/jazz/ "jazz is dead" edition

Attached: 11124500_10153246393789533_6598953879888662133_n.jpg?itok=nh-Ckab0.jpg (728x399, 81K)

Attached: tpab.png (760x744, 712K)

they're both still in the context of pop music. just because it's musically complex or sophisticated doesn't make it art music

>they're both still in the context of pop music.
how?

1. because it's recorded
2. because it's distributed
3. because it's improvised
this categorisation has nothing to do with the music itself, more so the context surrounding it

So if I were to invent a time machine, go back in time to Leipzig Germany, 1729 and record Bach playing an improvised Toccata on a random Sunday and then came back to present time and distributed that recording digitally, you would consider that pop music?

I don't know. Honestly I don't know if that's possible

what do you mean by "art music"? All music is art. Is "art music" just some pretentious term?

I really dig this album.
I'd play it for an electronic music fan who is curious about jazz.

Attached: mehliana.jpg (500x459, 44K)

My point is that your criteria for what can be considered art music are arbitrary and ridiculous. Recording technology did not exist until the early 20th century, otherwise you can bet every composer of “art music” would have sanctioned recordings of his works. Scriabin and Stravinsky are among the great composers who WERE recorded playing/conducting their own compostions.

Furthermore, up until the mid 19th century, most of the now-recognizes-“great” composers were celebrated improvisers in their own right and training in improvisation was considered important for any aspiring composer. J.S. Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven, and Chopin are among the great composers who were also celebrated by first-hand contemporary sources as being noteworthy improvisers and who used improvisation to inform their compositions.

Lastly, all of the aforementioned composers and just about any other great pre-20th century composer you could name had their music “recorded” and “distributes” via sheet music (which I already noted was the only possible way of having your music recorded or distributed up until the early 20th century)

He's just playing some pretentious game of saying he likes something more "obscure" and "artistic" than you.
Nobody who is sane is going to classify jazz as "pop" unless they are an autist trying to annoy you.

(western) art music is basically all composed music, though the definition is quite blurry
folk music is all cultural/traditional music that's reproduced through memory
popular music is the rest

Some jazz IS pop music though. Things like Tommy Dorsey or Artie Shaw recordings were chart-topping singles, made to sell records and get radio play and for young adults to dance to. And featured relatively little improvisation, for that matter.

But thinking that anything that had been recorded, distributed, or improvised can’t be art music is asinine.

Then to me, jazz sounds like the Venn diagram center of all three of those, since jazz has a long history of great composers (Strayhorn, Mingus, Shorter, Hill etc.) but often is preserved and carried down aurally (any veteran jazz player will tell you not to trust a lead sheet, but to learn tunes by ear from a record). And yet the genre was born out of a popular style of dance music that was initially quite commercially successful and even when that commercial success faded, it has usually managed to absorb elements of the contemporary popular styles and even produce commercially successful fusions with those styles, see the examples mentioned here

Matana Roberts coin coin series

based

I would've agreed with you not too long ago but I've been bumpin Armstrong's Hot Fives and Sevens and now realize how wrong that opinion is. Also you can't shit on the Duke.