jazz question...kinda tricky

seandude

New member
we have to answer this question for EC

"Boxing is like jazz. The better it is, he less people appreciate it."
george foreman

explain it. what type of jazz is he referring to? do you agree why or why not?
 

break the prism

New member
i think he's saying that the most traditional forms of boxing are underappreciated because people have gotten used to the way it is now.
same with jazz. the people that play traditional (in his opinion, the better kind) jazz, are less appreciated by a lot of people.
 

cableman26

New member
I think he means once you get jazz in the studio mix it and make it all neat and tidy, it loses all that raw appeal. It loses all that attitude of the early day jazz, and makes it commercial. Same goes with boxing.
 

rufus4dagruv

New member
The only word from the quote that I do not like is "better." Do you know when he made that quote?

If George is referring to something like the UFC versus Boxing, I can kinda see where he's coming from, but the word "better" still does not really apply. When fusion bands in the 70's with their bigger stage productions and theatrics started to gain momentum, the guys who played more traditional forms of jazz were kinda left standing in the shadows. I don't think that this means that bands like Weather Report were necessarily better than, say, a trio led by Elvin Jones, but rather they were able to capitalize on the marketing techniques required to draw the big crowds in those days.

I guess ultimately we would need to know what George thinks constitutes great boxing, and great jazz, to understand what he's really talking about.
 

rebuskyle

New member
No....he's referring to the same thing as a defensive football game or even more appropriately a soccer match. Most folks don't have the patience or the palette to "digest" some headier jazz. When I say "headier" jazz I'm talking about some of the mid to late 60's stuff (or even some newer stuff like Kurt Rosenwinkle or Brad Mehldau)...the list could go on and on....

Another easy way to look at it is coffee or wine. Often the "better" something like that is the less appeal it has to the masses....

2 cents,
Kyle
kyle@notionmusic.com
 

Johnny Cat

New member
rebuskyle":2rxfwt29 said:
No....he's referring to the same thing as a defensive football game or even more appropriately a soccer match. Most folks don't have the patience or the palette to "digest" some headier jazz. When I say "headier" jazz I'm talking about some of the mid to late 60's stuff (or even some newer stuff like Kurt Rosenwinkle or Brad Mehldau)...the list could go on and on....

Another easy way to look at it is coffee or wine. Often the "better" something like that is the less appeal it has to the masses....

2 cents,
Kyle
kyle@notionmusic.com

Definitely. The more complex it got or the more technique involved, as boxing has technique as well, the fewer the people that appreciated it cause they just didn't get it anymore or it wasn't the most entertaining aspect of it for them, compared to say, the 1940's, when EVERYONE listened to jazz. It was the most popular form of music at the time. Even then it was getting more complex, and rock and roll came along and kicked its ass in popularity due to its simplicity. More people still got it, and most importantly at the time, could DANCE to it. Boxing is like dancing too in many ways, with regards to foot technique.
 

racefan33

New member
His comment is brilliant in it's comparison. Especially the sort of opposites it referrs to.

Two truly skilled boxers would be a pretty boring fight to most people because not a lot of punches would be thrown and landed because both boxers would have such disipline and good defensive skills.

On the opposite side. A truly great jazz band would have so much going on that it would confuse someone who couldn't really hear how the soloist is going in different directions and exploring different variations of the root melody, all while the band behind him would be flowing with him and interpreting all the different variations he put out while they would essentially be "talking" each other at the same time.
 

SGarrett

New member
racefan33":2peh9xuv said:
His comment is brilliant in it's comparison. Especially the sort of opposites it referrs to.

Two truly skilled boxers would be a pretty boring fight to most people because not a lot of punches would be thrown and landed because both boxers would have such disipline and good defensive skills.

On the opposite side. A truly great jazz band would have so much going on that it would confuse someone who couldn't really hear how the soloist is going in different directions and exploring different variations of the root melody, all while the band behind him would be flowing with him and interpreting all the different variations he put out while they would essentially be "talking" each other at the same time.
My mom loves smooth jazz and actually told me that she thinks real jazz is for people who aren't very good at playing. I couldn't help but laugh. I've tried explaining it to her, but she just refuses to get it.
 

racefan33

New member
SGarrett":11th7s7h said:
racefan33":11th7s7h said:
His comment is brilliant in it's comparison. Especially the sort of opposites it referrs to.

