The problem isn't the movie itself, but the idea that this is seen by the public as a "jazz movie" rather than an "abusive relationship movie". There isn't much jazz representation in mainstream media and so having the average Joe's first thought be Whiplash when you mention jazz to them is painful. I was so hyped to watch this movie when I heard about it because all I knew was "it's that jazz movie!" so upon learning during my first watching that it was actually NOT a jazz movie, I was very confused and disappointed. Since first seeing this movie, I actually witnessed people suffering under a passive aggressive band director so I don't hate the movie as much as I used to, though I still wouldn't enjoy rewatching it personally. In conclusion, review Kids on the Slope.
Your segment on Rick Beato was very good, I haven't seen his vid but that's crazy to just review the trailer and call it a day. He's always rubbed me the wrong way as kind of a hostile boomer that hates new musicians vibe.
1:16:28 So true, big band vs small group is a whole different world. And yes you kind of need to be less feeling to play in a big band to get all the hits together with the rest of the band, you need to play the chart wheras in a small group you can be waaay more free.
This movie isn’t about Jazz, it’s about the artist’s obsession with perfection, Jazz is only a medium to reflect this obsession because it’s widely considered to be a difficult genre both to appreciate and perform
Technique and "difficulty" is not a be-all-end-all of art, which is a point Adam Neely makes quite well in his video. Art is not sports, and often times in art great can be the enemy of good. That is not to say that it's impossible to improve at your art, or that it's bad to strive for growth, but art is much more complicated then just a game of skill, are no clear and concrete goals in art, there can be no "perfect" artwork, and arguing otherwise would be completely misunderstanding the fundamental nature of art as a subjective experience. In fact I would argue that this part of the movie is actually a bad, misleading, and potentially even harmful portrayal of art and artistry. Sure, it's compelling on an emotional level, but it doesn't mean that it's a coherent exploration of the idea, I definitely think that it's one of the weaker aspects of the movie, it definitely sacrifices the deeper exploration of these themes in favor of emotional weight and drama.
@@4vtNt2H2hqet54jjisn’t the point of the movie is that he loses the point of art as a mode of expression through his obsession with being “great” in what he sees as an objective criteria?
@@wiggy009I mean, you could read it that way, but the movie doesn't really offer any kind of critique to this "pursuit of greatness" mentality, at least not directly. I mean, clearly the commenters missed it, and it's not how I see the movie too. I feel like the movie hinges on the dichotomy, the all-or-nothing mentality, I think it clearly attempts to ask the question of "Is the pursuit of greatness worth this kind of sacrifice?", when in reality the mistake was in the question itself, the dichotomy was false for the start, you don't have to torture yourself physically or mentally to become a good, or even great artist, in fact doing so you'll likely make things worse, achieve worse results, or might even traumatize yourself (physically or mentally) to the point where literally can't do it at all (or worse). But we don't see it in the movie, in fact the final scene is grand and pompous, like we're meant to think "Look, he achieved greatness! But was it worth it?". I just, I'm honestly quite sad and frustrated with the way the movie handles this subject, it has a really strong emotional impact, and yet it's so superficial and detached from reality in the way it actually explores the questions it's asking. I just, I dunno man...
@@wiggy009 Not really. The film wasn't really about art creation or self expression through playing personal variations of the music of others where this makes more sense. Especially with how they focus on thing that are usually seen as basic requirements for being a good musician such as being able to keep tempo or playing the correct notes for a piece. It was really just about him sacrificing everything to be the best drummer. Not to say it the movie is bad but it doesn't really delve into the artistic aspects of the music.
@wrathofkaneeighty8 people using clips of whiplash in motivational contexts too like "i wanna be one of the greats" this is a film ab unhealthy obsession and it pains me to see people using clips to encourage viewers to keep honing their skills. literally use anything else bc ur being counterproductive
Because the movie is literaly telling you throughout how much of a cool guy fletcher is even tho people like this youtuber will try to convince you otherwise
as a jazz musician in college, i also love whiplash. i know a lot of jazz heads argue with it and hate that it “misrepresents” jazz, but i think it absolutely represents the worst of music school, of becoming a musician, of abusive teachers, of obsession and self-harm through practice, it highlights hardships not often brought to light. the music major is sometimes seen as “oh that must be such a fun major” rather than a serious, sometimes crushing endeavor, and I think whiplash handles it exceptionally well. it’s also a damn good movie.
the thing is if you want to watch a jazz movie, there's like 20 documentaries on the legends that invented the music. straight, no chaser, ken burns jazz, etc
As tempting as it is to leave a “lol, triggered,” you’re clearly passionate about film, and Whiplash holds a special place in your heart. You (mostly) engaged with my video in good faith this time around, so I’ll do likewise. I think because you care about film, you have assumed that jazz musicians talking about the film care about the storytelling aspects of the movie. However, the same way you say that I’ll be disappointed if I expect Whiplash to be an accurate portrayal of jazz culture, the same can be said of how you view jazz musicians’ reactions to the film. You want a film analysis, but that’s not what the reactions are. So for you, the analyses are lacking because they so rarely give you any relevant character or narrative information. Instead it’s “useless trivia.” For you, it seems like information about setting (the world of jazz education, specifically in NYC) is only relevant as pertains to the narrative beats of the film. But for jazz musicians, all information is important regardless of its relevance to the plot, because it influences the real world culture and how people interact with it. I have had parents of young jazz music students ask me if Whiplash was accurate. They were worried about the prospect of sending their kid to university to study music, because that was their impression of higher jazz education. Whiplash, the film, has actively dissuaded young musicians from jazz because they and their families assume the worst. The verisimilitude of specific details that come from Damien Chazelle’s experience (the musical jargon for example) lend weight to the idea that you should fear the study of jazz. Nitpicking details is part of a general emotional reaction that I have, and I know other jazz musicians have, on pushing back on the idea that this film defines jazz education. Because…let’s be honest. Whiplash is the defining cultural documentation of jazz in higher education. This is largely because the movie is so good on its own merits as a psychological thriller. It’s a popular movie because it’s good and exciting and tells a compelling story.Because it’s good and exciting, its setting persists in the public consciousness far more than (IMO) lesser films that cover niche music subcultures like Pitch Perfect or Drumline. And so, every drummer gets asked about Whiplash, not Drumline. There are much bigger questions that you could explore here. Can good art (Whiplash) have negative consequences? How much responsibility do movies have to the culture they represent? If the film is an honest representation of a person’s experiences and yields a great story, should any that other stuff matter? Whiplash’s take on jazz education is colored by Damien Chazelle’s negative experience at Princeton High School in New Jersey under the direction of band director Anthony Biancosino, the real Terrence Fletcher. After my video was released, I received an email from somebody who attended Princeton, who had mixed feelings about the movie and its portrayal of their experience. This is what they said… “…although real-life Fletcher (the legendary Dr. B, Anthony Biancosino), was tough, the movie completely overlooked how much love he had for both the music and his students. This man inspired joy in everyone who played for him, and though he was incredibly demanding, he was far from the cold, aloof, let alone abusive character that Hollywood must have thought would serve the movie better. That's one of the things that stung most about the movie in the band community-the villainization of this man who really was a hero of jazz education...albeit old-school jazz.” So if your thesis is jazz musicians suck at reviewing Whiplash because they’re too biased to have an objective opinion, sure. If you’re trying to answer why so many jazz musicians don’t like the movie, you have to consider the meta-textural reasons why they might dislike it, and engage more directly with the professionals who dislike it. But that’s not really in your wheelhouse. Instead you selectively engage with jazz artists based solely on whether or not their insight illuminates something for you personally within the text of the film, not based on what the film means to how the world interacts with jazz culture. You dismiss Antonio Sanchez, Ethan Iverson and perhaps most curiously - Nate Smith as a no-name who nobody will remember. Because of that all your video amounts to is 2 hours of nitpicks of nitpicks. I admit my shit was messy, and the first 11 minutes of nitpicks weren’t particularly valuable. Cinema Sins level shit, some of it. It’s an old video after all, that I would do much differently if I did it today. But I have a personal relationship to Buddy Rich’s legacy through my comp teacher Greg Hopkins. I also studied big band music at MSM for my masters - Schafer is pretty directly based on MSM/Julliard, and have went on to have my big band play at festivals including North Sea jazz. I have stakes in how aspects of my life are portrayed in cinema, and I can’t help but dislike aspects of it because of how it so negatively portrays aspects of my own life in ways that don’t feel truthful and that actively dissuade others from becoming Jazz musicians. Me releasing a RUclips video dismissing Whiplash at a formative moment in your life (15) clearly struck a raw nerve, and you have had an axe to grind with me for a while. Me making a “lol, triggered” comment on your video didn’t help, but in my defense, that first video was largely incoherent rambling, so I’m glad you sharpened your axe a bit more and came after me with research. But so much of this video felt to me like somebody who just was going after my RUclips video for no other reason than I made him angry at an earlier point in their life. So for that I’m sorry. I still don’t really like whiplash. .
