Most great jazz musicians require the listener to think and be engaged in the compositions in which they’re producing. What separates artists like Miles Davis and John Coltrane from Kenny G and The Rippingtons is that greats such as the former chose style over substance, rather than providing simple background music like the latter two produced in their careers. Kamasi Washington unfortunately falls into the latter category. His debut full-length, The Epic, features some of the most lifeless saxophone playing and mundane compositions I’ve ever heard in contemporary jazz music. The former Young Jazz Giants member fails to keep the listener even remotely interested throughout the LP’s excruciating runtime of 173 minutes, which feels more like a try-hard showcase of one’s musical abilities rather than a so-called “epic” which the album’s title promises toward.
I think puberty is a prerequisite to actually enjoying Jazz. I don't even think Marcel knows what he's truly talking about. I thought The Epic sucked but his descriptions of certain musical genres (particularly Jazz) sound like the kind of analytical textbook-agreed-upon drivelshit your local community college musicologist would regurgitate.
Even though I agree with parts of this review it's almost as bad as Fantano's in that neither review really says anything illuminating or profound about the music itself. Instead they resort to talking about how the album makes them feel.
This is why they will always be amateur level reviewers. Of course, how the music makes the listener feel is always the most important aspect of music, but that's not what music criticism is about. Every listener should decide for themselves how the music makes them feel. Why would anybody care how these two know-nothing's feel about this music?
Real music criticism is about uncovering the objective qualities of the music that cause your feelings toward it. Therein lies real appreciation, discussion, and understanding of music.
These two reviewers merely re-enact a shallow imitation of that, which many of the equally shallow music listeners of this board mistake for the real thing.
You get the feeling he didn't even listen to the album but just decided not to like it in opposition to Fantano, who basically did the exact opposite.
FYI I thought the album was mediocre, forgettable pop jazz.
>as Fantano's in that neither review really says anything illuminating or profound about the music itself. Instead they resort to talking about how the album makes them feel.
dudebro music reviews are useless. many music reviews are paid for and as a result are basically advertisements instead of anything worthwhile.
i dont care about fandango and i like to pretend he doesnt exist. i say good for him being able to do his thing but who cares.
Ok, go listen to more conservatory recital jazz albums then, fucking cuck.
Nothing as long as you realize it's intended to be listened differently from other jazz. It's just a new style of Smooth Jazz, barely canon.
It's like "Hey I heard you like Flying Lotus, so here's an album made just so you can say you have a favorite jazz album of the year!"
This is what jazz purists actually believe. kek. Off to the Lincoln Center with you.
Whoever wrote this doesn't know what they're talking about. I haven't even heard of Kamasi.
I bet whoever reviewed this only listens to standards and 80's post-bop
Or you know, just Miles Davis and John Coltrane like every jazz expert.
Anyways are these reviewers from /mu/ or something? What's the point of following them and referencing them by name? Every board is the fucking same.
The Epic is really good. It's not the most inventive piece of Jazz music, but it's very well contructed and the musicianship is top notch.
While it is in no way my favorite jazz album, it deserves recognition.
>David Virelles is super straight ahead though
What David Virelles albums have you heard? What have you heard him play on as a sideman? Anyway- Listen to Continuum because it's obvious you haven't.
It's debatable I suppose but my point is that this album seems to be created for, and marketed specifically to non-jazz fans.
That doesn't mean it's bad, it doesn't mean you're a non-jazz fan or poser or whatever if you like it. It doesn't even mean it's a bad thing to the jazz industry. It just means I think it was conceived, created, packaged, and marketed to cater to more mainstream listeners and it's succeeding marvelously.
You brainfeeder jazz casual trolls are pathetic. Do you really think anyone who doesn't like this smooth jazz garbage is some Wynton Marsalis purist.
If anything one criticism against this album is that it's not daring enough. It takes shallow pastiches of different styles of jazz and waters them down for ease of consumption of people that don't really listen to jazz.
You make no fucking sense whatsoever.
>Do you really think anyone who doesn't like this smooth jazz garbage is some Wynton Marsalis purist.
