Are Jazz Drummers Overrated?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The teacher who taught me how to play Rock was also an excellent jazz drummer.
I was a kid at the time and I didn't want to learn how to play jazz.
One day Dan (the teacher) sat down behind a kit and he explained a bit about jazz and he showed me some jazz playing.
It was the first time that I had ever watched a jazz drummer play with the intent to understand.
I was able to see right away that the playing was on a level that was far beyond me at the time.
The phrase, Jazz Drummers Are Overrated" never crossed my mind!
 
So 100 replies and only the OP thinks that jazz drummers are over-rated. Either we're all of a bunch of traditionalists or jazz drummers really aren't over-rated.
 
Does anybody else here feel that jazz drummers get way too much credit? Somebody recommended that I check out a guy named Max Roach. They said he was one of the greatest jazz drummers. Well, I looked him up on You Tube and I was hardly impressed. If this guy is one of the greatest I don't see how he could be anywhere near any of the great metal drummers. How is jazz harder to play than metal? How many jazz drummers could even come close to handling the speed that most metal songs are played? I just don't see what the big deal is when it comes to jazz drummers.

music is subjective. overating or underating is all based on the values an individual places on music/drumming.

however this is a pretty effective troll, 3 pages of response so far.

in terms of credit, popularity does usually create disagreement. someone can be "the best" when actually they're just popular or in a situation where they reach a lot of people with their playing.

unfortunately anyone would look ignorant trying to compare one style to another, or saying one style is "better" than another. it just sounds like you don't understand jazz music yet. if metal has more of what you value in music then its great you enjoy listening to and playing it.

jazz is not better than another style, it just is a style. same for metal or any style.
 
Its a stage a lot of young drummer go through where chops/speed is everything. Really all musicians deal with it at some point. It takes time to learn & appreciate composition.

Not a fan of this school of thought. Music that is only appreciable for those who spend years studying it is music I have no interest in producing.

Let me draw (yet another) analogy. I'm a magician, as is a good friend of mine. He makes money at it, I don't. One of the main reasons is that I learn intricate, difficult card effects that really don't look like a whole lot in terms of the "trick" but the inner mechanisms of the performance are INCREDIBLY difficult and technical. He, on the other hand, plays from the audience's perspective. The difficulty of what he does never crosses his mind, only how it looks to the audience.

When you watch me do some things, most people will go "hey that's kinda neat" but magicians who know the moves are MUCH more impressed. Meanwhile, I'd argue he's a much better magician because if the point is to cause wonder in the audience then he's a LOT better at it than I am.

"Extreme Jazz" is a lot in the same manner (again, keep in mind I like LOTS of jazz). I'm sure that a Max Roach is doing things VERY specifically, but it's not INTERESTING. It doesn't create a sound that is, by itself, fun to listen to. The only merit in it is if you have studied music enough to know what he's doing. The whole is not as good as the sum of its parts.

TL;DR Limb independence and difficult arrangements shouldn't be the goal, they should be a means to an end. Intricacy for its own sake might impress music nerds, but it's not being a good performer.
 
Not a fan of this school of thought. Music that is only appreciable for those who spend years studying it is music I have no interest in producing.

Let me draw (yet another) analogy. I'm a magician, as is a good friend of mine. He makes money at it, I don't. One of the main reasons is that I learn intricate, difficult card effects that really don't look like a whole lot in terms of the "trick" but the inner mechanisms of the performance are INCREDIBLY difficult and technical. He, on the other hand, plays from the audience's perspective. The difficulty of what he does never crosses his mind, only how it looks to the audience.

When you watch me do some things, most people will go "hey that's kinda neat" but magicians who know the moves are MUCH more impressed. Meanwhile, I'd argue he's a much better magician because if the point is to cause wonder in the audience then he's a LOT better at it than I am.

"Extreme Jazz" is a lot in the same manner (again, keep in mind I like LOTS of jazz). I'm sure that a Max Roach is doing things VERY specifically, but it's not INTERESTING. It doesn't create a sound that is, by itself, fun to listen to. The only merit in it is if you have studied music enough to know what he's doing. The whole is not as good as the sum of its parts.

TL;DR Limb independence and difficult arrangements shouldn't be the goal, they should be a means to an end. Intricacy for its own sake might impress music nerds, but it's not being a good performer.

My thoughts conveniently arranged in this post. Thank you.
 
Could it be that we have people lurking in the wings who know our weakness for arguing about jazz and have decided to get their jollies by stringing us along for a ride? Or could it be that it's just another conspiracy theory?

Stay tuned for the next exciting chapter of ... Swing 'em High©!
 
Let's put it this way Polly, Have you ever started a thread and then not checked back a few hours later to see if anyone had responded to it?
I know that if I called you on something that you posted you would come right back at me with a response!
 