As a jazz musician (I know stinky) who enjoys Whiplash, the reason why most jazz musicians dislike the movie is very simply because it's an objectively bad representation of the jazz world, it is a mischaracterization of what it's like to be a jazz musician. Like seriously nearly everything related to jazz in the movie (other than the lingo that is) is wrong, so I don't blame jazz musicians for disliking the movie. When the most popular movie about something you're passionate about gets it completely wrong you're bound to be a bit bitter. But I'm not saying that Whiplash is a bad movie, no Whiplash is a fucking amazing movie. But if you go into Whiplash expecting a good portrayal of the jazz world then you're not gonna like it, and that's where most people slip up going into it. I had already heard all of the criticism of the movie prior to watching it, so rather than expecting it to be a good jazz movie, I just went into it expecting a good psychological thriller, and I loved it. As a psychological thriller completely detached from jazz, Whiplash is a masterpiece, but when you look at it from a jazz perspective, it falls short.
As a musician myself, I love Whiplash. No, I've never seen a situation like that myself, but... I mean... it's a discipline, you can find all kinds of weirdos in the medium. And tbh it isn't the first nor the last movie to portray music incorrectly, and that doesn't take away that it is a good flick, or at least a very entertaining one. It's like bashing Karate Kid because it doesn't portray karate accurately.
I feel like watching it before going to jazz school/not having a jazz focused high school made it to where I could appreciate the scenario and the rest of the movie for what it is, a warning about obsession
Despite Fletcher being such a standout character, the breakup scene is what really sticks with me. How much would you sacrifice to achieve greatness? And her mocking of the idea, it feels like the better my mental state is the more I agree with her. Taking care of your needs (sleep, socialization, etc) is essential to success, not opposite it. Maybe it's just where I am in life, but I think that that's the climax of the movie. Everything before it builds toward his total rejection of his social needs. Everything after is the fallout of that decision. He lost the last thing he felt he had to lose, and his safety net (his father) was never going to be enough.
Music education funding in the US is at the mercy of public opinion, so music educators are used to having to defend their field / justify why it’s a worthwhile career for students. It’s a great movie about abuse that will likely be misunderstood by many as a cautionary tale against being a musician, just because of the socioeconomic context it exists in.
I honestly can understand jazz musicians getting defensive when talking about the movie. It's like 90% what most people know about jazz culture and that's not really a good thing. So pointing out that it's inaccurate is kinda what they have to do. These videos aren't great as movie reviews, but they're also not movie reviewers.
my biggest gripe on this movies influence is for a while a lot of band kids assumed that the movie is what jazz is all about. misrepresentation causes massive damage to an already hard to understand form of art.
"teachers don't slap students! The way this teacher talks to his student is so weird and not what normally takes place!" Yeah it's almost like that's the point of the movie...
I slightly disagree only because cooks love ratatouille because it shows falling in love with cooking and how thats exactly what it feels like. Whiplash doesn’t feel like what jazz musicians like about jazz, and when going to a jam session for the first time there’s sm anxiety is about messing up and thats what whiplash is like. I love whiplash as movie, but I do wish there was a non psychological thriller jazz movie that went as mainstream as it(i think soul represents jazz pretty well). Jazz musicians don’t like whiplash the same way cooks don’t like the bear. I think you should watch adam neely’s video on how laufey’s music isn’t jazz because he concludes that laufey isn’t jazz and that is okay, and it brings up a lot of points that helps make this take solidify. edit: As a jazz musician, jazz feels like a horror movie, and i love it because the most while appealing to mainstream media the best.
Before watching the vid, I have to be honest; as a Jazz musician this is one of my favorite movies. I hate that the crux of the issue with people like Neely and Beato is "It's not realistic to the art of performing jazz" Of course it isnt realistic, it's a movie. Jazz performance is just the backdrop for the actual story which is an abusive relationship and the lengths people will go for success.
As a musician I love this movie - I take Adam Neely's point that it's bad that "nobody has fun" in the movie, but lets be honest we've all met a musician who wasn't having fun because they're too lost in the next recital or next exam (which is the critique the movie makes)
58:32 Fletcher using the phrase, "out of tune player" actually makes more sense considering he's putting the focus on "the player", the subject, and not "the playing", the action, which is definitely the more abusive way to say it.
I loooove Whiplash but I honestly don't understand your your annoyance. If I watch a physicist review the physics of Interstellar, I want them to be as nitpicky as possible, that's the whole reason I'm watching.
When he asked Adam Neely to go over the acting and directing I rolled my eyes. Adam cant give a good take on those things because he isn’t as well versed on what makes good acting and good directing good. He’s just able to point it out. Also he treats Adam as if Adam is trying to make a large statement, which he isn’t. That’s why after every nitpick Adam says something along the lines of “but this is all for the sake of drama.”
That's your perspective. But it is equally valid to criticize the videos for not actually understanding the movie and just being nitpicky for nitpicking sake. Its why people find CinemaSins annoying
Did you watch the whole thing? Its not about nitpicking, its about nitpicking while not understanding that its a movie, it has a plot, with jazz references that serve the plot. Thats where the jazz elite reviewers go wrong.
@@lukekline9513The videos at no point claim to be reviews of the film as a film. The entire point is that they are subject matter experts critiquing the accuracy of the film. This is an entire genre of RUclips video, I'm not sure why you guys are so pissy about it when a jazz musician does it.
Fr ever since the schlat vids the algorithm has been putting his bangers in my feed, I dont even realise it's him half the time until i click the video
Most of the jazz musicians critiques of the movie prove that the movie succeeded in portraying exactly what it was trying to convey. Its not supposed to be an accurate representation of a jazz band, it's a fictionalized representation of manipulation and how obsession can ruin lives
They must have read the movie description as "this is a documentary of a totally average and normal jazz band where everyone does everything by the book" and then got disappointed when it was a psychological thriller
You know why I, as a person with 0 jazz experience or moviemaking experience, know that Whiplash is not about jazz? I can not remember one scene of Neman being creative. No one scene of him trying something on his drums for fun. Not one scene of him discussing music theory or anything like that with anyone. This is a fucking SPORTS movie.
What relevant sports movie is anything like whiplash like seriously. As someone who actually has extensive experience in music education, yeah that’s a big problem with it. For 8 years I learned percussion instruments, and virtually none of that time was actually creating something original. Music education has been corporatized in its execution as a mechanical skill, not an artistic one. You’re measured by your ability to play on a mechanical level, and the ability to create your own works won’t get you far unless they are technically impressive. This is what Whiplash gets most right about music education.
Maybe that the movie loses focus on the actual music of jazz is the whole point. Like, as he says in this video, it's a movie about obsession and ambition and abuse. the cameras are often shooting really close to the faces of the individuals, or on the drums - the movie directs us to the egos of the characters, and to the objects they obsess over. we forget about the ensemble and collaboration, and instead we spend the whole time with these two characters and the weird abusive dynamic they share. perhaps the movie isn't 'really about music' because obsession and ambition aren't really about music.
