Rock vs. Jazz

[papsrus]

Salon article compares rock and jazz in light of Hancock's grammy for "Joni Letters," (a jazz album that pays tribute to a rock icon) and ponders (at some length) the differences in the two musics. Frustratingly, he never really gets around to discussing the album that inspired the article in the first place. Nonetheless ...

Here's the link.

[Free For All]

Rock vs. Jazz

I'll take "Rock" and the points.

[papsrus]

Maybe rock, paper, scissors would have been a better thread idea.

[wordsandsounds]

Maybe rock, paper, scissors would have been a better thread idea.

Askew from this, but related... I thought this Ben Ratliff piece is spot on concerning both Hancock and Getz and their grammy winning albums based on other's music... Article here via NYTimes.

[jimi089]

I think instead of asking whether these two genres have anything to offer each other, the question should be whether our concept of genres has anything to offer us as listeners and appreciators of music.

[jazzypaul]

I think instead of asking whether these two genres have anything to offer each other, the question should be whether our concept of genres has anything to offer us as listeners and appreciators of music.

well, it's a quick label to steer someone in the right direction. As in, I'm not a fan of death metal, so if someone calls their band a death metal band, I'm not going to run out to go check them out.

Insofar as a hard and steady rule of thumb, though, I'd be apt to agree.

[zen archer]

"Compared to the supernova Rimbaud rush of Hendrix, the nasty sneering lust of the Stones or the miraculously protean Beatles, jazz felt like yesterday's drug, one that might be able to get me high if I knew the password, but whose shelf life might have permanently expired."

I think Rocks shelf life is on life support at this point in time....

[kenny weir]

I think Rocks shelf life is on life support at this point in time....

I think it's a matter of perspective ...

From the perspective of the mainstream, Grammys and other awards, commercial radio and TV, and so on - I'd say rock AND jazz both and lots more besides are rotting corpses.

But I don't take any more than passing notice of that stuff, and certainly don't base my buying and/or listening on it ... so far as I'm concerned music - on the margins, in the fringes, underground, cyber-wise, whatever you want to call it - is thriving. It's music - how could it not be, somewhere, somehow?

We are very fortunate to be able to make the decision to completely opt out of all that BS.

Making a comparison between rock and jazz from that perspective seems to to be quite surreal.

[Chuck Nessa]

Why is there a "fight"? Different musics with different ambitions. Everything else is marketing.

[Guest Bill Barton]

Why is there a "fight"? Different musics with different ambitions. Everything else is marketing.

Well said, Chuck!

And - just to confuse matters - "...a jazz album that pays tribute to a rock icon..." If we're so hooked on labeling music as part of this or part of that, how is Joni Mitchell in any way, shape or form a "rock icon?"

[papsrus]

Why is there a "fight"? Different musics with different ambitions. Everything else is marketing.

Well said, Chuck!

And - just to confuse matters - "...a jazz album that pays tribute to a rock icon..." If we're so hooked on labeling music as part of this or part of that, how is Joni Mitchell in any way, shape or form a "rock icon?"

Well, yeah ... I felt a little queezy typing that. She's not a rock musician, except in the broadest sense, which sort of destroys the whole premise of the article. Folk-rock? I agree that labeling music is an exercise in futility, and I very much like kenny weir's thought that some of the most interesting music takes place on the fringes. ... Ultimately, the article fails, beyond offering some of the author's musings about growing up. But hey, at least Hancock's award has people talking about jazz a bit, which I like.

[Guest Bill Barton]

Or, maybe, all of the most interesting music takes place on the fringes?

And, yes, I agree that it is good to see and read some mainstream press and hear a little on-the-street talk regarding Hancock's win.

[7/4]

If we're so hooked on labeling music as part of this or part of that, how is Joni Mitchell in any way, shape or form a "rock icon?"

All her years in Led Zeppelin, of course.

[Chuck Nessa]

If we're so hooked on labeling music as part of this or part of that, how is Joni Mitchell in any way, shape or form a "rock icon?"

All her years in Led Zeppelin, of course.

Might it have been the other way around?

[7/4]

If we're so hooked on labeling music as part of this or part of that, how is Joni Mitchell in any way, shape or form a "rock icon?"

All her years in Led Zeppelin, of course.

Might it have been the other way around?

If it wasn't them, it was Jaco.

[jimi089]

Here's one thing rock could certainly learn from jazz: how to age gracefully. Rock tends to reward youthful exuberance, but rock musicians don't age well generally or creatively. Many jazz musicians did some hot stuff while young but still managed to age like fine wine.

[Randy Twizzle]

Aging is frowned at in rock. How many times have you read a description of a performer as "an aging rock star" This usually means "ignore this pathetic old man/woman".

[WorldB3]

re: the two comments above. I think it depends. Obviously Van Halen (just one example) hasn't aged well. I guess if you were just known for being a "rock band" you are stuck. Singer songwriters get off a little easier. His voice aside Dylan has put out three great records in a row and his live shows are for the most part very good not to mention he has turned in a hell of a guitar player that takes most of the leads in a band that is very improvisational in their interpretations of his old songs.

Nick Lowe and Richard Thompson have both aged gracefully and are putting out quality stuff.

There also seems to be a bit of ageism in rock or at least with within indie rock. If you not under 30, damaged and putting out angular and sardonic music they tend to toss the artist aside once they mature. For example see the hatred towards Cat Power now that she is sober and putting out quality records with soul musicians from Stax, also including Spooner Oldham. There is also backlash towards Iron and Wine for putting out a album with great production instead of singing solo into a four track.

I just don't get it sometimes, it seems they relate more to the image than the art.

Edited February 20, 2008 by WorldB3

[take5]

Rock 'n' roll is a youth music. Yes, that is extremely vague, but for whom were those Little Richard and Check Berry records made? For teenagers to dance around to.

The real difference between experiencing rock and jazz (and we're talking about modern jazz, the stuff made while rock has been around, not the popular swing jazz that was supplanted by rock in youth culture) is that one is centered around the song, while the other is centered around the playing.

That's why, say, people raised on rock and pop usually can't get into jazz- not only is there no singing, but they here these guys just playing and playing and, like, what's the point? That's why they call it "background music." And jazz fans often see rock as too simple and unrewarding because they're not playing anything interesting to them and it's repetitive.

Square pegs and round holes, etc.

[A Lark Ascending]

I recall a lovely Roy Haynes comment from some years back. He was saying how he loved both - but that rock was like jumping on the spot where as jazz was like running.

I like that - I don't see any need for a versus.

[Guest bluenote82]

Yeah, how about a Chicago Blues Vs. Delta Blues thread? That would be hysterical.

Apples and oranges, bananas and grapes....none is better than the other. It's just about personal preference.

Of course, I choose jazz any day of the week, but that's my preference.

Edited February 28, 2008 by bluenote82