@The Pentacle Queen,
I got so disgusted after reading this thread that I joined just to respond here.
I can understand the passion jazz musicians have for their music, I would imagine it is very similar to the passion that most people have for the music they like. I don't think of genres as boxes, but most jazz does display similar traits which I think I don't like, namely a 'lazy' feel, and jazz tonality... I tend to go for a more dramatic architecture, whether that's Lady Gaga or Shostakovitch.
Let's deconstruct the above quote:
I can understand the passion jazz musicians have for their music...
How exactly can you understand this passion without being a musician who plays jazz?--Some form of empathy?--By "watching" and "listening" to what these players try to do?-- Through music analysis? You have revealed a personal distaste for jazz in general. Still, you can understand the "passion" (and passion is defined by MW as "a strong feeling of enthusiasm or excitement for something or about doing something") without having developed a passion for the music or playing it yourself. Hence, the question really is: What kind of "understanding" are you going to have? Having never immersed yourself in it, your understanding of this passion is going to be particularly superficial. Now had you said that you understand many jazz musicians have a lot of passion for their music, I would have just smiled. You said, "I understand the passion." I highly doubt it.
...I would imagine it is very similar to the passion that most people have for the music they like.
Then you're confounding what is an understanding with what is a product of your imagination. The passion of people who play or listen to heavy metal, 50s rock and roll, The classical music of Europe, Avant-garde jazz, or rap music, is likely to be very different indeed. If everyone has the same passion motivating them to make music, why would there be so many different forms of musical expression?
I don't think of genres as boxes, but most jazz does display similar traits...
A contradiction at best, but maybe you know this on some level. Logically, to say "I hate Jazz" means there's a rubric in your head. You have placed music that has some "lazy" "pretentious" "predictable" (your labels from above) characteristic under the genre of "jazz." This is music you have decided you hate. It doesn't take a cognitive psychologist to know that if you have done this, as soon as something is labelled "jazz" you are very much biased against liking it before you've even heard it. That's the equivalent of placing a genre into a box. Your other posts continually overgeneralize about these apparent traits of the "jazz" genre to the point of absurd. Consider your first post:
I just really hate jazz, I think it's tonality is totally sterile, I think the improvisation sounds so predetermined and predictable it is completely lifeless. I can't associate it with any passion or integrity at all, it's just banal.
Besides the further contradiction here regarding this "passion" you say you can understand, how do you somehow take music that spans development from Benny Goodman, to Louis Prima and Louis Armstrong, to Dizzy Gillespie and Herbie Hancock, to Tito Puente, to Chick Corea and Jaco Pastorius, to the mahavishnu orchestra, to Pat Metheny and George Benson -- or with jazz vocalists from Ella Fitzgerald to someone like Norah Jones, how can you possibly put a label like "banal" (defined commonly as lacking in originality) on all this diversity?
Watch this video of George Benson and analyze for me exactly how his solo work here is "predetermined and predictable" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0KOzrMUt10
And your descriptor of jazz as LIFELESS? Whatever the criteria is for a whole genre of music that is not "lifeless," I would be very suspect of it if fabricated by someone pretending to know something beyond a muddled opinion.
And does the following quote indicate some breadth of musical knowledge that somehow qualifies you to declare what music deserves the label "lifeless" :
I tend to go for a more dramatic architecture, whether that's Lady Gaga or Shostakovitch.
In fact, that statement is quite meaningless, as is much of what you said above.
You know why I "hate" jazz? It's because it is one of the most challenging styles of music I have ever tried to play. Improvisation is not exclusive to jazz, but because it has an important place within jazz the musicians who want to play it must learn how to improvise, and like life itself, there is no one correct method for finding your way. The basic guidelines that exist are a joke to be called "predetermined." Only a novice would believe that most jazz players learn licks and then regurgitate these over and over again when approaching a solo. Any note can be played over a piece of music if played the right way, and this in and of itself makes jazz quite beautiful. It's a journey worthwhile despite how challenging it is.