I don't get why people give it 1/10 for the 'accuracy', but I can definitely say my experience of the film was half-diminished (get it?) due in part to me being a musician. When I rewatched it recently I couldn't help but think of how unprofessional it would be if someone were to pull off what Nieman did at the final scene during a gig. While it really doesn't take away from the overall story, It can be distracting for those who see something as unrealistic. Which can make dramatic moments in the film have less impact or even seem silly. It's like if you were a math professor watching a movie where the climax of the story is the solving of an equation, but the math on the board is incorrect; and you can't help but notice when you're supposed to be experiencing the climax of the film. Ofc unrealistic things happen all the time in movies, but the importance of realism is dependent on the film; and with Whiplash I'd say it's somewhat important. The story is really more dependent on the characters and amazing acting then jazz itself. This story could be set within many artistic disciplines, but jazz education happens to fit the archatypes of these characters well. Ultimately I would say there's moments in this movie that I don't feel I experienced properly because I was distracted by something unrealistic And yeah that is kind of a fault within the film for me, but the story is phenomenal and it's easy to say that every choice in the making of this movie seemed to be in the service of a great story. So maybe they sacrificed realism in service of the story? Does that deserve - points? if the movie would have been more realistic would it have been better or would the story have suffered? are my panties in a twist? idk guys I'm rambling now have a good night
Of course it's unprofessional. I'm not sure how they could more clearly indicate that everyone thinks this is very weird and only Neiman and Fletcher are into it. The bassist to Neiman's right asks him "the fuck are you doing?" and everyone is following along because they're trying to keep the show going. Andrew's dad looks on in horror. Earlier in the film Fletcher is forced to apologise for Andrew's obsessiveness causing him to ruin a show. I see that scene and I imagine an audience fascinated but kind of disturbed - anyone would be able to tell something is off. I don't see how that could possibly be a flaw.
@@mxnevermind To quote myself, which comes directly after the part of my comment you're referring to. "While it really doesn't take away from the overall story, It can be distracting for those who see something as unrealistic. Which can make dramatic moments in the film have less impact or even seem silly." So... yeah, I didn't even make the blanket statement of calling it a flaw. I said its a fault within the movie for me. To the average jo, there's a lot of great drama to be engaged with. To me, I see two losers jacking themselves off by degrading the art for the sake of their hubris. I have the mental capability of understanding why it's a good film, it's just not for me. I understand why ya'll think that the music community disliking Whiplash is annoying, and it totally can be; but like at least take the time to understand our points plz.
@@ztuckyThat's my bad, I jumped the gun. I still do have trouble understanding your perspective though, maybe you could help me. You call the final scene, and, I'm presuming, other parts 'unrealistic' and I guess my response to that is- would these situations truly be an unrealistic result from these personalities clashing in this way? I'll absolutely grant that the movie is exaggerated beyond anything I'd ever expect to see in my life but everything that happens *is* in the realm of possibility, at least as I see it. Would you disagree?
I think a lot of people have already said this, but as I see it the issue here is that the movie is kind of bastardizing jazz as its setting in a way that feels like appropriation. It's not unlike the trend of incredibly good period pieces upsetting historians by being otherwise fantastic movies with poor historical accuracy. That kind of thing enters the culture and shapes peoples' understandings. I remember watching Whiplash, and then watching Adam's video, and feeling like he was nitpicking a bit, for sure. I remember feeling like there was some emotional power there, when I watched the movie, that Adam wasn't quite addressing. It felt somewhat unfair. But he also made some really good points, that stuck with me. Now, watching your video, I feel like the exact same thing is happening, just in the other direction. You're both fixating on the things you care most about, and kind of glossing over the other parts. Adam is removing the emotion from the movie. You're working awfully hard to justify the way jazz is portrayed in this movie, but you're doing so in service of the plot, not in service of the jazz. I feel like you're both kind of right. Whiplash is a really good psychological thriller, wearing jazz as a setting the way Buffalo Bill wore people's skin. Maybe that's a little dramatic, but I'm tired and it's the first analogy that came to mind. Like Adam says, it really isn't difficult to imagine this movie as a sports movie instead. The jazz itself isn't so important to the message and the plot that it couldn't be swapped out for any other profession. This could even have been a movie about physics, chemistry, or maths. It also isn't difficult to imagine changing some things about the way jazz is portrayed here, and in so doing making the movie much less harmful to the cultural perception of what jazz is like in the modern day. Modernize Fletcher's obsession with greatness and align his goals more with being the next big thing, or revitalizing jazz with new ideas. Or, if his fixation on the past is so integral to the story, contrast it. Similarly, perhaps contrast Neiman's abusive experience more starkly, to make it clearer that this isn't what all jazz is like while at the same time highlighting the manipulativeness of Fletcher: imagine a scene where Neiman is watching some more modern jazz musicians jamming, but he convinces himself that he isn't ready to join them because he has to be perfect. The movie could at once show what modern jazz culture is really like, and show that Fletcher has created a critic in Neiman's own head. I think you need to be more willing to accept Whiplash's flaws, and that a movie doesn't only have a responsibility to be moving or entertaining, but also to the material and culture it's borrowing from.
Yeah, I’ve said elsewhere that so many people misunderstanding the point of Whiplash really is sort of Whiplash’s fault because the movie doesn’t present any view of jazz or musicianship to contrast with Fletcher. There isn’t a gentler version that the audience wants for Neiman that Neiman rejects. It’s *just* Fletcher’s ideology even though that doesn’t even make sense in the reality of the movie. Fletcher gets fired for his actions towards Neiman, so wouldn’t there be other music instructors who reach out to Neiman to pull him back into the fold? The fact that Fletcher is the only music authority in the movie means abuse in service of excellence is the only frame the movie offers to explain Neiman’s journey. It’s completely expected in that context to get to the end thinking he achieved greatness but at what cost. But a better version of the movie could’ve made it clear that he isn’t even great now either. That Fletcher’s ideology is actually what keeps him from greatness. That it isn’t a Sophie’s choice. Neiman is *just* losing.
I don't see it as a responsibility the movie had but what I'm getting from this discourse is that whiplash's biggest sin is just being the most popular jazz related thing of like the past 20 years, it'd be great if a movie or something else showing the great parts of jazz also became really mainstream. Even if I don't think the movie should've been different, especially as I don't think there was a way to know in hindsight the place it was gonna occupy in pop culture, I can understand the frustration jazz enthusiasts have with it a bit more now
I like much of your dissection and I'm not particularly fond of Rick Beato. However, I think a central point that none of these jazz guys can quite put into words is that since media related to Jazz has drifted away from relevant popular culture - save Frank Sinatra, La La Land, Christmas music, etc. - a movie like Whiplash can be damaging to the public image of jazz (especially college jazz education). There's a risk of putting a brainworm in the minds of audience members who aren't as keyed in to the exaggerations and hyperrealities of the film as you are, that playing jazz and jazz education is really this miserable and stressful for everybody all the time, and that characters like Fletcher are stock characters you could expect to find in a Jazz department at a university until they are inevitably expelled. It also is the sort of film that could give perverse inspiration to young jazz musicians - the category of people who get the wrong message from The Joker, The Big Short, and the like. But I've noticed as some others have mentioned that now, when I'm playing in a jazz group, the Not My Tempo jokes are abundant, and I've yet to have a stand thrown at me. There are serious issues in music/arts ed though, especially when it comes to SA or theatre profs encouraging young women to develop eating disorders to 'fit' into certain roles.
had the same thought and now I'm watching the video. that's what thumbnails are supposed to do, right? I'm still watching and he hasn't brought up Neely yet, but judging by what I've seen so far, I don't think this video will shit on him
He clearly got his feelings hurt by a RUclipsr critiquing his favorite movie and is taking it personally. Adam Neely's critique was nuanced and he didn't say the movie itself is bad, he just pointed out inaccuracies because he makes videos ABOUT MUSIC.
