Classical vs. Jazz

[Bevan]

This is not meant to be a contentious question, or a 'which is better'.

I have been wondering this week(after watching a Wagner opera Wednesday), what is the difference in appeal between these two types of music.

I'm not talking about their obvious differences in musical structure and type of instruments used etc, but of the emotion/sensitivities that each apeals to. Why do some people prefere one to the other?

They both seem to attract a similar demographic and level of 'sophistication' in listner tastes(both typically require a more practiced ear than rock, pop, hiphop etc), but what sets them appart is what I'm wondering?

thanks for any thoughts,

b.

 

[Sheep]

I don't agree with the audience. Most Jazz numbers are much more racy then Classical.

I beleive most classical music is writen to tell a story. While jazz is something to dance to or relax.

I perfer Jazz over classical, and I perfer other stuff over Jazz.

SheepStar

 

[Brandst]

I think that Sheep got it right overall. Most classical is meant to tell stories and convey emotion, with a few exceptions. Jazz is something to dance to or relax with in quick jaunts, most jazz songs are less than 10 minutes while most classical masterpieces are over 10 minutes with a large number running over an hour. With that in mind, I listen to jazz around the house as background music but if I'm going to sit and do critically listening I put in some classical.

Steve

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I think that Sheep got it right overall. Most classical is meant to tell stories and convey emotion, with a few exceptions. Jazz is something to dance to or relax with in quick jaunts, most jazz songs are less than 10 minutes while most classical masterpieces are over 10 minutes with a large number running over an hour. With that in mind, I listen to jazz around the house as background music but if I'm going to sit and do critically listening I put in some classical.

Steve

Maybe we should define which type of jazz before going on. Most Jazz songs under 10 minutes? Ever heard any Pat Metheny or Al Dimeola? 10 minutes is a short song for them. The same would go for dancing; I don't know about any of you, but not too much jazz stuff I have you can dance to. One would look pretty silly dancing to anything on a Metheny CD If your are talking about that junk they call smooth jazz then you would be correct, but most don't consider that anymore than slicked up pop, certainly not jazz.

 

[Sheep]

Maybe we should define which type of jazz before going on. Most Jazz songs under 10 minutes? Ever heard any Pat Metheny or Al Dimeola? 10 minutes is a short song for them. The same would go for dancing; I don't know about any of you, but not too much jazz stuff I have you can dance to. One would look pretty silly dancing to anything on a Metheny CD If your are talking about that junk they call smooth jazz then you would be correct, but most don't consider that anymore than slicked up pop, certainly not jazz.

Dance or Relax.

Read the fine print before you sign anything.

SheepStar

 

[jaxvon]

I think it has a lot to do with where jazz came from and where classical came from. Classical music (actually incorrect calling it classical...but it's easier that way) has always been performed at large halls for royalty or other important guests. Jazz can be found in halls now too, but jazz was once only something for the nightclub scene. It was and underground art form, associated with lewd behavior, drugs, and the like. Jazz music tells a story too, though often it's much more of a personal story. Jazz is all about conveying the emotions of the musicians, especially the soloist.

 

[majorloser]

Smooth Jazz would be better off referred to as "instrumental music" as most artists of this genre prefer. It is more structured than classical jazz.

Classical jazz is more of an expression of the feelings and mood of the artist. Less structured and more of a jam session where the indiviual artists of the group compliment each other and follow the lead. Some of the greatest jazz musician could not read or write music, only played from the heart what they felt. Listen to Coltrane, Davis, Ellington or Munk to get an idea.

I love the sound of a stand up bass.

Classical music (composer) does, for the most part, tell a story. Usually in the form of a symphony with many parts. Sometimes as part of an opera. What we hear today is the interpretations of the conductor and the ensemble. Not necessarily what the composer envisioned.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

Who dances to jazz? Maybe someone is mistaking disco for jazz, but most jazz, with it's odd time signatures and long solos, isn't dancable.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

If your are talking about that junk they call smooth jazz then you would be correct, but most don't consider that anymore than slicked up pop, certainly not jazz.

Slicked up pop? I know a dozen musicians who would highly disagree, but everyone's entitled to their opinions. Smooth jazz (my opinion) is some of the best stress relieving music to listen and unwind to. It's got a huge following, so I guess if it's "slicked up pop," that would explain its "pop"ularity.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Some classical music is designed to 'tell stories'- we call this "program music." However, in the earliest days of the Romantic Movement program music was looked down upon by those who thought it was "impure" somehow. Most classical is more of an intellectual endeavor than a programmatic one.

