Abso-bloody-lutely. "White man saves jazz" - it's a complete and utter screw you to a genre that Damien Chazelle blatantly only half-remembers in terms of jazz pastiche.
Even worse, and I'd forgotten to mention it - Whiplash. It's a sports film dressed up as a music film. It's a great film but it's absolutely not representative of jazz and it really, really gets to me. (Where are the jam sessions? Why is JK Simmons allowed to drive Miles Teller to this sort of thing? No drummer would punch their snare which likely cost them a few hundred quid! So on, so forth) Adam Neely sums it up for me:
I get equally irritated by people taking Whiplash too seriously. Its not about jazz. It’s not a documentary. It’s no more responsible for being accurate with jazz or playing in a band than Mighty Ducks is to ice hockey or Escape to Victory is to football.
The only people who get pissed off at Whiplash are musicians, which to me says a lot!
To be fair I think you get that reaction when any expert watches a movie on the subject matter they love.
This is completely fair. But then, we have two very popular films in La La Land and Whiplash, produced by the same bloke, that give zero indication as to how it works.
I know I'm being a bit of a gatekeeper here. I am aware. And on their cinematic merits, both are great films. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy them.
But when they are the only representations we have of the modern jazz world that most people are conscious of, it does rankle.
As a comparison (and maybe not fair here, as we might be conflating a whole nation's culture with something getting ever more niche) - Lost In Translation is a great film and explores its themes wonderfully. But it does caricature Japanese culture somewhat, and if that is one's main exposure to what Japan might be like, I can see why the film got the critical backlash it did in Japan.
But yeah. I likely have an unavoidable lens through which I watched those films.
Perhaps you should make your own jazz fiĺms so that we can get a proper balance.
If you're offering patronage, I need a budget of £2.8m (roughly what Whiplash cost) please!
... No, I'm joking. As a jazz musician I'll take £50 per band member for two hours of bland renditions of The Girl From Ipanema et al that nobody's listening to at some mid-range restaurant, and we can film that on an iPhone or something.
@PaddyP17 I think the Lost In Translation comparison is fair - if you don’t know much about that culture you take it as accurate. It’s probably just as offensive to jazz players to see their world depicted inaccurately!
@kentaddick Top Gun 2 does look brilliant, and I’ll doubt they’ll reprise the theme song!
Abso-bloody-lutely. "White man saves jazz" - it's a complete and utter screw you to a genre that Damien Chazelle blatantly only half-remembers in terms of jazz pastiche.
Even worse, and I'd forgotten to mention it - Whiplash. It's a sports film dressed up as a music film. It's a great film but it's absolutely not representative of jazz and it really, really gets to me. (Where are the jam sessions? Why is JK Simmons allowed to drive Miles Teller to this sort of thing? No drummer would punch their snare which likely cost them a few hundred quid! So on, so forth) Adam Neely sums it up for me:
I get equally irritated by people taking Whiplash too seriously. Its not about jazz. It’s not a documentary. It’s no more responsible for being accurate with jazz or playing in a band than Mighty Ducks is to ice hockey or Escape to Victory is to football.
The only people who get pissed off at Whiplash are musicians, which to me says a lot!
To be fair I think you get that reaction when any expert watches a movie on the subject matter they love.
This is completely fair. But then, we have two very popular films in La La Land and Whiplash, produced by the same bloke, that give zero indication as to how it works.
I know I'm being a bit of a gatekeeper here. I am aware. And on their cinematic merits, both are great films. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy them.
But when they are the only representations we have of the modern jazz world that most people are conscious of, it does rankle.
As a comparison (and maybe not fair here, as we might be conflating a whole nation's culture with something getting ever more niche) - Lost In Translation is a great film and explores its themes wonderfully. But it does caricature Japanese culture somewhat, and if that is one's main exposure to what Japan might be like, I can see why the film got the critical backlash it did in Japan.
But yeah. I likely have an unavoidable lens through which I watched those films.
Perhaps you should make your own jazz fiĺms so that we can get a proper balance.
If you're offering patronage, I need a budget of £2.8m (roughly what Whiplash cost) please!
... No, I'm joking. As a jazz musician I'll take £50 per band member for two hours of bland renditions of The Girl From Ipanema et al that nobody's listening to at some mid-range restaurant, and we can film that on an iPhone or something.
Now that's jazz.
I'd try to stop over analyzing things. Whiplash and LaLaLand are just films in the same way that Bird or Round Midnight were.
As a professional astronaut I was really offended by the depiction of my trade in Armageddon.