I really, genuinely enjoyed this video a lot, but I was a little concerned by that clip of someone discussing 300's racism- I have no idea if the particular video that was clipped from did a good job of analyzing the movie and its themes, but 300 is straight up a racist, fascist, homophobic film. I don't think it's a badly produced movie or unwatchable, it's just really, really not the sort of thing you want to subtly politically align yourself with. This is absolutely not a "cancel threat" or "callout post", I was just wondering what you meant by that.
People who rate accuracy are literally not judging based on film critiquing. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. They are not film critics, they're musicians. They're coming to this from purely a musician's perspective. Not sure why this is disingenuous to you, they aren't pretending to analyse the movie according to its quality in storytelling.
Because that's treating it like a documentary, which is stupid. You can say the music is better or worse either in quality or suitability to what the film is trying to communicate, but let's just assume they were all playing classical but referred to it as jazz. That would come off as silly, but it really doesn't have a significant bearing on the film unless it goes further than the misnomer.
The issue is that musicians are latching onto issues that are the actual narrative devices being used to tell the story and using these as justifications for why the movie is a "disservice to jazz music" for reasons x, y or z. Tldr; it's less giving insight or context to why something may or may not be realistic and every take is more some redditor "acktualllllyyy" shit
The jazz musician reviewers remind me of the videos called like "pianos are never animated correctly!" and it was like an independent film with an indie budget
Admittedly, people like Charles Cornell and Adam Neely do still seem to have an appreciation for the representation of music in modern media. It's just that, with so much experience with the field, it's jarring to see such a number of (small) inaccuracies. They still seem to enjoy and respect the work of the creators behind them
@@c-test2435If you’re depicting things incorrectly for no other reason then convenience or ignorance then how is it that you aren’t undermining your own art? This isn’t like a single piano scene in a movie about superheroes. Music is the entire subject matter. More realism only improves it on an artist level. Deciding that isn’t necessary because most people don’t care isn’t artistic excellence, it’s compromising your own quality yourself.
@@EWall1498I agree, it's embarrassing these people are acting like it's nitpicking to expect a movie ABOUT JAZZ to be remotely accurate to the subject matter. And before some idiot responds "iT's NoT aBoUt JaZz", I'm aware that jazz is not the literary theme of the film. But it IS the thing that the film is about in a literal sense.
What if I told you the teacher comes off as obviously abusive to a comically absurd degree and that the seriousness that other characters take with him as he is constantly confidently wrong about the thing he's supposedly the best at is extra funny. It's a silly movie.
@Razsteroid There's nothing he's really "confidently wrong" about though. He just has high standards. Also being obviously abusive doesn't make it unrealistic that people still try to please him. Real abuse is usually like that
@@stanieldaniel5912 There's nothing he's confidently wrong about? He has the same understanding of music that the kids in 'Hackers' do about programming. But Hackers is a corny movie about hacking the planet. Whiplash is I think trying to be a serious movie about musicians but with the same ignorance of it's material. The things the teacher goes mental over are comical and any of the characters who took freshman music class would be seriously wondering if this guy is a psycho homeless dude who wandered in. It's a goofy and unintentionally funny movie. I mean imagine the Longest Yard but no one making the movie knew what the rules to football were. That's Whiplash.
@Razsteroid Just because the timing they were playing at wasn't audibly off tempo to the audience? Or the 'out of tune' player wasn't clearly and blatantly out of tune? That's the point. He's overtly perfectionist. He hears problems that nobody else does. It's not a documentary. It's meant to be over-the-top. He wasn't necessarily "wrong" about anything he was bitching about, he just had standards that real people don't have. That's the point
@@stanieldaniel5912 Teacher never once teaches the students and instead just demands ridiculous things like exact tempo playing and praises Buddy Rich in the same way a drunk at the bar would call John Madden the greatest football player of all time. You gotta play those single strokes longer, man. Fastest drummer wins Jazz. This is presented not as the characters delusions, but as them perfecting Jazz by playing the forbidden rhythm against the impossible tempo. This is bad! Well, if that's the point, then that's the point. The movie is silly.
i love this video so much you clearly really understand whiplash and understand the difference between it not being a jazz movie and it being more of a thriller but with the back setting of jazz, i cant believe this is your third video about this topic and it still feels like its the things you are saying are different and fresh
I’m only halfway thru but it seems like ur right about a lot but ur treating it as if they claim to have some sorta movie knowledge when to me it seems like they’re just saying what breaks that suspension of disbelief for them as people who’ve spent all their time in that space
I agree with this take. Adam didn’t go more into the characters and direction of the film because… he isn’t an expert on that. He went over the nitpicks he’s familiar with because it’s what is entertaining (to some). It doesn’t take merit away from the movie unless you’re extremely fickle.
I agree with this take. Adam didn’t go more into the characters and direction of the film because… he isn’t an expert on that. He went over the nitpicks he’s familiar with because it’s what is entertaining (to some). It doesn’t take merit away from the movie unless you’re extremely fickle.
18:10 I don’t think it’s wrong to criticise a movie ignoring some aspects of it. I dislike the way whiplash is filmed and no amount of anything else can fix the (for me) horrible camera work. I don’t think it’s bad criticism, since people who care about camera angles the most will find it useful.
@@tyepod6482 I'm willing to have a discussion. I find that what the camera was looking at was perfectly in tandem with how we were supposed to feel, and that's the whole goal of cinema. Tanner is going crazy? Were looking at blood and sweat and his expressions to see he is going to far. We are supposed to feel tense during a rehearsal scene? jump cuts and constrained medium shots. How is this horrible I don't understand
14:26 "Doesn't do anything for anyone" bruh wtf do you mean- obviously it does, there are people solely watching the video to learn about accuracy or the professional's thoughts
gonna push back against a lot of this video's point that film criticism must be a certain way; i disagree with a lot of your decisions on what counts as "good insight" and "bad insight" and feel that a lot of these decisions are emotionally charged. (im a pretty big fan of adam and do admittedly have some personal stake though) it feels like a lot of this video boils down to you requiring that film analysis being how you want it, and especially coming from someone who really likes whiplash. it really seems like youre only interested in purely plot-related reviews, though, which, i don't know, its not "bad criticism" to just focus on other elements of the movie for fun. i understand that it may be annoying when intentional discrepancies get dismissed as simple screenwriting/directing mistakes, but i also just get the impression that you get emotionally charged at anything less than a stellar review highlighting all of the great elements of whiplash. (so much of this mistaken "inaccuracy spotting" is just a misunderstanding that people may easily get if theyre watching isolated clips of the movie) it just feels like you get really mad about adam's nitpicking because most of it doesn't really have much bearing on the overall movie, but i dont feel that your criticism of the "inaccuracy spotting" being completely useless is fair at all. for example, the drummer at the beginning pointing out niemann's tense playing is cool to know, especially for me, a classical pianist who's tangentially interested in all the little tidbits of jazz performance information. adam's style of dry presentation isn't meant to be "passive aggressive" and snobbish more than it just being more of an internet persona that aligns with his more ironic sense of humor (i hardly think he was actually trying to mock you when he commented "lol, triggered"). it rubs me the wrong way when you get mad that adam spends time focusing on little tidbits of insight (whether you deem it legitimate or not doesnt really matter it's still neat insight in my opinion) rather than complimenting all the acting and whatever that's already been done dozens of times. i dont know, i think its nice to engage with media through different lenses for fun sometimes rather than "reviewing" it in standard ways (whiplash has already been "reviewed" in standard ways so many times, i hardly see why it matters that people go at it in other ways) personally, as a musician, on my first time watching whiplash it rubbed me the wrong way simply because it doesnt portray music accurately. i understand that the "point" of the movie was to make music performance this grotesque form of itself to show the toxic relationships that it can form, but, still, it felt off. i'm actually really glad that adam came to and shared the conclusion that he did, because it let me put my own thoughts into my own words. as someone who has an intimate connection to music performance, it feels like music isnt the most condusive to this kind of story. i have to suspend my disbelief so much at certain points in the movie that it breaks the immersion due to my personal experiences. this isn't "bad criticism," it's just how i, and maybe adam, respond to the movie on a personal level.
