Another invention of the powerful South, you're welcome. Tennessee exports the strongest American culture. Jack Daniels and those honey-sweet Blues.
Printable View
Kpopalypse oppar is my religion I trust him
He's dreamy...
Can't bant your way out of Paitent Zero
who said that was bants i lowercase and drop punctuation to make the point that im serious
https://youtu.be/kowfLIRpQaU
Get edumacated
Wow I wasn't expecting Tokyo Jihen on BL. \o/
Hm, I always thought TJ were quite well known
- - - Updated - - -
Demo did play them in a review. Demo reviews, a relic...
I like blues, but I'm very much a layman. I'm not sure what's the difference between blues and soul, for instance.
Realtalk that article is really bad and misinformed, though. It over-emphasizes music as being necessarily for a broad audience, and very particularly one that enjoys dancing. Just like blues has always been a musical form emphasizing collaboration, jazz has always been an ensemble style. Jazz and blues are really fun for musicians, because you play with and for each other as both entertainment and art form. Music doesn't have to exist for the sole purpose of appeasing wide groups of people that want to dance.
The article also has a very teleological, inorganic understanding of the development of (specifically, in this case; I can't speak for more broadly) jazz as form and genre. Jazz didn't unilaterally shift from one mode, to another, eliminating its descendants and predecessors as it went along; instead it branched out, with new styles emerging according to different popular tastes. Different types of jazz existed for different people; swing remained and still does, as did ragtime, bebop, bossa nova/Latin jazz, and even smooth jazz. Counter to the article, jazz isn't and never was a monolithic genre, defined entirely by one method of playing, popular or not.
It also has a very strange summary of the social/cultural history of jazz, seeming to portray it as typically 'new-fangled' music that "stuffy conservative types... and parents didn't like" because it was New and they were Old. The truth has much more to do with American race relations and (African-)American musical history (something virtually swept under the rug in the article) than simply being wholly 'music' without any cultural background.
Jazz is a varied, dynamic, organic genre and musical form that, as with anything else, one can enjoy or not. However, the problem in the article lies in how it attempts to rationalize an opinion about music into a material fact. It does so with faulty evidence, uncritical bias, ad a general desire to reach a stated end and bend truth to fit that mold. There's nothing wrong with simply saying, "I don't like jazz." That's an opinion, and it's fine to have. Unless you come from a family with deep traditions of jazz, the music itself doesn't have any impact on you, personally, and how you live your life. Enjoying jazz or not enjoying jazz is not a moral or historical stand to make. The deep, and not uncommon, problem is in trying to justify opinion through pseudo-academic evidence-building. This never ends well, because it isn't a critical, open-minded attempt at furthering knowledge, but a direct attempt at bringing facts together in a haphazard way that 'proves' a point already decided on.
If you think jazz is boring, you think jazz is boring, that's that. If you try to construct an academic-styled defence of why jazz is inherently bad and in doing so deliberately misinform people, you become the bad thing. It's really, really not good. Being open-minded, thoughtful, and critical is good.
Okay first of all it's called THINGS KPOPALYPSE DISLIKES IN MUSIC, so that should make it clear enough that he writes his own opinions, and he's not here to educate anyone. He's a dude with extensive musical background, both academic and performing, so his vocabulary in expressing WHY he doesn't like the things he dislikes is much broader, but that doesn't change the fact that it's his opinion and if anyone is high-horsey about it it's definitely not him, that's why I like reading his stuff. Idk why you expected an academic article on a dude's kpop blog where he writes about things he hates and enjoys freely but kpop in general is the sort of scene where you either learn to not take everything so butt seriously or you drown in standom with little chance of recovery so his audience is on the same wavelength as him.
- - - Updated - - -
And where did he say it's a monolithic genre he mentions like at least five different subgenres??
But we can all probably agree that techniquefagging segment of the blog is just retarded, right
expecting your own, correct jazz article, warmly
I don't have a dog in this race, but that he's expressing his personal opinion and apparently doesn't take things too seriously doesn't really excuse misinformation and lack of knowledge, if those did indeed happen.
Hm! I think I get it. Is "Son of a Preacher Man" a soul song? What about "Shake a Tailfeather" or "Everybody Needs Somebody to Love"?
Oh jesus christ