Why does swing sound so "good" ?

[nuffink]

Oh, and you're not the only ones. Every time someone gives a concise, practical answer on this forum, someone else will come along and rewrite the post with twice the words and half the clarity.

No wonder theory bores the shit out of so many musicians.

[Ubiety]

When the discussion is "what is swing?"

The discussion is, "What makes swing feel so 'good'?" No wonder you're all confused with poop in your pants.

1. It's a type of rhythm where the second of each pair of eighth notes (the off beats) is delayed by an amount at your discretion. Now f**k off and get good at it.

Stop stealing my words, so to speak, I said this multiple times in this thread. I provided the example of how and where Miles Davis got his information; listening to records, trying to get time playing with other musicians, learning theory with Dizzy Gillespie. Maybe I should have also mentioned that Miles studied at Juilliard just to ram the message home. I gave the example of how Alan Dawson educated his students. Maybe I should have also mentioned that Alan Dawson taught at Berklee College of Music and that Tony Williams was a student of his while there. Maybe--it would have only been for your benefit--but I don't think that I needed to since based on what I did say it is clear that multiple approaches are needed for one individual to learn swing and to become good at it. Maybe, for your benefit, I should have thrown in "delayed eighth notes" just to reach an accord, but since you are the champion of "delayed eighth notes" I didn't feel the need to.

I explicitly stated that I was not against formal education.

The other thing is that I never said that you were wrong. I only said that you were presenting information out of context and that it was misleading because of it.

2. It's deep dark juju only known to real jazzists after a lifetime of study so don't bother even trying. Now f**k off and make some trance.

The only person that spouted this crap was you. You alone. So f**k off and grow a new pair of ears. Your listening skills are obvious and your students should flee.

[BertKoor]

"Swing" is rythmical jitter. And this time it sounds good, because it's human (and analog ofcourse)

[nuffink]

1. It's a type of rhythm where the second of each pair of eighth notes (the off beats) is delayed by an amount at your discretion. Now f**k off and get good at it.

Stop stealing my words, so to speak, I said this multiple times in this thread.

[Ubiety]

1. It's a type of rhythm where the second of each pair of eighth notes (the off beats) is delayed by an amount at your discretion. Now f**k off and get good at it.

Stop stealing my words, so to speak, I said this multiple times in this thread.

Finally got your diaper changed, I see.

[nuffink]

What can I say? Where is there to go when somebody who's been trying to belittle your argument for two days, turns round and claims it as their own?

It's breathtaking.

[Ubiety]

What can I say? Where is there to go when somebody who's been trying to belittle your argument for two days, turns round and claims it as their own?

It's breathtaking.

As I said, you can't hear for shit. I am the one who said that one had to develop their own voice and their own conception regarding whatever kind of information that is presented to them. That a few words written on a page doesn't amount to much when it comes to learning swing. That's what this following piece of crudeness is saying:

1. It's a type of rhythm where the second of each pair of eighth notes (the off beats) is delayed by an amount at your discretion. Now f**k off and get good at it.

You can't even hear the tenor of your own voice, never mind the meaning. You really are trifling.

[dirty oscillators]

What can I say? Where is there to go when somebody who's been trying to belittle your argument for two days, turns round and claims it as their own?

It's breathtaking.

totally... i think your first comment on this thread is exactly what Ubiety claims he's said multiple times.

[Ubiety]

What can I say? Where is there to go when somebody who's been trying to belittle your argument for two days, turns round and claims it as their own?

It's breathtaking.

totally... i think your first comment on this thread is exactly what Ubiety claims he's said multiple times.

Yet someone else with wax for ears.

