Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
They're not even more "complex"- as if that's the Gold Standard. A lot of prog is intricate enough to stand the average jazz guy on his ear.
 
Shadow_Ferret

Shadow_Ferret

Audioholic Chief
Rob Babcock said:
They're not even more "complex"- as if that's the Gold Standard. A lot of prog is intricate enough to stand the average jazz guy on his ear.
The Al DiMeola stuff, or jazz-fushion in general? I guess I'd agree it isn't as "complex" as traditional jazz. I don't think it was meant to be complex, merely more accessible, and that's why The Mahavishnu Orchestra was selling out concerts as well as any pop band at the time. And yes, some prog is very complex in comparison.
 
R

rschleicher

Audioholic
This thread poses some interesting questions. One thing that I got to thinking about was where the complexity lies in classical versus jazz. In classical music, much of the complexity comes from having a large number of "voices" playing simultaneously (i.e., three or more violin parts, violas, cellos, basses, various woodwinds, etc.). Generally speaking the level of rhythmic complexity is fairly low. In jazz, on the other hand, there are usually a relatively small number of simultaneous voices, but the rhythmic complexity level is high.

I think that there are also some characteristics of the rhythms used in jazz that are rarely, if ever, associated with classical (as an oversimplified example - the use of syncopation in jazz).
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top