Nothing about this is smooth jazz, this was a heavy album imo. The next thing you'll be saying is Austin Peralta is adult contemporary.
> It takes shallow pastiches of different styles of jazz and waters them down for ease of consumption of people that don't really listen to jazz.
gr8 b8 m8. Did you actually listen to most of the album?
Use the archive. It's your friend.
>This isn't just /mu/, Jazz fans has always had a reputation for being elitist assholes for decades; no matter where you go
This isn't just jazz, music critics have always had a reputation for being elitist assholes for decades; no matter where you go
>Real music criticism is about uncovering the objective qualities of the music that cause your feelings toward it.
>cause your feelings
Therein lies the issue. if it affects your feelings differently to others, often to the point where people simply cannot agree on the quality of an album, who's to say there is anything 'objective' outside of the western tradition of harmony, tonality, timbre and rhythm? even then said 'objectivity' is reliant on a system which is inherently unobjective in its exclusion of non-western conventions. There is nothing outside of how music makes you 'feel', and any other assertion is simply baseless.
Wrong. Music is sound. Molecules vibrating in waves that can be controlled, measured, identified, analyzed, and catalogued. These are the objective qualities of music that lead to interesting discussion and help us get to the bottom of these vibrating patterns that stir emotion within us.
We can argue all day about what we like or don't like, but where does that get us? We should like and dislike different things, that's the nature of art. What's the point in discussing it at all. You know how music makes you feel- why would you care how it makes me feel, or Fantano, or any other anonymous "music critic"? Analyzing the objective qualities of music is the only real discussion that exists. The reason this board is so pointless is that the vast majority of the board tries to present it's feelings toward music as though it's important to anyone else. Then the majority of the board gets offended when other people don't have the same emotional reaction to music that they do. This is why the majority of posts on this board simply revolve around "it's great" or "it's shit."
Of course we're going to disagree about how music makes us feel. What's the point in even discussing it if were not going to dig any deeper into the objective measurable qualities of the music that cause our emotional response?
Is there any point in a board dedicated to an art form where people just respond to works of art with either "I like it" or "I don't like it"?
He isn't saying that music doesn't have objective qualities; he's saying that those qualities don't necessarily determine whether a piece of music is good or bad. Art is about our response to it and understanding our response to it and how we think it elicits that response
It sounds to me like he's saying those objective qualities aren't worth discussing, which is the part I disagree with. Through investigating these objective qualities we can discover patterns about what invokes emotion in us and find new music that further invokes those emotions we crave. Through analysis of these objective qualities in the music we can discover subtleties of the music we may have missed with our limited ears and attention spans. We can get better at listening to music and recognizing elements of these objective qualities. Sometimes it can even change your emotional response to the music.
Aren't these all good things?
What would you consider some heavy jazz albums?
Oh, of course. But it's ultimately correlation rather than causation when it comes to that kind of analysis. And with that kind of analysis, you're still, in the grand scheme of things, saying "I do/don't like this because of [objective musical qualities]."
>But it's ultimately correlation rather than causation when it comes to that kind of analysis.
Is it though? How do we really know? Doesn't that really bring us down to the mystery of emotion, consciousness, and self? After all, elements of our emotional responses to stimuli are objective, measurable, and manipulatable to a degree as well. Every emotion you've ever felt can be measured and described by the chemical release in your brain and your body's physical response to it. But is that really all our emotions consist of? That's the mystery I guess.
>And with that kind of analysis, you're still, in the grand scheme of things, saying "I do/don't like this because of [objective musical qualities]."
My only real point is that this is still far better than just "I do/don't like this." And leaving it at that. One can possibly lead to a much more interesting and extended discussion of the music in which both parties can learn new things. The other is almost always an intellectual dead end.
Your opinion is completely irrelevant now, you're a closed minded elitist douche. How can you claim to be a fan of jazz if you're that closed minded? Get the fuck off my /mu/ now!
he's not close minded for calling out another anon makes incorrect and brashly worded statements that clearly come from a basis of someone not knowing what theyre talking about. It's not elitist to find people who don't have much connection with a scene make wild and stupid claims about it to be ridiculous.