4 ms·

I’m reminded of when Jazz became a thing and practically everywhere said “it’s not classical, it has no soul, etc. and therefore sucks”. It’s pop music because.

I’m reminded of when Jazz became a thing and practically everywhere said “it’s not classical, it has no soul, etc. and therefore sucks”. It’s pop music because... well... it’s popular. You may not like it, but a lot of people do. There’s nothing wrong with that. Adam Neely had a really good video showcasing newspapers and editorials denouncing the Jazz genre when it appeared. It seems to have been taken down, unfortunately. Basically, as you get older, selection bias regarding music becomes more prevalent, and you forget the bad music you liked and end up only remembering “the classics”. Just because a song charts doesn’t mean it’ll last.

jariel 6y ago
Nobody with any sense could look at Jazz musician and say they didn't have talent. Just the opposite: most musicians watching Jazz would just be floored at what's going on, that it's even possible. So while they may or may not like it, it's basically impossible not to respect.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  You’re ignoring the point. The point is that, at that time, people hated it. Nowadays, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who hates jazz; they’ll recognize it as instrumental, but they won’t like it. The hatred towards modern pop is the same thing. It’s just a fad. In 20 or so years, the younger people who like it will hate the pop of the 2040s or 2050s.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "The hatred towards modern pop is the same thing." No, this is not true at all. "People hated Jazz" - agreed. "People hate pop music now" - agreed. 'Change is generational thing', ok, yes. But what you're missing is that 2020 pop music doesn't require any skill, at all. Jazz - to any musical observer - requires an immense amount of skill. However much anyone 'hated Jazz' - if they understood music in the slightest, they had to respect it. This is a big difference. The proof is the fact that Jazz is still alive and thriving. Whatever is on the Hot100 right now will be dead next year and never heard from again. Edit: I should be more specific - pop music doesn't require a lot of skill, because most acts aren't doing anything, they're generally not even behind their music - the producers are behind it. That said - it's definitely hard to be famous. Being a trend on YouTube is a kind of a skill, it just may not be musical.
    - freetime2 6y ago
      Is the quality of music determined by the skill of the performer? Or how much it pleases the listener? Also: > But what you're missing is that 2020 pop music doesn't require any skill, at all. I think it's much harder to write a hit pop song than you are making it sound. I don't think that I could do it. Do you think that you could?
      - jariel 6y ago
        "I don't think that I could do it. Do you think that you could?" This is a misunderstanding. 'Hit songs' are like 'viral videos'. Could you create a video, that by accident, went viral? Possibly. If you set your mind to it, there would be a better chance, but still no guaranteed. Nobody writes what they think will be guaranteed to be a hit song except for Max Martin. People 'make songs' and then hustle and market - some go viral, some require more support. The 'barrier to making a song' is considerably lower than it was 20 years ago, and much lower than 40 years ago. Making an album in 1985: - Spend years learning to play an instrument - Learn to write music, lyrics that are least on some level passable. - Find other musicians - Practice for a while - Rent a major studio, producers, engineers - Master - Market etc.. The barrier to entry was high, the people pulling the strings generally wanted to see 'talent' in some form: entertainment, musicianship, popularity. Many acts were manufactured, but that process still had to be followed: Making music in 2020: - Some music (Ariana Grande) is made roughly the same way (though with more people, different release cycles, margins etc) but it's comparable. - A lot of music is made in tiny little studios. Mac Miller was always a tiny production, he made and produced stuff often in his basement, due to the power of tech and simplicity ultimately of what he was making. Mac, and many other small artists are talented, so in some ways the 'low barrier' is good - but - for every Mac Miller there are 1000x fools. >>>> It is as easy to make a song as it is to make a little video animation. Some of those video animations will go viral and get big. - This 'basic approach' can be made by people with big creative talent, I guess Drake would be an example. Drake doesn't make his music or write his lyrics. Think of Drake as the 'head of a fashion label' but this label is not clothes, it's music. What Drake obviously has is 'really good taste'. Drake, is the 'art Director' of Drake Inc.. What is required to make a Drake track is very minimal, but there's creative talent ... much like making a marketing video. - In the middle, and even with some of the more 'respectable pop artist names' like Ariana Grande, Dua Lipo ... you still have quite a lot of production and commodification, which turns out really generic, boring, derivative, music. 'Jazz', however popular, nor not, or controversial it was - is going to be around for hundreds of years, because there's an intense amount of creative legitimacy in it. Jazz musicians love Jazz for the sake of Jazz, they are amazing. It's very pure in that sense. The origins of Hip Hop are really authentic, which helped it rise to the fore. Some aspects of HipHop are going to be around for a while. The flavour of 2020 will not be around in 2 years.
alexilliamson 6y ago
Jazz was IMO the finest American art form, and it was objectively instrumental in desegregating the US. It gave America a ton of black heroes like Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald. It left a permanent stamp on music and paved the way for rock'n'roll. It pushed the technical boundaries of many modern instruments. I get what you're saying about becoming older and selection bias, but many of the contemporary criticisms of jazz were rooted in racism. I agree that is some selection bias at play when we think of popular music now vs. popluar music in the 80's. But jazz exists in a whole different dimension from Top 40 music from the last 50 years.