Two truly skilled boxers would be a pretty boring fight to most people because not a lot of punches would be thrown and landed because both boxers would have such disipline and good defensive skills.

On the opposite side. A truly great jazz band would have so much going on that it would confuse someone who couldn't really hear how the soloist is going in different directions and exploring different variations of the root melody, all while the band behind him would be flowing with him and interpreting all the different variations he put out while they would essentially be "talking" each other at the same time.
My mom loves smooth jazz and actually told me that she thinks real jazz is for people who aren't very good at playing. I couldn't help but laugh. I've tried explaining it to her, but she just refuses to get it.
...ergh...must...fight...must fight urge to make joke about SGarrett's mom using "loves", "smooth" and multitude of synonyms for fithy things...urg...
 

seandude

New member
racefan33":27a4tbuf said:
SGarrett":27a4tbuf said:
racefan33":27a4tbuf said:
His comment is brilliant in it's comparison. Especially the sort of opposites it referrs to.

Two truly skilled boxers would be a pretty boring fight to most people because not a lot of punches would be thrown and landed because both boxers would have such disipline and good defensive skills.

On the opposite side. A truly great jazz band would have so much going on that it would confuse someone who couldn't really hear how the soloist is going in different directions and exploring different variations of the root melody, all while the band behind him would be flowing with him and interpreting all the different variations he put out while they would essentially be "talking" each other at the same time.
My mom loves smooth jazz and actually told me that she thinks real jazz is for people who aren't very good at playing. I couldn't help but laugh. I've tried explaining it to her, but she just refuses to get it.
...ergh...must...fight...must fight urge to make joke about SGarrett's mom using "loves", "smooth" and multitude of synonyms for fithy things...urg...
lol!!
 

christopherabruce

New member
I agree completely. He could have compared any two art forms. Our wider society is trained not to like anything out of the norm, and out of the norm seems to always gravitate toward the mediocre, save the occasional exception.

seandude":1vbq94qa said:
we have to answer this question for EC

"Boxing is like jazz. The better it is, he less people appreciate it."
george foreman

explain it. what type of jazz is he referring to? do you agree why or why not?
 

tomchapman

New member
Hi everyone,
This is my first post so I'm sorry if I stir things up a bit!!!
Firstly, I think you all make great points. I would answer that whilst it's a clever analogy and a very digestable soundbyte, it doesn't quite hit the mark. Yes, more advanced jazz musicians will often play with such virtuosity and complexity that the uninitiated might struggle to understand it but that doesn't necessarily mean they're playing good jazz. It's a fact that jazz is appreciated by a minority in this country but you don't find that minority getting even smaller as the music gets better!!! Take an amateur dixielander to a Keith Jarrett gig and the chances are he'll find a lot to like in it. Now what I'm about to say isn't an accusation but it's very easy to balance one's focus on complexity, technicality and content rather than communication, artistic expression and emotional integrity. Last year I was privilged to play in a workshop with Dave Holland. He played a solo bass gig that evening to an intimate hushed hall, an audience of all ages and many different backgrounds. I don't think a single person with an ounce of artistic interest would have left that gig unmoved - to me it was the perfect example of technical prowess being used only for appropriate, emotional expression - musicianship meets musicality!

Now I don't know a lot about boxing - in fact I've never been able to watch it, I turn it off when it's on the telly because I don't like the violence of it. I can see how people say it's an art form - it can be graceful and it takes a lot of skill - I appreciate that it's not just two guys slugging it out. What I don't understand is what it communicates emotionally other than something base and instinctive like a blood-lust and it certainly doesn't do much for me intellectually! Can anyone help me out? Maybe I'm just like the guy who turns off the radio when jazz comes on!!

tc
 

Gaddabout

New member
Well, the analogy is almost a good fit. I would disagree that high-minded jazz has to be technical or complex. Sometimes a slow ballad with the right tone played by someone with an unusual or unique understanding of the blue notes can be as equally challenging (but also equally groundbreaking) as Coltrane blowing through the changes. Trumpet players in the Miles strain like Jeff Beal or Chris Botti are like that to me. Especially Beal. His tone and his ear hit me just right, but it's impossible to get across how beautifully complex his music is to someone who's never played it or tried to get inside a jazzer's head.