@ me if you're gonna be snarky and follow me across threads.
Not what I'm saying at all.
You don't do well with jokes do you?
Following you across threads? Have you got the right bloke
I presume it was coincidence, then, that in the span of five minutes, I reply to one thread with a different OP, you then lol and write "Goodness grief" after what I've written; and then on this thread, you mock what I've written in response to someone else entirely.
If so, then fair enough, I apologise.
As for doing well with jokes - different strokes for different folks I suppose.
Abso-bloody-lutely. "White man saves jazz" - it's a complete and utter screw you to a genre that Damien Chazelle blatantly only half-remembers in terms of jazz pastiche.
Even worse, and I'd forgotten to mention it - Whiplash. It's a sports film dressed up as a music film. It's a great film but it's absolutely not representative of jazz and it really, really gets to me. (Where are the jam sessions? Why is JK Simmons allowed to drive Miles Teller to this sort of thing? No drummer would punch their snare which likely cost them a few hundred quid! So on, so forth) Adam Neely sums it up for me:
I get equally irritated by people taking Whiplash too seriously. Its not about jazz. It’s not a documentary. It’s no more responsible for being accurate with jazz or playing in a band than Mighty Ducks is to ice hockey or Escape to Victory is to football.
The only people who get pissed off at Whiplash are musicians, which to me says a lot!
To be fair I think you get that reaction when any expert watches a movie on the subject matter they love.
This is completely fair. But then, we have two very popular films in La La Land and Whiplash, produced by the same bloke, that give zero indication as to how it works.
I know I'm being a bit of a gatekeeper here. I am aware. And on their cinematic merits, both are great films. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy them.
But when they are the only representations we have of the modern jazz world that most people are conscious of, it does rankle.
As a comparison (and maybe not fair here, as we might be conflating a whole nation's culture with something getting ever more niche) - Lost In Translation is a great film and explores its themes wonderfully. But it does caricature Japanese culture somewhat, and if that is one's main exposure to what Japan might be like, I can see why the film got the critical backlash it did in Japan.
But yeah. I likely have an unavoidable lens through which I watched those films.
Perhaps you should make your own jazz fiĺms so that we can get a proper balance.
If you're offering patronage, I need a budget of £2.8m (roughly what Whiplash cost) please!
... No, I'm joking. As a jazz musician I'll take £50 per band member for two hours of bland renditions of The Girl From Ipanema et al that nobody's listening to at some mid-range restaurant, and we can film that on an iPhone or something.
Now that's jazz.
I'd try to stop over analyzing things. Whiplash and LaLaLand are just films in the same way that Bird or Round Midnight were.
You created a thread around discussing films, then told us to stop over-analysing films? They're just films? Well... close the thread then.
Abso-bloody-lutely. "White man saves jazz" - it's a complete and utter screw you to a genre that Damien Chazelle blatantly only half-remembers in terms of jazz pastiche.
Even worse, and I'd forgotten to mention it - Whiplash. It's a sports film dressed up as a music film. It's a great film but it's absolutely not representative of jazz and it really, really gets to me. (Where are the jam sessions? Why is JK Simmons allowed to drive Miles Teller to this sort of thing? No drummer would punch their snare which likely cost them a few hundred quid! So on, so forth) Adam Neely sums it up for me:
I get equally irritated by people taking Whiplash too seriously. Its not about jazz. It’s not a documentary. It’s no more responsible for being accurate with jazz or playing in a band than Mighty Ducks is to ice hockey or Escape to Victory is to football.
The only people who get pissed off at Whiplash are musicians, which to me says a lot!
To be fair I think you get that reaction when any expert watches a movie on the subject matter they love.
This is completely fair. But then, we have two very popular films in La La Land and Whiplash, produced by the same bloke, that give zero indication as to how it works.
I know I'm being a bit of a gatekeeper here. I am aware. And on their cinematic merits, both are great films. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy them.
But when they are the only representations we have of the modern jazz world that most people are conscious of, it does rankle.
As a comparison (and maybe not fair here, as we might be conflating a whole nation's culture with something getting ever more niche) - Lost In Translation is a great film and explores its themes wonderfully. But it does caricature Japanese culture somewhat, and if that is one's main exposure to what Japan might be like, I can see why the film got the critical backlash it did in Japan.
But yeah. I likely have an unavoidable lens through which I watched those films.
Perhaps you should make your own jazz fiĺms so that we can get a proper balance.
If you're offering patronage, I need a budget of £2.8m (roughly what Whiplash cost) please!
