5 ms·
I’m not even mad about it. It’s background music and clearly people are enjoying it. Just because they smashed out 15 tracks in a single session doesn’t make it
by Gigachad 2y ago
I’m not even mad about it. It’s background music and clearly people are enjoying it. Just because they smashed out 15 tracks in a single session doesn’t make it unfit for purpose. That’s just how Jazz music is.
- wbl 2y agoKenny G might deserve your comment. But Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, Charles Mingus...
- orblivion 2y agoI think some people may have a misunderstanding about what jazz is. I know one friend of mine did. Some jazz may be easy listening, but it's not made for easy listening, it's made to bend the boundaries of music theory. And also a lot of "easy listening" that sounds like jazz isn't really jazz.
- vasco 2y agoSo what is jazz
- gvurrdon 2y agoThe term covers a variety of styles, with old ones hanging around as new ground is broken. Perhaps it is a "meta-genre". There are various articles around explaining its history which might be worth looking at, if you're interested. I'd expect to hear some degree of improvisation in jazz, but not in easy listening.
- TheSpiceIsLife 2y agoThe devils music.
- YagoTheFrood 2y ago"If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know." Apocryphal quote by Louis Armstrong.
- vasco 2y ago[flagged]
- technothrasher 2y agoThe original quote is apocryphal, but he did respond to a question from a reporter asking about the quote saying, "Yeah, Daddy. Ya know how it is... jazz is something ya feel... ya live it, that's all." So he wasn't gatekeeping, he was saying the answer to "what is jazz?" was contained in the experience of jazz.
- kid64 2y agojazz != smooth jazz
- browningstreet 2y agoJavaScript != Java These are everywhere…
- DonHopkins 2y agoNew Age rhymes with Sewage
- netdevphoenix 2y agoIt is an approach to music (more than a genre) that relies on elaborate harmonic structures, freedom of interpretation of melody and personalising the harmony, interesting rhythms and time signatures and a general approach of trying to push the boundaries of music making. It is meant to be listened actively as opposed to having it as background music. The capitalisation of music has led us to the commoditisation of music and treating it as audio content as opposed to art.
- fc417fc802 2y ago> It is meant to be listened actively as opposed to having it as background music. The masterpiece hanging in the museum was fully intended to be actively appreciated. The background on the box of cereal is ... just a background on a box of cereal. It's still art though.
- klez 2y agoThat would be the distinction between "fine art" and "decorative art". Jazz as GP meant it is "fine art", the smooth jazz you hear in the elevator could be classified as decorative art.
- fc417fc802 2y agoI think that's a function of the effort, expertise, and intent. I don't think it changes the genre. Smooth, big band, blues, etc - it's all still jazz. A low effort watercolor by an amateur is still (an attempt at) art and remains a watercolor even if no one appreciates it.
- dijksterhuis 2y agoin my personal opinion, which is as valuable as the piece of paper i’m writing this on /s art has no function except to be observed by an audience. if they enjoy it or not is immaterial. its purpose is to be observed. the design of a box of cereal has a purpose - to sell you the box of cereal by making it attractive/stand out/fit the brand. graphic design, when it has purposes beyond being observed, is not art — it’s a craft. like engineering. although graphic design/engineering can become art when it has no purpose except being observed. edit — enjoyment is immaterial and the bits about graphic design can be art etc.
- jdietrich 2y agoIn short, a cultural tradition. At length: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68zOvCLwcL8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68zOvCLwcL8
- shrikant 2y agoI found it easier to "get" when I started thinking of jazz as the beat poetry of music.
- mesofile 2y agothe ‘sound of surprise’
- datadrivenangel 2y agojazz is what you can get away with.
- kunalgupta 2y agodelightful mental pain, like a cold plunge
- Asooka 2y agoNormal people care about music theory as much as they care whether you use jemalloc vs tcmalloc. "Easy listening" is a much more useful everyday definition for them than whatever musicians may want it to be.
- briandear 2y agoKind of Blue is far from “easy listening.”
- maroonblazer 2y agoCompared to Anthony Braxton, "Kind of Blue" is elevator music.
- wbl 2y agoThere's nothing easy about Cecil Taylor.
- orblivion 2y agoNormal people who don't care about music at all, sure they can call it "easy listening" and I won't bother arguing. For anyone who cares about music or even history at least a little, it's worth knowing that jazz is very important to the history of music.