kind of confused now why you made two videos on this one video of his with your first video receiving the same criticism i just made and you liking said comments implying that you appreciated what they had to say 😭😭😭
i could go through a lot of whataboutisms with this video that i left out in my original comment you argue that these misrepresentations of the film draw undeserved negative reception towards it but you do the same with the subjects of these videos (you keep tone-policing adam's video and turn it from a relatively harmless and neutral self-aware tongue-in-cheek review to this malicious undeserved takedown of a movie) you get mad that these reviews " arent good insight" then proceed to repeat this for every point of insight that these "professionals" point out you.. get mad at nitpicking and then do it far more poorly and for longer and more unfairly.. idk id love to actually discuss this with you instead of getting mad at a wall but i wont expect that of you cause a 2 hour video is tough work and i dont expect you to have to read all the comment word walls on top of that haha
@@ciriuflus So why are you doing the exact same thing that Nomad is doing if it bothers you so much? I think Nomad's video hit a little too close to home for a few people and now they're writing their own essays in the comments trying to defend Adam's Cinemasins surface level critisms of a film.
@@SpungleGrundlei like adams video sorry man i dont think this guys criticisms are really that good and i think i explain why decently enough lol we can do the whataboutism cycle forever but i cant be assed with internet drama with random people i just hope the original creator of the video sees this haha
Calling someone emotionally charged when you write a whole ass of essay to glaze a pretentious way of viewing a piece of art is kinda silly. Also he is entirely objectively correct in saying that it is bad criticism to say a movie is bad or a bad representation of something because it has to fit within the format of a movie. Getting mad at the movie for having scenes that are tense where people are playing sloppy isn't constructive, it isn't something that actually helps make it a better movie, and it doesn't even actually provide any real insight for the audience. It's just complaining for the sake of complaining. Obviously certain elements will have to be exaggerated or done in a way that isn't realistic because who the fuck wants to watch a two hour movie of people silently playing the drums with no expression and perfect technique?? If what you're whining about doesn't actually affect the movie's quality in a negative way, it isn't valid criticism and it's not being "emotional" to call that out as a blatantly reductive way to view film. Even at the end where you're talking about how you respond to the movie personally, you're still not giving any actual criticism or proving any of his points wrong. You can feel however you want about a piece of art but that doesn't change it's objective quality. There's movies that are really well made that I don't like at all for personal reasons but I would never say they're bad or somehow a bad representation of something just because I don't like it. Unless there's an actual flaw that can be fixed in order to improve the project, you aren't giving any valid feedback. Complaining that an instrument is being played wrong or that the main antagonist of the movie is presenting an incorrect point of view doesn't make you smart. Those things are intentional and even in places where maybe it isn't as purposeful to have inaccuracies, it's still an extremely low budget film from a first time director shot in a short time frame. Needless nitpicking serves 0 actual purpose and is just being pretentious for the sake of feeling like you're smarter than other people. If you seriously think this movie is a bad representation of jazz because it's not literally just a documentary of real life people then don't even bother watching movies. Newsflash; film isn't supposed to be "realistic" or "accurate" to real life. It's meant to be an expression of thought and emotion conveyed through picture, sound, and prose. That's the point of a movie.
If the result is that people think Fletcher is right then the movie is not doing it's job is it now? Fuck I hate how much people idolize this abusive shit
I know people who openly embrace the type of ideology Fletcher has and the movie does little to shoot down the notion that it’s true. The movie is sort of presenting the scenario matter of factly. It shows the abuse, but doesn’t do anything to suggest the abuse isn’t actually making Neiman great. The fact that Neiman gives the best performance of his life as the climax instead of crumpling into a wet noodle on the floor suggests the movie thinks Fletcher’s tactics did indeed improve him, and that the moral issue is whether it’s worth cost. The idea that such abuse could actually destroy talent is nowhere to be found. Fletcher says, “The next Miles Davis could never be discouraged”, and the movie does nothing to suggest that’s incorrect. But it is. PTSD can discourage you from getting out of bed, it could certainly discourage you from practicing the very thing that triggers your trauma for 8 hours a day. I supposed the one students s**cide could be seen as evidence of this. But the moment is so rushed passed we really don’t process it that way. We’re more primed to think that kid was great but couldn’t handle the abuse; not that the abuse actively hindered his musical development.
@@EWall1498 to me that just makes the movie more nuanced, abuse CAN make someone get better at something, but it's obviously not the right way to go about it, and in the last scene you have time to reflect (at least I did) on everything Neiman lost and sacrificed to get there, he's leaving aside his personal relationships, feelings, physical and mental wellbeing, all just to please his abuser, was it really worth it? even if yes realistically the movie should've ended with Neiman in a horrible state after having his life ruined, I think it makes for a much more uneasy but interesting ending that Fletcher got what he wanted, because I can see that happening in real life too
@@T-------- sure but I think the problem is people end up finishing the movie and walking out with the perception of what fletcher did being good as it helped him and they end up taking the wrong and pretty dangerous ideas out of the story
34:08 i like whiplash as a film but as much as i hate to admit it, i gotta agree with Beato here, as a drummer punching drumhead (especially the well made one by Evans like the one they used in the scene, and they even used the 2ply coated one) is almost impossible no matter how strong or how angry you are. You will ended up hurting yourself. Realistically , the condition of the drumhead have to be really wear down or poorly made in order for it to be easily broken. BUT, as a film enthusiast i can understand the purpose of the scene and yeah not every thing has to be accurate. ALSO speaking of Greyson Nekrutman, now he plays for metal band and people were kinda upset on why he never play jazz anymore lol
It would have been a better scene if he had just hurt himself. It would get across the futility of his obsession if that's what the movie's about. If anything it shows the opposite. What a silly movie.
The music RUclipsrs are not reviewing the films, they are doing exactly what you said about spotting the inaccuracies. They’re not trying to review the film. Adam Neely literally said it’s a good film and it’s well acted. The goal of the movie isn’t to portray jazz in New York, and the goal of Adam’s video isn’t to review the movie, it’s to critique the portrayal of the music. You’re getting mad at a musician for reviewing the music in the film and not reviewing the film itself the way you would, even though he never said that’s what he’s doing. Apples and oranges bro
You’ve already said the film has hundred of good reviews. If you want to hear people say how good the film is, (which I agree with, I love the film), then go see those reviews. Like Adam said, it’s a sports movie (maybe a bit harsh) but his point is, it’s not a movie about music, like you said it’s a psychological thriller, jazz is just the vessel used to portray that. If you ask almost anyone about jazz, the extent of their knowledge is almost always just Whiplash, which I think is harmful to jazz and music. You keep calling it a review, when that’s not what it is. Even if it is, you’re getting mad at a musician not critiquing the film in the way a film critic would. You’re getting insight from someone out of your bubble about the film and have made a 2 hour video getting annoyed by it. Then again I’ve just written these two massive comments
I really disliked the point in the video when he criticizes Adam for not going more in depth on the direction or acting. No shit Adam isn’t going more in depth. Adam went to music school, not film school.