... No, I'm joking. As a jazz musician I'll take £50 per band member for two hours of bland renditions of The Girl From Ipanema et al that nobody's listening to at some mid-range restaurant, and we can film that on an iPhone or something.
Now that's jazz.
I'd try to stop over analyzing things. Whiplash and LaLaLand are just films in the same way that Bird or Round Midnight were.
You created a thread around discussing films, then told us to stop over-analysing films? They're just films? Well... close the thread then.
Hi Jimbo how are you today?
I said overanalyzing 'things' not films. Films need to be looked at as films not as a history of music unless they're pretending to do this. They're not documentaries.
Anyway it's good to have you keeping an eye on me.
As a professional astronaut I was really offended by the depiction of my trade in Armageddon.
@ me if you're gonna be snarky and follow me across threads.
Not what I'm saying at all.
You don't do well with jokes do you?
Following you across threads? Have you got the right bloke
I presume it was coincidence, then, that in the span of five minutes, I reply to one thread with a different OP, you then lol and write "Goodness grief" after what I've written; and then on this thread, you mock what I've written in response to someone else entirely.
If so, then fair enough, I apologise.
As for doing well with jokes - different strokes for different folks I suppose.
I guess I did LOL you and then reply to you on here, didn't even realize it was the same person to be honest. The fact you'd get funny about it being in a 5 minute span is mad. This is a bloody forum mate.
Abso-bloody-lutely. "White man saves jazz" - it's a complete and utter screw you to a genre that Damien Chazelle blatantly only half-remembers in terms of jazz pastiche.
Even worse, and I'd forgotten to mention it - Whiplash. It's a sports film dressed up as a music film. It's a great film but it's absolutely not representative of jazz and it really, really gets to me. (Where are the jam sessions? Why is JK Simmons allowed to drive Miles Teller to this sort of thing? No drummer would punch their snare which likely cost them a few hundred quid! So on, so forth) Adam Neely sums it up for me:
I get equally irritated by people taking Whiplash too seriously. Its not about jazz. It’s not a documentary. It’s no more responsible for being accurate with jazz or playing in a band than Mighty Ducks is to ice hockey or Escape to Victory is to football.
The only people who get pissed off at Whiplash are musicians, which to me says a lot!
To be fair I think you get that reaction when any expert watches a movie on the subject matter they love.
This is completely fair. But then, we have two very popular films in La La Land and Whiplash, produced by the same bloke, that give zero indication as to how it works.
I know I'm being a bit of a gatekeeper here. I am aware. And on their cinematic merits, both are great films. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy them.
But when they are the only representations we have of the modern jazz world that most people are conscious of, it does rankle.
As a comparison (and maybe not fair here, as we might be conflating a whole nation's culture with something getting ever more niche) - Lost In Translation is a great film and explores its themes wonderfully. But it does caricature Japanese culture somewhat, and if that is one's main exposure to what Japan might be like, I can see why the film got the critical backlash it did in Japan.
But yeah. I likely have an unavoidable lens through which I watched those films.
Perhaps you should make your own jazz fiĺms so that we can get a proper balance.
If you're offering patronage, I need a budget of £2.8m (roughly what Whiplash cost) please!
... No, I'm joking. As a jazz musician I'll take £50 per band member for two hours of bland renditions of The Girl From Ipanema et al that nobody's listening to at some mid-range restaurant, and we can film that on an iPhone or something.
Now that's jazz.
I'd try to stop over analyzing things. Whiplash and LaLaLand are just films in the same way that Bird or Round Midnight were.
You created a thread around discussing films, then told us to stop over-analysing films? They're just films? Well... close the thread then.
Hi Jimbo how are you today?
I said overanalyzing 'things' not films. Films need to be looked at as films not as a history of music unless they're pretending to do this. They're not documentaries.
Anyway it's good to have you keeping an eye on me.
It's impossible to avoid you on this site given that you have something (or IMO nothing) to say on pretty much every subject.
"I said overanalyzing 'things' not films."
You're talking absolute and utter shite, but it's abundantly clear you will never, ever admit that (cos then you'd have to stop posting so much), and even clearer you need the last word or you'll have an embolism, so I'll let you go ahead and do my absolute best to ignore your inanity in future!