- beacon294 2y agoIt's possible to care only in some modes of your being.
- fuhsnn 2y agoAll jazz artists started as insignificant band members before they found their voice.
- petre 2y agoIf I'd want to crash a party I'd totally play Ornette Coleman.
- couchand 2y agoInteresting that your first counterexample is Charlie Parker. I've been listening to a lot of Phil Schaap's Bird Flight recently (https://www.philschaapjazz.com/sections/bird-flight https://www.philschaapjazz.com/sections/bird-flight). It's funny to see how many of the episodes are Phil describing a recording session more or less like this: "The Bird showed up two hours late to a three and a half hour recording session. They recorded one take each of six tracks, but the recording engineer was surprised when they started so he missed the first half of the first track. And that's how we got the five tracks on <INSERT CRITICALLY-ACCLAIMED ALBUM HERE>."
- dleink 2y agogoes to show, lines of code doesn't equal quality.
- bee_rider 2y agoYeah, this rules, why are we supposed to be angry? It is like WFH for music makers. Although, I’m pretty sure there’s a ton of really complex and difficult jazz out there (IIRC it is one of the most advanced genres, whatever they means; I don’t do music). But that isn’t what we’re looking for on the chill whatever ambient music channels.
- oreilles 2y agoDid you guys not read the article ? The problem arises because of the way the music is distributed on Spotify and the way it is licensed. Spotify make deals with the companies producing this stock music so that it can fill its popular playlists with while paying close to zero royalties. The consequence is a decline both in music quality on the platform and in artists rights, revenue, and ability to be listened to overall.
- afro88 2y agoSpotify isn't a monopoly, and if they want to fill their platform with stock music and presumably AI slop in the future, good luck to them. They're hollowing themselves out and making way for a new better service. And in the end, the real money for musicians is syncs, shows and merch anyway. Spotify streaming revenue is tiny in comparison.
- oreilles 2y agoThe discussion is not wether Spotify will benefit from this situation in the long run or not, it's wether the users of the platform (both the listeners and the artists) should be happy with it and the answer to that is, thanks this lengthy article, demonstrably no.
- gizmondo 2y agoI don't think the article showed that listeners are unhappy.
- Wolfenstein98k 2y ago
- flipthefrog 2y agoKind of Blue was smashed out in two sessions. A Love Supreme in one
- alsetmusic 2y agoThe point is that artists who have <1000 streams get zero pay. This is designed to help prevent payouts and increase profits. 'Deny,' 'defend', and 'depose'.
- jzb 2y agoIt's designed to increase profits, for sure. I do not have a lot of love for Spotify, currently, but this particular practice does not bother me much. Look: If you give a damn about what you're listening to, you can go over to Spotify and create your own playlists filled with music you care about (assuming they have the artists you like in their catalog). In that case, the artists will get paid accordingly. But Spotify has realized that a lot of people use it for background noise and don't give two shits whether what they're listening to is a "real" band or music-like content squeezed out of sweatshop sessions in Sweden or whatever. I can't fault them overmuch for taking advantage of the actual listening preferences of its users. If you feel cheated by this, spend some time curating playlists on your own. Tacking on the CEO-shooter's mantra to your message is shameful. This isn't healthcare. This isn't killing anyone. It's a fully optional service that happens to be popular. Trying to link it to anger over being denied healthcare is ridiculous.
- georgebcrawford 2y agoI 50/50 agree with you. My issue is the bait and switch feel it has to it, for both artist and audience. Spotify holds all the power. They already pay less for Discover Weekly streams, instead using that old music industry classic "exposure". If they really care about artists (like their marketing claims), perhaps they can add a filter for playlists that contain PFC vs not? I'm just rambling without much explanation sorry, but I'm gonna hit the reply button anyway!
- volkl48 2y agoYes and no. They do not pay out per stream. They pay out a set % of their total revenue to rights holders. Spotify has to pay the exact same amount of money before and after that change. The savings for Spotify is in not having the (not so insignificant) administrative overhead of trying to make hundreds of thousands of basically worthless payouts to different individuals that are worth <$5 or even <$1. I think it's fairly reasonable to draw some sort of lower bound on the minimum you need to reach to get a payout, especially in a world where basically anyone can put music on their service.