Sgt Pepper by The Beatles. Very few good songs and a lot of boring ones. Nowhere near as good as Revolver or Abbey Road, for me.
OK Computer by Radiohead. I love Radiohead, but this album just doesn't do it for me. Subterranean Homesick Alien, Let Down, Lucky, The Tourist, No Surprises - all boring. Electioneering isn't great either. That's too many substandard tracks for a classic album. Airbag, Paranoid Android and Karma Police are great, but three songs is not enough to make up for the rest.
Bat Out of Hell. Meat Loaf. Be honest,this is mediocre US soft rock with no redeeming features. Stayed in the charts for hundreds of weeks. No idea why.
Wash your mouth out . It's a fantastic album
It's not my sort of thing at all, but it was produced by Todd Rundgren, who only agreed to produce it because he thought it was hilarious. He didn't take it seriously at all. That said he lived off that album for years.
I really want to like this record, but jazz music isn't good for my equilibrium.
Isn't good for your equilibrium? How do you mean? I'm genuinely intrigued - as a huge jazz fan and practitioner, I always wonder why people can't get into it.
I really want to like this record, but jazz music isn't good for my equilibrium.
Isn't good for your equilibrium? How do you mean? I'm genuinely intrigued - as a huge jazz fan and practitioner, I always wonder why people can't get into it.
I actually gave the record another go today, couldn't get past two minutes.
There's no melody or hooks to grasp on to. Jazz music doesn't feel like it has a structure, it's just like a jam session.
I really want to like this record, but jazz music isn't good for my equilibrium.
Isn't good for your equilibrium? How do you mean? I'm genuinely intrigued - as a huge jazz fan and practitioner, I always wonder why people can't get into it.
I actually gave the record another go today, couldn't get past two minutes.
There's no melody or hooks to grasp on to. Jazz music doesn't feel like it has a structure, it's just like a jam session.
I 100% get why you'd think that.
The opening track to Kind of Blue is So What, which was vastly different to all previous jazz output. Davis had grown tired of furiously navigating bebop chord changes - for an example, see Yardbird Suite, by Charlie Parker (this is in fact a little slow compared to his usual output), and sought a new way to conceptualise jazz. The result was a move away from the restrictions of 32-bar head-solo-head stuff with lots of chord changes, to things like So What. It's basically two chords - or one, when you consider the second chord is the same, but up a tone.
It's perhaps the zenith of modal jazz/cool jazz, as opposed to bebop and hard bop (the really fast stuff), and was very much a reaction to jazz pre-1959. So that's why it doesn't feel centralised, or structured - because it consciously wasn't.
To point you in the direction of jazz with what you might consider more structure, and definitely has a melody, I'd like to recommend this version of Autumn Leaves, by Chet Baker, where you have a more traditional head-solos-head structure. (First example off the top of my head - any jazz based on the blues works, too, for instance, Freddie Freeloader which funnily enough is on Kind of Blue.)
It's a very varied style of music, and I totally get why Kind of Blue doesn't feel structured. The bass riff at the start of So What is the "hook", and the horn stabs. But what Davis was doing, was playing with the ideas of jazz and changing the rules. It's meant to be tonally ambiguous. Hell, the chord on the piano in the head has its own Wikipedia article - to give a quick summary of it, it says the chord can be repurposed in almost all musical and theoretical contexts, hence its importance and its ambiguity.
----------------
I've gone on a huge one here - my apologies, as this was much of my dissertation, and I'm really enthusiastic about it. But I feel it's important to note Kind of Blue's context, and why it was created. I'd also think it's unfair to call it overrated - rather, just not to everyone's tastes. But in the context of jazz (which I clearly love), it's an absolute behemoth and has a rightful place at the top of most jazzers' lists.
I really want to like this record, but jazz music isn't good for my equilibrium.
Isn't good for your equilibrium? How do you mean? I'm genuinely intrigued - as a huge jazz fan and practitioner, I always wonder why people can't get into it.
I actually gave the record another go today, couldn't get past two minutes.
There's no melody or hooks to grasp on to. Jazz music doesn't feel like it has a structure, it's just like a jam session.
To point you in the direction of jazz with what you might consider more structure, and definitely has a melody, I'd like to recommend this version of Autumn Leaves, by Chet Baker, where you have a more traditional head-solos-head structure.
Thanks for posting that, just had a listen. Did you ever get into any of the heavier stuff like Ornette Coleman's Free Jazz for example? I find it enjoyable but really need to be in the right mood for it. I also understand that I'll never have the musical knowledge and understanding to fully appreciate it.
Tubular Bells Dark Side of the Moon The Wall Tommy
and LOTS more too many to mention
all old uns as I rarely listen to 'modern' whole albums nowadays other than 'greatest hits' , modern jazz and southern rock which is not too popular over here.. rarely have I heard an album, even a classic, timeless one, when all the tracks are super and unforgettable
Tubular Bells Dark Side of the Moon The Wall Tommy
and LOTS more too many to mention
all old uns as I rarely listen to 'modern' whole albums nowadays other than 'greatest hits' , modern jazz and southern rock which is not too popular over here.. rarely have I heard an album, even a classic, timeless one, when all the tracks are super and unforgettable
I agree with Tommy and The Wall (they were shit) , but Tubular Bells and Dark Side of the Moon were diff'rent mustard.
Sgt Pepper by The Beatles. Very few good songs and a lot of boring ones. Nowhere near as good as Revolver or Abbey Road, for me.