Adams video is literally titled “whiplash reviewed by a jazz musician” like i used to be one of those kids mindlessly yapping about historical inaccuracies in fury and saving private Ryan its mindless jargin but they review it anyway your right apples and oranges but the oranges are telling the apples how to be apples
The most important bit is that, whether intentional or not, the main focus of the film isn’t jazz. It’s about with obsession with greatness. Which is why beyond lingos and things they play, nothing (at least to a majority of people) feels like it represents jazz culture. It rather uses it as a medium for its story. So in a way it’s a ‘bad’ jazz film. But it’s a great film about obsession for greatness. (And funnily enough, I feel I like it a bit more after Tyler the Creator’s Chromakopia, which explores how in his journey for greatness, had ended relationships with people around him and such. Obviously there’s way more to it, but this movie kind of follows this pattern you see amongst many who reach the top, or are trying to.)
The conflict between most jazz musicians and most fans of the movie Whiplash (and I do mean fans, not just the general public who liked it) boils down to two purists nerding out about their preferred art form. All the jazz musicians talk about is jazz and they disregard the movie and its context. You, similarly, disregard how the jazz musicians defend their passion, how they always talk about jazz as a culture and history rather than as another music genre. You saying you’re a jazz fan at the very end surprised me. How did you find that gentleman’s essay objectionable to the point of drawing such a massive strawman? The symbolic meaning of Buddy Rich as Andrew’s idol to emulate adds to the interpretation of the movie and its characters; doesn’t saying “No, he probably just likes him for such reasons, end of story” limit our understanding of the movie? Again, it’s good that you’re passionate, and if your and every jazzist’s reaction to Whiplash prove anything is that the movie stirs strong emotions on everyone, so it accomplishes what it aimed for. Them being protective of jazz reads the same as you getting defensive over the film, although in my bias they are more justified. In general, I think the section on Beato went on an excessively long tangent, and Neely’s video was not persuasively critiqued. They repeat their points: fine, but you should put the example and not repeat yourself as much either. I leave the comment to justify having watched the whole thing.
this! you took the words out of my mouth, jazz is not a few people on youtube who make youtube videos for a living (though ethan iverson is one of the most important jazz musicians of the 21st century). i think there's very real things and important things to talk about when it comes to how this movie portrays jazz, but the environment is just way too cloudy to even see to that.
I love hearing jazz musicians talk about jazz, and all who I’ve seen commentate on the movie Whiplash have all been very insightful. For some reason it’s the film bros who say “No! Talk about the movie and nothing else. No jazz talk allowed.” And it’s like… Going beyond the movie when discussing it enriches discourse and the viewing experience. I don’t know why they’re so averse to what amounts to very light criticism. Your comment motivated me to check out Ethan Iverson’s music, why is way overdue from my part as someone who’s only been seriously listening to jazz and learning about jazz for 2 years. Thanks!
In terms of who’s most justified, I also feel like jazz musicians are most justified just because most of their annoyance is involuntary. They can’t help but see when things are wrong. When things are so comically wrong that they stop connecting to the movie, it’s not their fault or their responsibility to ignore everything they know just to make up for where a piece of media fell short. On the other hand, it should be the easiest thing in the world to understand that when someone’s suspension of disbelief gets broken, they will struggle to connect to a film. I like action movies. But if someone told be they didn’t like a specific action movie because they are an actual Navy SEAL and the movie got multiple tactical things wrong, I wouldn’t feel tempted to lay into them as if their superior technical knowledge is the same thing as inferior media literacy. Most of these musicians *did* understand the basic point of the movie and praised numerous things about it. They can’t help it if the movie got the technical stuff so wrong that they feel disconnected from it anyway.
Commenting at the very top of the Rick section just to give a little story. When I was in college doing Jazz Studies (in 2019 actually) and Rick did a series of guest lectures at my school. To make a long story short, during one of the arranging lectures he asked if anyone would be willing to provide something they were working on for him to give feedback on. None of the current arranging students offered theirs so I offered something I had done the year prior. My arrangement contained "the licc" (iykyk) in it and the moment he heard it he stopped the music and proceeded to berate me for around 10 minutes in front of all of my peers and teachers about how I was "not serious as a musician" and I was "demeaning jazz as an art form". No critique on my actual arrangement, just assumptions about my character based on a silly joke. He has a very small ego and when he feels offended he just explodes. Such a shame because he really does have a ton of knowledge to share he just can be so insufferable sometimes.
This was very interesting to watch as someone who is both a professional jazz musician and professional film critic. I agree with most of what you said, I will say you were a bit hard on Adam, but if this is your one exposure to him, I totally get it LMAO
i literally JUST saw one of those stupid jazz musicians "correcting" what was wrong with whiplash and all i could think of was "this is why people despise jazz musicians." coming from a drummer WHO PLAYS JAZZ, they're all so up themselves
Damn good video and really solid points. I think a lot of our discussion on media is now warped by people who just assume things or learn about media through cultural osmosis, but then instead of talking about these pieces of media they don't discuss them as that, they talk about like it's the one and only interpretation or like they absolutely know the source material. I think the buety of art is that it is changing and you can interpretate and understand it very differently. The best feeling for me is when you realize you were wrong about certain art and you can get a better understanding or appreciation for it.
18:00 okay im sorry bleeding hands are absurd? thats like super common for people playing at full tilt like that with like most instruments. For an example look at like, any photos of zach hill's drum set.
Namedropping Zach Hill as if what he's doing back there is anywhere close to 'super common' is crazy. Professional jazz drumming does not make your hands bleed, these are the kinds of crazy things people think after watching this movie.
@Razsteroid You're right. Professional jazz drumming does not typically do that. However, andrew is not doing professional jazz drumming in the movie, he's pushing his body far past what should be done as a student. the scene in which his hands bleed is set in the middle of a montage where it is implied HOURS have passed with him doing wild movements that are very inefficient compared to typical jazz drumming movements. (its almost like the inaccuracies in his playing is the movie telling us that this type of absurd, perfectionist mindset is betraying the true nature of jazz) Also Zach Hill is a good example here because all his bleeding hand pics are from multi hour practices, not on stage, because that kind of thing wouldn't happen in a typical recording or production.
43:05 the irony of this, he's not putting the actual work to find out if music is dying, and yet he's saying that people don't wanna do the work in music, art, and (for some reason) video games
though, i do agree at 44:21 sorta, if you're depending on a machine to do art for you, you're limiting your creativity and your potential. but if you're using a machine to help you do art, for example using an animation software that allows you to tween your animation so you don't have to waste minutes or hours of your time trying to rotate and position the dang part or shape to be where you want it to be
Adam saying it should be a sports movie, and then having the ‘Music should be fun’ segment genuinely angered me, because how can you not see that I could make that exact point with sports. Shouldn’t sports be fun? But if I’m watching a movie about a player who pushes themselves the point of destruction to try and be the best in the world, the fun isn’t gonna be there anymore
@ I consider any level of playing a sport as sports. Even if it’s something as simple as playing in a park. So to me, you can have fun playing sports with your friends, in the same way you can just play music and have fun with your friends
it makes sense for a sportsperson to push themselves to the point of the destruction, as sports achievments are objectively measureable. you can't do that with music, as it's abstract and subjective. running faster makes you a better sportsman, but playing the drums faster does not necessarily make you a better musician
I think the point is that sports are inherently competitive and pit people against each other, whereas music is more collaborative. Sure, you can be competitive with anything, but it’s not the nature of music that you win a contest or competition and that’s what makes people think you are great. Sports have championships, statistical records, direct head to head bouts that determine greatness. But with music… there is nothing Fletcher had that Neiman *actually needed* to be considered great. No competition that Neiman could win that would make him great. Nothing has actually been accomplished by the end of the movie. It’s under explored that the reality of Neiman’s situation is that everything he’s being put through is tangentially related to greatness at best. He could just leave the movie entirely and play drums somewhere else and be just as capable of greatness.