I don't think I'm alone in thinking Prometheus was complete cock. I was also pretty annoyed with the last Alien film
The Kill Bill films let me down, maybe because there was so much hype
The Godfather, again maybe it's because people are very excitable about it and I want to like it but I can't make myself
I'm going to stick up for 3 Billboards, Wind River and Hell or Highwater I loved those films as well as fight club and American history X
Dunkirk had some really good elements to it but I wasnt as impressed as I was with Interstellar. Shutter Island I didn't like and I thought the twist whilst a proper twist was a real cop out
Abso-bloody-lutely. "White man saves jazz" - it's a complete and utter screw you to a genre that Damien Chazelle blatantly only half-remembers in terms of jazz pastiche.
Even worse, and I'd forgotten to mention it - Whiplash. It's a sports film dressed up as a music film. It's a great film but it's absolutely not representative of jazz and it really, really gets to me. (Where are the jam sessions? Why is JK Simmons allowed to drive Miles Teller to this sort of thing? No drummer would punch their snare which likely cost them a few hundred quid! So on, so forth) Adam Neely sums it up for me:
I get equally irritated by people taking Whiplash too seriously. Its not about jazz. It’s not a documentary. It’s no more responsible for being accurate with jazz or playing in a band than Mighty Ducks is to ice hockey or Escape to Victory is to football.
The only people who get pissed off at Whiplash are musicians, which to me says a lot!
To be fair I think you get that reaction when any expert watches a movie on the subject matter they love.
This is completely fair. But then, we have two very popular films in La La Land and Whiplash, produced by the same bloke, that give zero indication as to how it works.
I know I'm being a bit of a gatekeeper here. I am aware. And on their cinematic merits, both are great films. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy them.
But when they are the only representations we have of the modern jazz world that most people are conscious of, it does rankle.
As a comparison (and maybe not fair here, as we might be conflating a whole nation's culture with something getting ever more niche) - Lost In Translation is a great film and explores its themes wonderfully. But it does caricature Japanese culture somewhat, and if that is one's main exposure to what Japan might be like, I can see why the film got the critical backlash it did in Japan.
But yeah. I likely have an unavoidable lens through which I watched those films.
Perhaps you should make your own jazz fiĺms so that we can get a proper balance.
If you're offering patronage, I need a budget of £2.8m (roughly what Whiplash cost) please!
... No, I'm joking. As a jazz musician I'll take £50 per band member for two hours of bland renditions of The Girl From Ipanema et al that nobody's listening to at some mid-range restaurant, and we can film that on an iPhone or something.
Now that's jazz.
I'd try to stop over analyzing things. Whiplash and LaLaLand are just films in the same way that Bird or Round Midnight were.
You created a thread around discussing films, then told us to stop over-analysing films? They're just films? Well... close the thread then.
Hi Jimbo how are you today?
I said overanalyzing 'things' not films. Films need to be looked at as films not as a history of music unless they're pretending to do this. They're not documentaries.
Anyway it's good to have you keeping an eye on me.
It's impossible to avoid you on this site given that you have something (or IMO nothing) to say on pretty much every subject.
"I said overanalyzing 'things' not films."
You're talking absolute and utter shite, but it's abundantly clear you will never, ever admit that (cos then you'd have to stop posting so much), and even clearer you need the last word or you'll have an embolism, so I'll let you go ahead and do my absolute best to ignore your inanity in future!
Thank you for your kind words. I hope you feel better now.
Comments
... No, I'm joking. As a jazz musician I'll take £50 per band member for two hours of bland renditions of The Girl From Ipanema et al that nobody's listening to at some mid-range restaurant, and we can film that on an iPhone or something.
Now that's jazz.
If so, then fair enough, I apologise.
As for doing well with jokes - different strokes for different folks I suppose.
Dances with wolves had Kevin Costner
Avatar has... Sam Worthington
I said overanalyzing 'things' not films. Films need to be looked at as films not as a history of music unless they're pretending to do this. They're not documentaries.
Anyway it's good to have you keeping an eye on me.
"I said overanalyzing 'things' not films."
You're talking absolute and utter shite, but it's abundantly clear you will never, ever admit that (cos then you'd have to stop posting so much), and even clearer you need the last word or you'll have an embolism, so I'll let you go ahead and do my absolute best to ignore your inanity in future!
The Kill Bill films let me down, maybe because there was so much hype
The Godfather, again maybe it's because people are very excitable about it and I want to like it but I can't make myself
I'm going to stick up for 3 Billboards, Wind River and Hell or Highwater I loved those films as well as fight club and American history X
Dunkirk had some really good elements to it but I wasnt as impressed as I was with Interstellar. Shutter Island I didn't like and I thought the twist whilst a proper twist was a real cop out