jariel 6y ago

Nobody with any sense could look at Jazz musician and say they didn't have talent. Just the opposite: most musicians watching Jazz would just be floored at what's going on, that it's even possible. So while they may or may not like it, it's basically impossible not to respect.

colejohnson66 6y ago
You’re ignoring the point. The point is that, at that time, people hated it. Nowadays, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who hates jazz; they’ll recognize it as instrumental, but they won’t like it. The hatred towards modern pop is the same thing. It’s just a fad. In 20 or so years, the younger people who like it will hate the pop of the 2040s or 2050s.
- jariel 6y ago
  "The hatred towards modern pop is the same thing." No, this is not true at all. "People hated Jazz" - agreed. "People hate pop music now" - agreed. 'Change is generational thing', ok, yes. But what you're missing is that 2020 pop music doesn't require any skill, at all. Jazz - to any musical observer - requires an immense amount of skill. However much anyone 'hated Jazz' - if they understood music in the slightest, they had to respect it. This is a big difference. The proof is the fact that Jazz is still alive and thriving. Whatever is on the Hot100 right now will be dead next year and never heard from again. Edit: I should be more specific - pop music doesn't require a lot of skill, because most acts aren't doing anything, they're generally not even behind their music - the producers are behind it. That said - it's definitely hard to be famous. Being a trend on YouTube is a kind of a skill, it just may not be musical.
  - freetime2 6y ago
    Is the quality of music determined by the skill of the performer? Or how much it pleases the listener? Also: > But what you're missing is that 2020 pop music doesn't require any skill, at all. I think it's much harder to write a hit pop song than you are making it sound. I don't think that I could do it. Do you think that you could?
    - jariel 6y ago
      "I don't think that I could do it. Do you think that you could?" This is a misunderstanding. 'Hit songs' are like 'viral videos'. Could you create a video, that by accident, went viral? Possibly. If you set your mind to it, there would be a better chance, but still no guaranteed. Nobody writes what they think will be guaranteed to be a hit song except for Max Martin. People 'make songs' and then hustle and market - some go viral, some require more support. The 'barrier to making a song' is considerably lower than it was 20 years ago, and much lower than 40 years ago. Making an album in 1985: - Spend years learning to play an instrument - Learn to write music, lyrics that are least on some level passable. - Find other musicians - Practice for a while - Rent a major studio, producers, engineers - Master - Market etc.. The barrier to entry was high, the people pulling the strings generally wanted to see 'talent' in some form: entertainment, musicianship, popularity. Many acts were manufactured, but that process still had to be followed: Making music in 2020: - Some music (Ariana Grande) is made roughly the same way (though with more people, different release cycles, margins etc) but it's comparable. - A lot of music is made in tiny little studios. Mac Miller was always a tiny production, he made and produced stuff often in his basement, due to the power of tech and simplicity ultimately of what he was making. Mac, and many other small artists are talented, so in some ways the 'low barrier' is good - but - for every Mac Miller there are 1000x fools. >>>> It is as easy to make a song as it is to make a little video animation. Some of those video animations will go viral and get big. - This 'basic approach' can be made by people with big creative talent, I guess Drake would be an example. Drake doesn't make his music or write his lyrics. Think of Drake as the 'head of a fashion label' but this label is not clothes, it's music. What Drake obviously has is 'really good taste'. Drake, is the 'art Director' of Drake Inc.. What is required to make a Drake track is very minimal, but there's creative talent ... much like making a marketing video. - In the middle, and even with some of the more 'respectable pop artist names' like Ariana Grande, Dua Lipo ... you still have quite a lot of production and commodification, which turns out really generic, boring, derivative, music. 'Jazz', however popular, nor not, or controversial it was - is going to be around for hundreds of years, because there's an intense amount of creative legitimacy in it. Jazz musicians love Jazz for the sake of Jazz, they are amazing. It's very pure in that sense. The origins of Hip Hop are really authentic, which helped it rise to the fore. Some aspects of HipHop are going to be around for a while. The flavour of 2020 will not be around in 2 years.

alexilliamson 6y ago

Jazz was IMO the finest American art form, and it was objectively instrumental in desegregating the US. It gave America a ton of black heroes like Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald. It left a permanent stamp on music and paved the way for rock'n'roll. It pushed the technical boundaries of many modern instruments. I get what you're saying about becoming older and selection bias, but many of the contemporary criticisms of jazz were rooted in racism. I agree that is some selection bias at play when we think of popular music now vs. popluar music in the 80's. But jazz exists in a whole different dimension from Top 40 music from the last 50 years.