The great jazz drummers are good at playing jazz. The great metal drummers are good at playing metal. We all understand that. But can you wrap your mind around this one,,the great country drummers are good at playing country. It's all about perspective. Personally I do my own thing, so I think everyone doing their own thing needs to be commended.
 
This troll did a GREAT job
I have to disagree. The threadstarter left, then people had fun with the thread without too many taking it all that seriously. Then he came back again several times under his usual identity and none of the hardcores took the bait, seeing as how his routine has become so old and predictable. The congratulations goes to the guys who took this for what it was from the very start.
 
Not a fan of this school of thought. Music that is only appreciable for those who spend years studying it is music I have no interest in producing.
.

Not exactly what he said, he said it takes time to learn/appreciate composition, which it does. You might like music and appreciate listening to stuff, but that doesn't mean you understand why you like listening to it.

If you're producing raw black metal such as Dead era Mayhem you're not making something that is accessible to most people, even with musical education.

Just because people with education understand why something sounds good while something else sounds bad doesn't mean they should be penalized for it. Just because something is theoretically interesting also doesn't mean that only people that study music will like it.

There is no music that only people who are musically educated will like it comes down to taste. Personally I enjoy listening to Max Roach, not Slipknot, and there are plenty of others who would agree. It's rather subjective, people have different tastes. What you find fun to listen to isn't what I find fun to listen to. So if we can't judge based on that, what do we judge on? Theory.
 
Stick around Frost I like your straight up balanced point of view.... ears, taste and the initial walls of bias/predjudice applied with humans and music all apply and views {taste} can change over time because of several factors at work in play. I left some good examples and thoughts to ponder on this subject from my own personal experiences earlier in this "interesting" thread.


By the way make mine a double Scotch..........


And Matt +1 buddy indeed :}


Swing e'm high Polly...... :}
 
Thanks for the kind words Steamer. As I said in another thread, I got over classing music as good and bad, everyone has their own tastes and I know the music I listen to now is a lot different to the music I was into at the start of high school.

One thing I find with theory is that it's better to know it then not know it. It doesn't hurt to have a musical education even if you never use it. I don't know of anyone who was better off by having no clue about theory while I can mention a ton of people who have benefited greatly from having studied the ins and outs of music.
 
Thanks for the kind words Steamer. As I said in another thread, I got over classing music as good and bad, everyone has their own tastes and I know the music I listen to now is a lot different to the music I was into at the start of high school.

One thing I find with theory is that it's better to know it then not know it. It doesn't hurt to have a musical education even if you never use it. I don't know of anyone who was better off by having no clue about theory while I can mention a ton of people who have benefited greatly from having studied the ins and outs of music.

You're most welcome Frost and I for one am enjoying your input here and keep calling it straight up buddy with your basic common sense and logic applied to music.
 
Forgive me, Frost, but I'm only going to pick at a few parts in your post because they address things I feel I need to clarify (I'm not cherry picking just to "argue").

If you're producing raw black metal such as Dead era Mayhem you're not making something that is accessible to most people, even with musical education.

You're correct, but the appeal to the sound doesn't really lie in any understanding of difficulty. You don't have to know what the term 'blast beat' is to develop a taste for it. What I was talking about was when you find people praising this or that by explaining how intricate and complex it is, as though that justified the sound it produces.

I dislike wankery of ALL kinds, if the techniques and methods are not in the pursuit of a given SOUND then it's no good. Now I *do* love some weedly-weedly tech death (Brain Drill), but that IS because I love the "wall of sound" concept and the chaos that comes with it. If you dislike it, I'm not going to say "but he's doing sweep arpeggios!!" or something.

Just because people with education understand why something sounds good while something else sounds bad doesn't mean they should be penalized for it. Just because something is theoretically interesting also doesn't mean that only people that study music will like it.

But DO they "understand" why something sounds good, or does their "understanding" force them to CLAIM it sounds good?

There's a guitarist out there by the name of Rusty Cooley. In terms of pure speed and technicality he's hard to beat. The guy is blisteringly fast and constructs ridiculously complex solos that dive around ten different keys and scales in a matter of seconds. However, they don't really sound like anything. You can sit and dissect the songs, explaining each piece of the solo and how it's so musically precise, but in the end it doesn't sound any good.

There is no music that only people who are musically educated will like it comes down to taste. Personally I enjoy listening to Max Roach, not Slipknot, and there are plenty of others who would agree. It's rather subjective, people have different tastes. What you find fun to listen to isn't what I find fun to listen to. So if we can't judge based on that, what do we judge on? Theory.

I agree with ALL of this. 100%. Where I have problems is when someone attempts to say that something MUST be good, since after all it uses all of these difficult and advanced musical techniques. Complexity does NOT guarantee quality. Our goals should ALWAYS be toward a sound, not showing off for its own sake.