OK Computer by Radiohead. I love Radiohead, but this album just doesn't do it for me. Subterranean Homesick Alien, Let Down, Lucky, The Tourist, No Surprises - all boring. Electioneering isn't great either. That's too many substandard tracks for a classic album. Airbag, Paranoid Android and Karma Police are great, but three songs is not enough to make up for the rest.
And that's why music is so wonderfully subjective! Let Down in my top 5 tracks of all time. Lyrics are brilliantly thought provoking. Feel it rather than hear it.
Tubular Bells Dark Side of the Moon The Wall Tommy
and LOTS more too many to mention
all old uns as I rarely listen to 'modern' whole albums nowadays other than 'greatest hits' , modern jazz and southern rock which is not too popular over here.. rarely have I heard an album, even a classic, timeless one, when all the tracks are super and unforgettable
I agree with Tommy and The Wall (they were shit) , but Tubular Bells and Dark Side of the Moon were diff'rent mustard.
Going back to Jazz, I guess there is a difference between music that isn't to your taste or perhaps you ' just don't get' and music that is actually bad and therefore overrated. I know that a lot of the albums I really like don't come in the 'great' bracket. For example, I much prefer listening to Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers' debut album than Dark Side of the Moon (i know I will definitely be in the minority here), even though I recognise that DSOTM is much more varied and musically interesting.
I really want to like this record, but jazz music isn't good for my equilibrium.
Isn't good for your equilibrium? How do you mean? I'm genuinely intrigued - as a huge jazz fan and practitioner, I always wonder why people can't get into it.
I actually gave the record another go today, couldn't get past two minutes.
There's no melody or hooks to grasp on to. Jazz music doesn't feel like it has a structure, it's just like a jam session.
Like your honesty, Jazz deserves no more respect than Milli Vanilli. So now give 'Transfigured Night' by Arnold Schoenberg a listen for unhooking therapy.
I really want to like this record, but jazz music isn't good for my equilibrium.
Isn't good for your equilibrium? How do you mean? I'm genuinely intrigued - as a huge jazz fan and practitioner, I always wonder why people can't get into it.
I actually gave the record another go today, couldn't get past two minutes.
There's no melody or hooks to grasp on to. Jazz music doesn't feel like it has a structure, it's just like a jam session.
Like your honesty, Jazz deserves no more respect than Milli Vanilli. So now give 'Transfigured Night' by Arnold Schoenberg a listen for unhooking therapy.
Now Schoenberg is a composer I'm very interested in. Heard a string quartet piece that really gripped me. If anyone can recommend anything I'd be much obliged.
Comments
Yes
Yes
No!
You're welcome.
OK Computer by Radiohead. I love Radiohead, but this album just doesn't do it for me. Subterranean Homesick Alien, Let Down, Lucky, The Tourist, No Surprises - all boring. Electioneering isn't great either. That's too many substandard tracks for a classic album. Airbag, Paranoid Android and Karma Police are great, but three songs is not enough to make up for the rest.
Also anything by The Eels.
There's no melody or hooks to grasp on to. Jazz music doesn't feel like it has a structure, it's just like a jam session.
The opening track to Kind of Blue is So What, which was vastly different to all previous jazz output. Davis had grown tired of furiously navigating bebop chord changes - for an example, see Yardbird Suite, by Charlie Parker (this is in fact a little slow compared to his usual output), and sought a new way to conceptualise jazz. The result was a move away from the restrictions of 32-bar head-solo-head stuff with lots of chord changes, to things like So What. It's basically two chords - or one, when you consider the second chord is the same, but up a tone.
It's perhaps the zenith of modal jazz/cool jazz, as opposed to bebop and hard bop (the really fast stuff), and was very much a reaction to jazz pre-1959. So that's why it doesn't feel centralised, or structured - because it consciously wasn't.
To point you in the direction of jazz with what you might consider more structure, and definitely has a melody, I'd like to recommend this version of Autumn Leaves, by Chet Baker, where you have a more traditional head-solos-head structure. (First example off the top of my head - any jazz based on the blues works, too, for instance, Freddie Freeloader which funnily enough is on Kind of Blue.)
It's a very varied style of music, and I totally get why Kind of Blue doesn't feel structured. The bass riff at the start of So What is the "hook", and the horn stabs. But what Davis was doing, was playing with the ideas of jazz and changing the rules. It's meant to be tonally ambiguous. Hell, the chord on the piano in the head has its own Wikipedia article - to give a quick summary of it, it says the chord can be repurposed in almost all musical and theoretical contexts, hence its importance and its ambiguity.
----------------
I've gone on a huge one here - my apologies, as this was much of my dissertation, and I'm really enthusiastic about it. But I feel it's important to note Kind of Blue's context, and why it was created. I'd also think it's unfair to call it overrated - rather, just not to everyone's tastes. But in the context of jazz (which I clearly love), it's an absolute behemoth and has a rightful place at the top of most jazzers' lists.
Dark Side of the Moon
The Wall
Tommy
and LOTS more too many to mention
all old uns as I rarely listen to 'modern' whole albums nowadays other than 'greatest hits' , modern jazz and southern rock which is not too popular over here..
rarely have I heard an album, even a classic, timeless one, when all the tracks are super and unforgettable
Bill Evans compositions are perfect for stumblers.
So now give 'Transfigured Night' by Arnold Schoenberg a listen for unhooking therapy.