I'ma be real with your criticism of the 'Experts Review' bit. You're approaching their reviews from an objectively incorrect perspective, as you're assuming their commentary is a reflection of how they view the movie as a whole. They are being sat down and asked to review specific scenes for their accuracy to their respective field of expertise, which has quite literally zero bearing on the films they're reviewings' quality as actual films, it's entirely to do with whether they're accurate representations of the thing that person is an Expert in. Often, the experts will specify that, 'This is fun as a movie, but in terms of accuracy it's .' Looking at those videos and critiquing them by saying, 'The quality of the drumming has nothing to do with the quality of the movie' is pointless because no one is going into those videos under the impression that the expert's rating is an actual review of the film's quality as a movie. It's simply for fun, a way to get perspectives on these things and learn from people who have lot of knowledge on a given topic. As for the review of the drumming in Whiplash that you cover towards the end of the accuracy segment, it is actually correct to call the drumming nonsense. Most of the drumming throughout the movie is actually dubbed over, with only very small sections actually being played by the actor. That's not a criticism, it's not me saying that's bad, that's just literally how the scenes were constructed, and if you actually tried to play those sections how the actor is playing them in reality, it would sound quite literally nothing like the actual sounds that are being used in the dub over. Once again, that isn't a criticism of the movie, or a black mark upon it's quality, it's simply a factual statement about the accuracy of that scene.
A note on music schools: It would be misleading to say that Berklee is the "Harvard of Jazz." Berklee is a fairly easy school to get into (the hard part is scholarships), and jazz has actually been de-emphasized recently. Whiplash's school was aesthetically designed more after Manhattan School of Music than Berklee. I haven't been to MSM before but I can tell you berklee looks nothing like that, while Neely says in his video that the video accurately portrays the halls of MSM. Neither MSM nor berklee, however, are traditionalist jazz schools, as both specialize in modern jazz (although MSM is also a great place to study older jazz). In this way, the school is likely inspired by Juilliard, which is known for its traditionalism and selectiveness. New England Conservatory is certainly a PWI and definitely not perfect, but I would point out that one of its most famous graduates is Coretta Scott King (MLK's Wife) and that it was the first conservatory to offer a degree in jazz. NEC is an extremely progressive institution relative to the field, and it was the first institution to really acknowledge jazz and other african american musics as artistically significant. Also, you are completely correct that jazz has become too focused on schools rather than music, and that this is a flaw of the genre. I couldn't agree more.
Okay, actually the fact that he misses down on one is actually pretty obvious. It honeslt ysounds like they edited it thinking it was an 8/4 count in rather thqn a 7/4 count.
What Nomad is missing is what Whiplash could be for jazz musicians! The film could be more accurate to the jazz culture, but the story would have to be more sensitive, the characters would have to be portrayed with more contradictions. Making and studying music is full of contradictions! It is fun and rewarding but it also has all the toxic elements in the film. However, if the film wanted to be more accurate it would have to be less Hollywoody and more artsy. A film with similar themes, but dealt in a much better and more matture way is 2022's Tár. All the characters are more complex than Whiplash. The discussion on aesthetics, ethics and culture on the dialogues are great and Todd Field gets the technicalities of classcial music right! Nomad is accusing the musicians of not understanding that jazz is the "setting for the movie". But setting is also important, and it could be done poorly, and if done so, it will break the suspension of disbelief for those who can pick up on those flaws! For kinda cheap american entertainment is good for what it is, but why getting so worked up about the consensus in the jazz community in regards to a 10 year old film that was ridiculously popular!
@Igorsbackagain-c6q Nothing HAS to be accurate in a film. Still, if it's not, it will break the suspension of disbelief... if the story happens in a jazz environment, it's just weird for a musician to see something that makes no sense, like a bass player moving his hands up and down the neck weirdly when he's supposed to be playing a walking bassline. It takes you out of the movie experience. Now, I understand that this won't happen to a non-trained person. And that's fine. But it will happen with jazz musicians, and pretending that it won't is just silly.
@@JohnathandosSantos let me put it this way if New York is the setting of your movie you shouldn’t expect it to be accurate because IT IS A MOVIE ONE THAT HAS A CREATIVE VISION let me repeat CREATIVE VISION
The point you are trying to get across Adam Neely is also the point Adam Neely is trying to get across about Whiplash. Just as the purpose of Whiplash is not to be accurate and taken seriously, Neely's video is nicknamed "critic by a jazz musician" and he stresses at the beginning of the video that the review is gonna be nitpicky and pedantic because that's what he was trying to do: he was trying to not do the unoriginal movie review and made more of a critical view of the tiny mistakes the movie made when compared to real life. Just as you say Whiplash's unique value is not in its realism, Adam Neely's video's unique value is to BE realistic. There's nothing wrong with that. By the way I hate Adam Neely because he's annoying, but to be fair he acknowledges at the beginning of the video that he's going to do a realist take on the movie, giving his own insight with his own experience, I don't know why you were expecting a full drama movie critique.
@doofusloofus8359 So stupid to imply Whiplash has nothing to do with jazz and no one can talk about except letterboxd folk. It's called content! You always want to make it original and from your own perspective. Neely is not a film critic, and probably his friends and audience were bothering him to talk about the movie, etc. Such a disingenous response.
@@redspiderlilys6 That's not the point you bozo. When making content for RUclips you don't have to engage directly with the content you're reviewing, you have the liberty to engage in whatever way you want. I'll give you an example: those videos called "Honest Action" where they analyze how many times the Wet Bandits would have died if Home Alone was realistic. It doesn't have to be serious. Adam Neely CLEARLY specifies in the beginning of the video that he is going to review the movie only from the perspective of jazz. There is a purpose to that also, as many people unrelated to jazz could see Whiplash and misinterpret that it's a common occurrence, or that everything about the film's way of learning music is valid and accurate. Neely is simply saying "here's all the stuff I know for a fact aren't in this way". He clarified that the movie was good, and that it's not the final review of the movie. I think he was in his right to make that video and he was probably right about all the things he said in it. Still a pedantic twat btw but still, I feel like people purposefully mock him as if he was trying to review the movie seriously when it was clearly a gimmick and a gag: the video is called "as reviewed by a jazz musician". He insists he is not a movie critic, just a jazz player. If you want to review Whiplash seriously you have a movie critic channel, but if you're Adam Neely you just talk about jazz and you review all the jazz related elements of Whiplash and then move on. It's not hard to understand, and it's not hard to TOLERATE. But so many of you are twice as pedantic as he is by saying "BUT UM EXCUUUUSE ME it's just a movie YOU NITPICKY SHIT" and it's like yeah, it's just a movie, that's what he is saying.
I don't know how much I can really add to this entire discussion, all I can really say is that I *do* think discussion of accuracy should be open in any piece of work. Ultimately Whiplash really could've been in just about any setting. An office, a circus, a car dealership, it doesn't particularly matter. Ultimately, the movie is about Fletcher pushing Nieman to greatness, no matter the cost to Nieman's health or sanity. The use of jazz is ultimately an aesthetic, and any effect it really has is superficial (setting, score, etc.). I've seen comments of people who say that Whiplash caused a discouragement of people wanting to join the jazz industry or take up jazz in education, and I am inclined to disagree, at least on the ground that Whiplash is responsible. I think those people discouraged might have thought of the movie as a statement on jazz itself, but really it has completely nothing to say about the industry other than suggest that people can and do work dangerously hard for it. I'm not an expert but I feel as though I agree, as this is basically any other industry. But that's not really the point to Whiplash. So if people turn away from jazz, is that Whiplash's fault necessarily? I say no. The point is that people like Fletcher are not in jazz alone, they are in *every facet of society.* There are manipulative, harmful people who force people into molds to be the next big thing. And sometimes they get what they want, they get their Caravan, but what does that do to the people they shape? It is a statement about creating sensations out of people, not about jazz. I don't think the accuracy of jazz in the movie is above criticism, I think people are and should be free to talk about it as they wish, and while I am *not* by any definition a musician, I can understand completely if someone who *is* one looks at a scene in Whiplash and goes "oh that just wouldn't happen" or "that's not how that works." But I think that critique, while it can impact their view of the movie as a whole, should *not* impact the critical review of the story.