There's a video out there of a guy doing five-way independence. He's doing different time signatures on both hands, both feet, and a whistle in his mouth. Retardedly difficult and advanced. A song? Nope. That's what I mean.

It's why I rarely like drum solos in general. To me, drums are the perfect "enhancing" instrument. They feel the pulse of the song and accentuate it. One guy tippity tapping on the lugs of his drums while hitting quarter notes on a hat? That's nothing to me. I'll listen to a full jazz band any day of the week and ADORE it. Jazz drum solos? no thanks.
 
Agreed! Some of the WORST offenders aren't in jazz, either. I see more pointless "tech showmanship" in deathcore and extreme metal than most others. That said, it seems to bleed into the jazz fans as well, who take the "musicianship" to weird extremes and even when it doesn't come together in a good song they STILL insist it's brilliance.

I'm in no way saying it doesn't happen all around (and if you want me to start railing into metal dudes for the same issue, I totally will, since as a die-hard metal lover I'm extra critical of my own favorite genre), but in jazz it's most aggravating to me. I always feel like when I criticize jazz the lovers of it are looking down on me.
 
Forgive me, Frost, but I'm only going to pick at a few parts in your post because they address things I feel I need to clarify (I'm not cherry picking just to "argue").

That's fine I enjoy an intelligent discussion, I wouldn't call it an argument as I don't believe we are really fighting.

You're correct, but the appeal to the sound doesn't really lie in any understanding of difficulty. You don't have to know what the term 'blast beat' is to develop a taste for it. What I was talking about was when you find people praising this or that by explaining how intricate and complex it is, as though that justified the sound it produces.

You are also correct, you don't have to understand something to enjoy it, but the point I was trying to make is that while you do not enjoy the sound it produces, I do. We cannot base arguments based solely around opinion. Its like taking someone to court and your only evidence being you thought they did it. Technical ability is a good, objective way to rate drummers, though not the only way.
MisterMixelpix said:
I dislike wankery of ALL kinds, if the techniques and methods are not in the pursuit of a given SOUND then it's no good. Now I *do* love some weedly-weedly tech death (Brain Drill), but that IS because I love the "wall of sound" concept and the chaos that comes with it. If you dislike it, I'm not going to say "but he's doing sweep arpeggios!!" or something.

What do you consider, "wankery"? Have you ever taken lessons? Is the fact someone can explain something in order to teach it a bad thing? You say you dislike "wankery" but honestly I hate most technical death metal for that very reason. Bands such as Origin are some of the most pretentious bands around and they admit it. If you class wankery as pretentiousness and virtuosity for virtuosities sake then I am sorry, that is what a lot of technical metal is.

MisterMixelpix said:
But DO they "understand" why something sounds good, or does their "understanding" force them to CLAIM it sounds good?

You will have to ask them, but I don't believe they made any claims based on their understanding and if they made a claim it was about theoretical technicality not about sound. People like all kinds of different music and just because it isn't your cup of tea doesn't make it bad, you may find it noisy, others find it enjoyable. I find weedly death metal noisy but I greatly enjoy John Coltrane.

MisterMixelpix said:
There's a guitarist out there by the name of Rusty Cooley. In terms of pure speed and technicality he's hard to beat. The guy is blisteringly fast and constructs ridiculously complex solos that dive around ten different keys and scales in a matter of seconds. However, they don't really sound like anything. You can sit and dissect the songs, explaining each piece of the solo and how it's so musically precise, but in the end it doesn't sound any good.

It doesn't sound good to your ears, there might be someone else that enjoys it, it's sad to say that you could play Mozart to every person in the world and there would be more people that dislike it then like it, it is the case with everything and it doesn't mean you should put something down just because it doesn't conform with your tastes.

MisterMixelpix said:
I agree with ALL of this. 100%. Where I have problems is when someone attempts to say that something MUST be good, since after all it uses all of these difficult and advanced musical techniques. Complexity does NOT guarantee quality. Our goals should ALWAYS be toward a sound, not showing off for its own sake.

There's a video out there of a guy doing five-way independence. He's doing different time signatures on both hands, both feet, and a whistle in his mouth. Retardedly difficult and advanced. A song? Nope. That's what I mean.

What if something actually is good? There is a difference between something being technically good and something sounding good to YOUR ears. You may not like the sound of something but that doesn't mean it isn't technically brilliant.

I do agree that complexity doesn't always produce the most accessible music, as a musician my goal is completely irrelevant of technicality, I simply try to make music I enjoy listening to with the goal to hopefully share it one day.
 
Hey Stan, you ever try Lagavulin? Smoky flavor, really super smooth single malt...Not overrated at all ; )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top