[dirty oscillators]

I provided the example of how and where Miles Davis got his information; listening to records, trying to get time playing with other musicians, learning theory with Dizzy Gillespie. Maybe I should have also mentioned that Miles studied at Juilliard just to ram the message home. I gave the example of how Alan Dawson educated his students. Maybe I should have also mentioned that Alan Dawson taught at Berklee College of Music and that Tony Williams was a student of his while there.

what's your point???

you're not explaining why "swing sounds so good" and in fact, you sound like some stuffy professor type and not so much like an artist.

spouting off a bunch of music history lessons doesn't prove that you had already said, "It's a type of rhythm where the second of each pair of eighth notes (the off beats) is delayed by an amount at your discretion" so i don't get where you're coming from. are you trying to garner self esteem for yourself by thinking that you are impressing everyone?

anyways, you can make the "theory" of swing as complicated or as simple as you want it to be.

[dirty oscillators]

What can I say? Where is there to go when somebody who's been trying to belittle your argument for two days, turns round and claims it as their own?

It's breathtaking.

totally... i think your first comment on this thread is exactly what Ubiety claims he's said multiple times.

Yet someone else with wax for ears.

are we 12 years old?

[Ubiety]

anyways, you can make the "theory" of swing as complicated or as simple as you want it to.

Yes, you're right, one can do that. And that is why I said that no definition of swing is definitive. I also said that if one is going to provide a definition it should be presented within the context of something, otherwise the definition alone would be misleading. It would be misleading because definitions sound, well, definite--they sound complete. The tendency is for people to stop looking once they've found a simple answer. Simple answers give people the sense that they have control. However, there are no simple definitive answers when it comes to learning swing.

[dirty oscillators]

anyways, you can make the "theory" of swing as complicated or as simple as you want it to.

Yes, you're right, one can do that. And that is why I said that no definition of swing is definitive. I also said that if one is going to provide a definition it should be presented within the context of something, otherwise the definition alone would be misleading. It would be misleading because definitions sound, well, definite--they sound complete. The tendency is for people to stop looking once they've found a simple answer. Simple answers give people the sense that they have control. However, there are no simple definitive answers when it comes to learning swing.

i see your point and i completely agree with that. i think the disagreement between you and Nuffink was over the details in how to explain what swing means but overall you both have an understanding of it.

[Ubiety]

I provided the example of how and where Miles Davis got his information; listening to records, trying to get time playing with other musicians, learning theory with Dizzy Gillespie. Maybe I should have also mentioned that Miles studied at Juilliard just to ram the message home. I gave the example of how Alan Dawson educated his students. Maybe I should have also mentioned that Alan Dawson taught at Berklee College of Music and that Tony Williams was a student of his while there.

what's your point???

you're not explaining why "swing sounds so good" and in fact, you sound like some stuffy professor type and not so much like an artist.

spouting off a bunch of music history lessons doesn't prove that you had already said, "It's a type of rhythm where the second of each pair of eighth notes (the off beats) is delayed by an amount at your discretion" so i don't get where you're coming from. are you trying to garner self esteem for yourself by thinking that you are impressing everyone?

I didn't spout a music history lesson. I gave examples of how well known talented and accomplished musicians went about learning swing. The message should be that the greats should be referred to when trying to understand the reason swing sounds good, and not a fractured written definition of swing.

As for my reference to nuffink's comment, I responded to the meaning of his complete statement, unlike you who are reacting to a portion of his words.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Yes, you're right, one can do that. And that is why I said that no definition of swing is definitive. I also said that if one is going to provide a definition it should be presented within the context of something, otherwise the definition alone would be misleading. It would be misleading because definitions sound, well, definite--they sound complete. The tendency is for people to stop looking once they've found a simple answer. Simple answers give people the sense that they have control. However, there are no simple definitive answers when it comes to learning swing.

There are no easy answers. - This goes not just for swing, but for many, if not almost all aspects of music. - It cannot easily be explained on paper, it would be boring if it could. However, you can provide guidelines and overall statements about the general basics of a concept. - And, thus, as long as you make it clear that your definition is only that (i.e., not a scientific certainty), then yes, you can define it. (Broadly speaking).

Swing has been defined on this thread countless times, in countless ways. - Almost all of these are correct. - Swing, like many things, is not an exact science that can be explained exhaustively on paper, but general guidelines (that are very useful to newbies) can be given.

As far as I can tell, both of you now agree on this, so I am at a loss as to what you are actually arguing about.