It has nothing to offer beyond "muh odd time signatures."
And even then, it uses them in the blandest fucking way possible, with the most mediocre drumming and phrasing that I have ever heard.
So why do people like it so much?
Oh and don't get me started on "Take Five" ugh...
Other urls found in this thread:
bump
>uses them in the blandest fucking way possible, with the most mediocre drumming and phrasing that I have ever heard.
Post music you have composed, pussy. You are no one and you will never be known.
Any great album can be reduced to
>muh _____
by idiots on the internet.
If that’s the only criticism of the album you can muster then clearly you weren’t listening to it properly.
Try again in a few years maybe.
>And even then, it uses them in the blandest fucking way possible, with the most mediocre drumming and phrasing that I have ever heard.
I know you are incapable of reading such long texts, but you should at least try, faggot.
Post the music you havr composed, pussy. You are no one and you will never be known.
It's hilarious to me that Yea Forums constantly shits itself over albums being masterpieces simply for being "innovative" when really they aren't all that innovative. And yet in "Time Out" you have one of the most clear examples of absolute innovation in jazz and it's bad because it's "bland." (pro tip:
"bland" is just a code word for "white").
Yea it’s not that good. Never liked it. Brubeck was always watered down jazz to try to appeal to a common denominator. And hell, it worked, take 5 was top 40.
>pro tip: "bland" is just a code word for "white"
That's somewhat true but I think it only applies to Americans and Japs. European Jazz, especially Polish jazz, fucking ruled
>Brubeck was always watered down jazz to try to appeal to a common denominator
Tbh Brubeck
is basically Kenny G but from the 50's and with odd time signatures.
Prove me wrong. You literally can't
kind of like how Coltrane is just Kenny G but from the 60s and with overblowing and the whole tone scale
Prove me wrong. You literally can't.
You tried to be funny/clever, but you failed. Oh well
Prove me wrong. You literally can't.
The compositions are fantastic and the musicians play it all really well. If you don’t like jazz then just don’t listen to it
This. OP probably thinks The Shape of Jazz to Come is innovative lmao
Pic related is the only Dave Brubeck you should listen to
>The compositions are fantastic
They really aren't. The band plays the blandest and most milquetoast jazz I've ever heard. And that was the fucking 50s. They would get laughed the fuck out at a black jazz club in the era. But no, they didn't play for blacks. They played for whities who didn't listen to any of the more adventerous music lmao
>If you don’t like jazz then just don’t listen to it
Says the person defending the most entry-level jazz album ever? It's basically "Breathless" but from the 50s lmao
that dude agrees with me, dumbass
>black man good
>white man bad
everything I don’t like is “milquetoast” and “bland” lmao
just because I say so kek
>cares about Scaruffi’s opinion
>doesn’t understand jazz
hmmm why am I not surprised?
I am a entry level jazz listener what is some good jazz ?
I kinda focus more on Japanese artists,but I am trying some new stuff like bossa nova and American jazz
Explain how I don't understand jazz just because I dislike Brubeck's dumbed-down jazz. If anything, liking Brubeck's music makes you the dumber person here, as you're enjoying his dumbed down version of jazz. Cheers
>They played for whities who didn't listen to any of the more adventerous music lmao
Ok so what are some more “adventurous” jazz recordings from 1959
It's best to start with the classics, that is Miles Davis and then Coltrane.
Miles should go first because if you go chronologically with his discography, you'll be basically discovering the ways jazz unfolded throughout the decades. He literally started tons and tons of genres and subgenres. He inspired them, and then squeezed them like lemons, extracting every possible bit of experimentation from them before moving on to another genre. Rinse and repeat. Pure genius
So yeah, start with Miles. You'll get the richest view of jazz from a single person
Ah Um, The Shape of Jazz to Come, Jazz in Silhouette, Kind of Blue, Giant Steps?
Even in the same year, Brubeck wasn't even the "best" whitey. New York New York was a far better record
>Ah Um, The Shape of Jazz to Come, Jazz in Silhouette, Kind of Blue, Giant Steps?
Wrong. All very, very bland. Feel free to try again though.
HAHAHAHAHAHA you are so fucking funni! i lost my lunch!!!1
>I can't prove him wrong so I'll just act like it's all a big funny joke haha xd!
brilliant
No user, you don't get it. Meaningless criticisms are only meaningful when I make them
Easy to digest, good entry-album.
How would you criticize Kenny G then, faggot?
And what does "meaningful criticism" mean to you at all?
I didn't criticize Kenny G dipshit
stop trying to change the subject
I can't say I'm familiar with Polish jazz. Got any recs?
The most famous Polish jazz album is probably Astigmatic by Komeda. I personally feel like it's an equal to A Love Supreme or Kind of Blue.
After that, I recommend Seant by Trzaskowski and Music for K by Stanko.
Here's Astigmatic:
youtube.com
You’re a non musician
no
Yea Forums doesn't know shit about jazz, and that includes every single one of you
There’s much better albums but it’s far from bad and it’s very accessible for people who don’t normally listen to jazz.
"Non musician" is becoming Yea Forums equivalent of
>cuck
>soi
>ngmi
>dyel
Basically
>I'll give this answer to anything I dont like