I won't fan the flames by saying classical is superior to jazz, but I find it much more engaging. Classical music just speaks to me on a lot deeper level than jazz. Don't get me wrong, I like jazz, but I don't take it as "seriously" as my favorite classical composers. It just doesn't move me as profoundly.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

I won't fan the flames by saying classical is superior to jazz, but I find it much more engaging. Classical music just speaks to me on a lot deeper level than jazz. Don't get me wrong, I like jazz, but I don't take it as "seriously" as my favorite classical composers. It just doesn't move me as profoundly.

I don't know. I don't think one genre is superior to the other. I certainly don't think classical is more engaging. I think they are both intellectually satisfying genres of music. Both require a certain "active attention" from the listener yet at the same time can be listened to passively.

I take traditional jazz as seriously as I take my classical music. In both cases they are well-defined, complex compositions that can actively involve and engage the listener.

Smooth jazz on the other hand, I feel, is just a euphemism for the old "new age" crap. It's lite jazz. It's got a huge following, sure, but so do boy bands. Against demonstrating that the masses have no taste. Is Spyra Gyra still around?

 

[moverton]

What is Jazz

To me, Jazz sets off some weird scalp tingling sensation. I think there is some deeper pattern that Jazz approaches that touches something inherent in the human brain. Not all "Jazz" does this for me. Some good examples that work for me are "Time Out" Brubeck, "Silent Way" Miles Davis, "Everybody Digs Bill Evans", and "Kind of Blue".
I don't always pick it up right away but have found it in a lot of the great 50's Jazz. When my brain finally figures out what I'm hearing, my scalp crawls and I get an immense amount of pleasure from the feeling that I am sharing the experience with whoever it was that recorded the music.
I have felt this sometimes with good rock and some classical but it is most consistant in the hardcore Jazz.
The closest analogy is those silly hidden three-d pictures that were around for a few years. You would stare and see nothing for ages and then suddenly the 3-d scene pops out for a second and then you work to find it again. After a while you can see it at will.
That's Jazz for me.
-mark

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Smooth jazz on the other hand, I feel, is just a euphemism for the old "new age" crap. It's lite jazz. It's got a huge following, sure, but so do boy bands. Against demonstrating that the masses have no taste. Is Spyra Gyra still around?

Yes they are and they are not smooth jazz at all. Really Spyra Gyra was lite fusion band that helped usher in the so called smooth jazz era, but they are not a smooth jazz band themselves. I saw them live at Ruth Eckard Hall in florida about 1992 or so. To this day, it remains one of the best concerts I have ever seen.

 

[dadadee]

Greetings! This is my first post here. Seems like an interesting topic of discussion. My take on the two forms is this. Classical (or concert music) is much more structured than Jazz is. Jazz is free form (improvisational) while Classical music adheres to what is written on the pages. My preference is Classical because of its stucture and musical story telling, but I also like Jazz, because it is like going on a musical journey not knowing exactly where you are going to end up. Superior musicianship is required in both cases.

I have often wondered what composers like Mozart or Beethoven would have thought about Jazz.

 

[Steve1000]

Jazz, in my view, was the classical music of the 20th century.

It was the popular dance music of the U.S. for a time. Of course, it evolved into something where people get offended if you don't keep absolutely quiet during the performance... mostly people who have no clue. And in its current incarnation it's usually not danceable.

Until there is a little more innovation, though, I think jazz is mostly spent for the time being, a playground for technical virtuosos who are sounding more and more like one another. Musical training has focused on virtuosity and mastering the styles of others as a status symbol, rather than creativity, originality, etc.

Classical music has been spent for about 100 years, IMHO. Through the lens of history, most 20th century classical compositions will not fare well, IMHO.

Here's stuff I strongly agree with:

I think there is some deeper pattern that Jazz approaches that touches something inherent in the human brain. Not all "Jazz" does this for me.

Smooth jazz (my opinion) is some of the best stress relieving music to listen and unwind to. It's got a huge following, so I guess if it's "slicked up pop," that would explain its "pop"ularity.

I don't think one genre is superior to the other. I certainly don't think classical is more engaging. I think they are both intellectually satisfying genres of music. Both require a certain "active attention" from the listener yet at the same time can be listened to passively.

I take traditional jazz as seriously as I take my classical music. In both cases they are well-defined, complex compositions that can actively involve and engage the listener.