One of my better drum teachers explained to me great musicians tend to have a growth line something like this:

Restless Simplicity >>> Technique >>> Technique and Complexity >>> Passionate Complexity >>> Passionate Simplicity

His point wasn't the end result was better than the beginning result, and he made a point there was something to appreciate deeply at each stage; one is not better than another, but it does draw a distinction of evolution of musical thought in the 20th Century. I'm really taking liberties with his point of view by imposing my own, but for the sake of explaining, here are some artists that might represent this scale:

The Ramones or Green Day >>> Rush >>> Loads of jazz fusion >>> Coltrane in his "Love Supreme" era >>> the last 10 years of Miles Davis

I appreciate all of these artists and genres and find something inspiring in each of them. Don't ask me where your favorite artist fits. That's entirely up to you and I doubt I would agree with you. But I do think there's probably a higher understanding on the back end of this evolution chart that allows a better appreciation of the front end and the *process* of learning music that is revealed in the music that no non-musician can every truly understand.

Getting back to the analogy, I think this is something what Foreman was suggesting. As you move along the nuances of boxing there's a game within a game few people know of. It's so much more than two guys pummeling each other, and a strategy missed by all but the participants and fanatics of the sport. You could almost say this about any sport. Baseball comes to mind, but I can see this element in anything that requires applied rudiments in a dynamic environment (such as a field of competition or an improvisational exchange of musical ideas).
 

likelight2flies

New member
racefan33":243c9hvb said:
His comment is brilliant in it's comparison. Especially the sort of opposites it referrs to.

Two truly skilled boxers would be a pretty boring fight to most people because not a lot of punches would be thrown and landed because both boxers would have such disipline and good defensive skills.

On the opposite side. A truly great jazz band would have so much going on that it would confuse someone who couldn't really hear how the soloist is going in different directions and exploring different variations of the root melody, all while the band behind him would be flowing with him and interpreting all the different variations he put out while they would essentially be "talking" each other at the same time.
That's a great take on the quote. Although I would look at it this way. People watch boxing, not to admire the skill it takes to dodge a punch and counter that punch, but to see two people beat the shit out of each other. So they don't truely appreciate the skill and training it takes to aquire that skill. Just like someone who sits down and watches a great jazz band, and doesn't understand the amount of skill it takes to do what they are doing. The just HEAR the music rather than LISTEN to it. At least that was my take on it. It's usually people who don't play an instrument who do not appreciate music to that extent.
 

IamBilluRnot

New member
Well, let's see. Boxing is about two people beating the crap out of each other until one succumbs to the beating. Playing jazz (or any kind of music) makes people feel good and gives off a great vibe to the world. Yeah, I see what he means. NOT!!! Also, I don't think anyone has lost money betting on music. Keep making grills George.
 

GB1Kenobi

New member
tomchapman":3u567cnp said:
Hi everyone,
This is my first post so I'm sorry if I stir things up a bit!!!
Firstly, I think you all make great points. I would answer that whilst it's a clever analogy and a very digestable soundbyte, it doesn't quite hit the mark. Yes, more advanced jazz musicians will often play with such virtuosity and complexity that the uninitiated might struggle to understand it but that doesn't necessarily mean they're playing good jazz. It's a fact that jazz is appreciated by a minority in this country but you don't find that minority getting even smaller as the music gets better!!! Take an amateur dixielander to a Keith Jarrett gig and the chances are he'll find a lot to like in it. Now what I'm about to say isn't an accusation but it's very easy to balance one's focus on complexity, technicality and content rather than communication, artistic expression and emotional integrity. Last year I was privilged to play in a workshop with Dave Holland. He played a solo bass gig that evening to an intimate hushed hall, an audience of all ages and many different backgrounds. I don't think a single person with an ounce of artistic interest would have left that gig unmoved - to me it was the perfect example of technical prowess being used only for appropriate, emotional expression - musicianship meets musicality!

Now I don't know a lot about boxing - in fact I've never been able to watch it, I turn it off when it's on the telly because I don't like the violence of it. I can see how people say it's an art form - it can be graceful and it takes a lot of skill - I appreciate that it's not just two guys slugging it out. What I don't understand is what it communicates emotionally other than something base and instinctive like a blood-lust and it certainly doesn't do much for me intellectually! Can anyone help me out? Maybe I'm just like the guy who turns off the radio when jazz comes on!!

tc
There's jazz on the radio...?
 
Top