'm actually the last few years progressively listening to jazz less and less and getting into a blend of other tings. The Dead were helping there. yourmusic helped, because it made it affordable. And Monday Michiru is helping me to regroup and rethink. The great thing is when I do slip back into a jazz mode, especially of the old giants that I grew up on jazzsise, I am deeply into it with a new joy.

[John L]

Ed, I like that term, "jazzhole." Wow. I might be one.

At least you're not a "reformed fusionhead." Are you, Lon?

Edited August 7, 2006 by John L

[jazzbo]

Whew. NO. I never reformed from my electric Miles days! I'm still in 'em.

[Hot Ptah]

I was a jazzhole for several years. I once told someone who was listening to Lou Reed's "Coney Island Baby" that they were a disgusting person for listening to it, instead of jazz. I scorned virtually all rock.

Somewhere along the line I changed and now listen to almost everything. I don't care for certain artists or albums, as a matter of personal taste, but I do not put anything down because it is of a certain genre of music. I listen to more jazz than anything else, but also listen to classical, country, folk, blues, old rock, new rock (mostly with my children, I must admit), soul, reggae, and other musical genres.

Like someone else just said--"it's all good". Well, at least all of it can be good.

I wonder if the initial effort required to become a true jazz lover in our society, which often involves a conversion aspect and a period of very intense listening and reading about jazz without much peer support, can tend to create a person who is, at least for a time, a zealot. I wonder if the same thing is known to happen in religious conversion situations.

Edited August 7, 2006 by Hot Ptah

[JohnS]

I guess I'm a jazzhole, have been for forty years - and proud of it, too late too change now.

[RDK]

I dunno. Is it really being a "jazz snob" to think that all other forms of music are inferior and that anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant ass?

[Noj]

I knew it, I'm surrounded by jazzholes!

[Tim McG]

A Jazz snob is somebody like the late Leonard Feather.

If you didn't automatically accept everything he wrote in his column, he wanted nothing to do with you.

That, my friends, is a Jazz snob.

[Dan Gould]

The term that I use for jazz snob is jazzhole. Sort of a play on a-hole.

Yeah, but I got spam from Jazzhole Records today. They seem to have a different idea about what it means.

[Guy Berger]

How did I become a jazz snob?

I still listen to rock occasionally, and like a lot of it (mostly pre-'75), but it doesn't spend much time on my MP3 player and I haven't bought a pop/rock CD in over two years.

Guy

If the majority of your jazz listening conforms to the time frame of that of your pop/rock, you're not becoming a jazz snob, you're becoming an old fart.

Not that there's a helluva lot of difference...

Jeez, an old fart at 28!

As far as time frame, I listen to a fair amount of post-'75 jazz though the majority of it is in the time frame specified.

Dan Gould's suggestion distinguishing "jazz snobs" and "jazz listeners". It's just that I was listening to a band that a friend likes (Danielson -- the band's name, not the friend's) and thought, this isn't bad, but it isn't jazz and I'm not going to spend time/money investigating it further.

[Free For All]

I was listening to a band that a friend likes (Danielson -- the band's name, not the friend's) and thought, this isn't bad, but it isn't jazz and I'm not going to spend time/money investigating it further.

I listen to a lot of types of music and always try to keep an open mind, and will investigate it further if it contains some of the elements I look for in any type of music, such as interesting melody, harmony and rhythm. Now my criteria for what is "interesting" is based primarily on my experience listening to jazz, so I tend to be attracted to music that contains at least one of those three elements. If all three are present, so much the better, but sometimes the existence of one on its own can be sufficient to keep me interested. If there is some effort at breaking free from formula, or a strong groove, or a harmonic progression that breaks out of the usual I-IV-V patterns, or an interesting melody that is rendered with at least a minimal level of skill and sincerity, well, those things usually get my attention. I guess the point is that I tend to focus more on the instrumental aspects than the lyrics. But that's me.

So I don't think of myself as a jazz snob, but I've listened to a lot of music (ATTENTIVELY) in my life and I think I'm entitled to be selective. That being said, I never want to overlook something because I'm too locked in to my preferences. Playing music requires constant growth, and I think listening and appreciating music also requires a mind that's open at least to the potential for change.

I'm a discerning listener inasmuch as I know what pleases and interests me, but using the term "snob" implies a sense of being close-minded, which to me is the worst thing that can happen to a music fan (or musician, for that matter).

Edited August 9, 2006 by Free For All

[take5]

I make no apologies of being a former rocker who has become a jazz fan and prefers it over rock. I do see it as "superior."

Ironically, though, this has given me a greater appreciation for some rock music. I got into jazz because I was seeking a higher quality of musicianship, and when rock tries it, it usually sounds sillly (prog?). So now I get my swing and fancy playing from jazz, and my aggressive rebellion fun stuff from rock. I used to hate punk and dismissed the rock 'n' roll originators of the 50s, but now I love it, because it's rock 'n' roll at its most natural- loud, amateur, and fun.

So I have a handful of rock bands I really love (Pearl Jam, King's X, Marillion, Tool), a couple of CDs for nostalgia but that I also consider good musically (Alice in Chains, Soundgarden), and a bunch of comps (Rhino- various Nuggets, etc).

I've also shifted more to R&B/soul for my pop music listening, also inspired by jazz. The syncopated shuffle tempos are simply more pleasing to me than rock's backbeat.

Jazz is just the shit, anyway- I call it the "perfect" music because it has the coolest beat, it swings, it has improvisation as well as composition and some cool songs. It explores harmony almost as thoroughly as classical music in its own way, but it's also fun and catchy and great to dance to sometimes.

I've also adapted a bit of a purist mentality, though know saying that doesn't make my hip in most circles and casts me in Stanley Crouch's shadow. But I can't help it, I know what I feel from music, and shit like white people coppin' on some f-ed up version of "the blues" or crapping around with synths, drum machines and cloying hippy chick vocals and calling it "jazz fusion" just comes off as some corny-ass jive crud, and I'd rather listen to the real thing.