Smooth jazz on the other hand, I feel, is... lite jazz.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I agree there's not a lot of "modern classical" music that I like. There is some, however, depending upon what you term modern. Rachmaninov was brilliant, and I really love the music of Howard Hansen. There aren't really many composers of the last 40 years that I've liked, and I really dislike the atonal stuff. O'Connor is one of the few guys working now who's stuff I like.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

I am not sure that classical has been a spent force for the past century. Sometimes ossified, sure. But it's a lot like Broadway - often declared dead but still hanging on. I agree that most atonal music is unlistenable but some of the recent post-serialism composers may well stand the test of time. I just got and have been blown away by William Bolcom's Songs of Innocence and Experience, for instance. Ned Rorem, David Diamond, and others are some who will stand the test of time. And though they were close to or completely atonal (or at least weird in a good way!) at times, I like Alban Berg, Charles Ives, Edgar Varese among other early 20th c. avant-gardists. (Frank Zappa was a big Varese fan, BTW)

As for the original question of why some people prefer jazz or classical the best stab I can take is that music, more than other art forms, hits you more in the gut than the head. Musical preference is a matter of one's individual emotional makeup and experiences...hence ultimately unknowable and at best imperfectly explainable.

 

[Resident Loser]

I must take exception...

...to some of what I have read in this thread, so in no particular order:

"Classical" or period music was the popular music of it's day...It wasn't reserved for the nobility and/or royalty...in fact opera buffa parodied the relationship between that lofty lot and the common folk...

Classical scores are not as rigid as they might seem to be, after all there are notational terms such as rubato which is suspension of time signature for dramatic/artistic effect and the direction ad libitum(ad lib.) in which the composer invites the performer to...well, ad lib or improvise...There are(or were) countless impromptus some of which were commited to sheet music...Then there are themes and variations. While they may be printed on paper, the variations are simply improvisations on the supporting theme.

Jazz? Don't simply confuse jazz as solo inprovisation; most of it is not. Without a structured framework to build on, there would be no cohesive direction for the musicians to take. The extended compositions of people like Ellington or Mingus would not be possible without charts...Rudimentary chord progressions are a "structure" even if done simply by rote and anything beyond will require at least some planning, verbal or written. Anyone familiar with "fake books"?...

Smooth jazz? Elevator music? Muzak?...no come to think of it I've heard some stuff(Muzak, that is) recently that wasn't half-bad...In fact I'd rather hear the Mormon Tabernacle Choir's rendition of "I Am The Walrus" than a single note from Kenny G. and his ilk!

What's really great about this hobby is one minute you can listen to Mozart's "Magic Flute", then Fernando Sor's "Theme And Variations On 'Die Zauberflote'" followed by Miles Davis' interpretation of Rodrigo's "Concierto de Aranjuez" and then "Beck's Bolero"...

jimHJJ(...just some thoughts...)

 

[dadadee]

...to some of what I have read in this thread, so in no particular order:

"Classical" or period music was Classical scores are not as rigid as they might seem to be, after all there are notational terms such as rubato which is suspension of time signature for dramatic/artistic effect and the direction ad libitum(ad lib.) in which the composer invites the performer to...well, ad lib or improvise...There are(or were) countless impromptus some of which were commited to sheet music...Then there are themes and variations. While they may be printed on paper, the variations are simply improvisations on the supporting theme.

Jazz? Don't simply confuse jazz as solo inprovisation ...

No one said anything about solo improvisation. However, while Jazz is based on chord structure, it is very much improvisational. Look at what people like Al DiMiola, Pat Metheney, Dizzy Gilespi etc. have done. Granted, big band was more "classical" in its approach, but at least current popular jazz is very improvisational.

Classical (symphonic) music is much more strict with regard to personal freedom (from a soloist's point of view). However, it is ultimately up to what the conductor really wants isn't? Jazz is much more loose in that regard.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

No one said anything about solo improvisation. However, while Jazz is based on chord structure, it is very much improvisational. Look at what people like Al DiMiola, Pat Metheney, Dizzy Gilespi etc. have done. Granted, big band was more "classical" in its approach, but at least current popular jazz is very improvisational.

You don't think Al DiMeola et al wrote songs but just improvised every song he ever produced? You don't think "Race with Devil on Spanish Freeway" or "Alien Chase on Arabian Desert" or "Egyptian Danza" aren't songs written and practiced with a beginning, middle and end like any other song? That they have no real structure and they just sat down in the studio and everyone just free-styled it until they decided to quit and give it a name?

I'm sorry, but jazz may sound improvisational and there are improvisational elements to it, but even the solos are correagraphed to stay within the structure of the song.

Jazz songs are no different elementally than rock songs, just more complex.

Now live the songs and solos may be more freeform, but in the studio, that's as rigid as any other form of music. But even rock is like that, compare Deep Purple's studio songs to the same songs done on "Made in Japan." Same song, but it's much more spontaneous and freeform than the studio versions.