Incredibly well thought out analysis and arguments. I died laughing 1:43:50 with the clip you used, perfect sarcasm, hit me like a truck. Outstanding vid
Why are you engaging with things that aren't reviews as if they're reviews? There are tons of "[expert in field] reviews accuracy of [movie about field]" videos. Those aren't reviews of the quality of the film. They're pointing out basic inaccuracies about the subject matter that could have easily been fixed if they had consulted anyone remotely competent in the field before running with the script.
Watched the film in school (music class) a few weeks ago. I didn't like it, but also didn't hate it per se, which is rare for me with this kind of movie, so it must be allright.
Off topic, but I’m not even subscribed to NoMad, yet he shows up in my feed all the time. I saw the intro and was all “alright let’s get into this…” and saw NoMad on screen and went “IT’S THIS GUY AGAIN”
also, I'm pretty sure the guy who "looks like a jock" is the one that (spoiler alert) later takes neemans place temporarily, which would further justify nieman's reaction and serve as fletcher trying to mess with neeman (and succeeding) if the choice to make the guy look like a jock and not like a "real" jazz musician was deliberate
just wanted to say before watching that your thumbnail game was on point with this one! didnt even realize it was the schlatt man until after i clicked
I just want to thank you for putting into words what has been bothering me about not only the musician discourse around Whiplash, but also the issue around Music RUclips and "Expert" RUclips as a whole. It really does feel like we've lost a major sense of media literacy, and the major misinterpretations we see regarding media that features music or jazz as a setpiece tell more about the detractors than it does of the media itself. Maybe the movie isn't as inaccurate as it appears on the surface if elitism such as what we see through Rick Beato and Adam Neely is apparently so commonplace in music academia.
There is something to the tyrannical band leader. Of course, there is not a singular way to do it, but a tyrannical band leader can work really well. It can really make the group extremely sharp and push them to insane heights. As a musician, it can really simplify things to just give all control to one person, whatever they say is fact, you just have absolute laser focus on your own parts. Similarly, there really is something to the saying, a scared musician is a focused musician. And by scared I don't mean scared to come to rehearsal, but more so that playing mistakes do not go unnoticed and are not responded to with everlasting kindness. Not throw a cymbal at their head, but simply making it clear that there was a mistake, not letting it slide, and communicating that you really don't appreciate it. As a musician, that is comforting in a strange way, because it means your efforts will be appreciated, that we are ALL contributing to a serious rehearsal, that we aren't just goofing around and it all doesn't really matter. And it works. Like if someone keeps making the same mistakes, you can just sit there with a smile and be like "oh no it is all right, just try again", or you can like physically cringe, rub your temples in frustration. It looks mean, but that is kinda the point, so that you as a musician feel more motivated to not f-up again. Again, not saying every group should do this, this is for a certain type of serious and motivated group of musicians, like the ones that go to conservatory.
1:46:40 "The vibe I got from them wasn't "music is fun", the vibe was more like, "if I make a mistake I'm gonna get shot in the head"" EXACT PINPOINT ACCURACY And here's why... that's because those aren't jazz musicians. They're marching band, or more aptly, Drum Corps musicians. While Whiplash doesn't accurately portray modern jazz education, it sure as shit portrays modern Drum Corps culture (a whole world that is DEFINITELY worth looking into). I always hated that Adam Neely video (and generally 99% of his content because I think a lot of his takes are conceded and highest). I'm happy that somebody [you] pointed out every flawed argument he made and actually analyzed the film. I also always hated that he (and many others) would disregard this movie because, "well it didn't happen to me, so..." and that always drove me insane. As someone who has been in very abusive musical structures that have lead to that exact level of self abuse, self doubt, and self destruction that Niemann portrayed, it's harmful and disrespectful to hear so many limelight musicians claim it's all inaccurate because, again, it didn't happen to THEM specifically. Your video has inspired me to finally make a video highlighting all of my frustrations with the music world, and really what the movie Whiplash meant to me as somebody who's experienced the exact same emotions as Niemann. I love Whiplash for how accurate the abuse is and how accurate the drive to be "the best" is, especially if you're someone with anger issues. Because real shit, most musicians don't strive to be "the [historical] best", they just strive to be great and to get paid. Also, I'm so sick and tired of people in the arts acting like sports are a plague and only for the scum of the Earth. Just say you don't watch sports and don't care for them. It's fine. But don't act like sports aren't equally artistic. Watch a historic game of football with 2 teams who are considered "the best" of the time. The insane feats those people pull off are unbelievable to watch. The same way you listen Coltrane pull off Giant Steps with ease. Just because you weren't as popular as the jocks doesn't mean sports are a joke. Anywhoodles, thank you for this great video. I can't believe I sat through all 2 hours of it, but I'm just happy somebody finally shat on Adam Neely. So again, thank you for that (and for that beautiful thumbnail that made me click)
I’m a jazz university student and I love whiplash, because I didn’t view it as a “jazz movie”, because it’s not. However I think a big problem is that outside viewers often do view it as a “jazz movie”, it HAS effected how non-jazz fans view and interact with jazz music. And yes this is not the movies responsibility, but I think it’s understandable why jazz musicians don’t like this. I do agree though that instead of being a little baby about it the musicians should take it as an opportunity to expose real jazz to these people.
Its a movie about an important genre of music that is still experienced by the public, made by people who have nothing to do with jazz and have missed the point . Its a movie made for people who never listen to jazz ,
I personally saw Fletchers character as the embodiment of the troubles the world gives someone with a larger goal than normal. Someone that comes from a normal background that leaves them at the mercy of the world and how you have to practically be off your rocker to achieve a higher than average goal. Working 16 hours a day for 20 plus years while walking a fine line because you cant afford one mistake while surrounded by people who want to use you to elevate their own status and if yhey cant use you, theyll destroy you, take everything and leave you with nothing over and over until you learn how to combat, deal with and overcome while becoming apathetic to your own suffering for the sake of obtaining something greater than your father (who will never understand) did. Just a rando thought🤷♂️
I feel like a point that can be argued is that while many of these complaints lie on elitism, they also lie on wish-fulfillment. Like, let's think about the way these jazz musicians think about the movie. They don't like that it's ugly, that is viseral, like I keep thinking in that last point that guy made "music is fun". When they learn that this movie is about Jazz they want a movie that reflects why they love jazz, why they chose to dedicate their lives into jazz. And there are films in my opinion that show that. Yes, none about how it is to learn jazz, but many that celebrate it as great music. But this movie doesn't do that, it doesn't celebrate jazz, it questions it. For me, it is very interesting that the musicians that are more willing to reflect on their bad experiences learning music are more willing to engage with this. Really says a lot that the people who are the most critical of the movie are the ones that definitely seem the most privileged.
It's funny how so many of your complaints with the reaction vids stem from you doing the exact same thing to the videos that you accuse them of doing to the movie. Just continually missing the point of them and not realizing that those videos weren't made for you. You simply weren't the target audience.
Sir Nomad, even if you never think about "Jshitt" ever again, we will always admire the work and passion you put into your videos. Consistently making high quality posts like this only proves your dedication for content and your live for art. Thank you Sir Nomad.
The problem isn't the movie itself, but the idea that this is seen by the public as a "jazz movie" rather than an "abusive relationship movie". There isn't much jazz representation in mainstream media and so having the average Joe's first thought be Whiplash when you mention jazz to them is painful. I was so hyped to watch this movie when I heard about it because all I knew was "it's that jazz movie!" so upon learning during my first watching that it was actually NOT a jazz movie, I was very confused and disappointed. Since first seeing this movie, I actually witnessed people suffering under a passive aggressive band director so I don't hate the movie as much as I used to, though I still wouldn't enjoy rewatching it personally. In conclusion, review Kids on the Slope.
I also haven't finished your video yet as a disclaimer
Your segment on Rick Beato was very good, I haven't seen his vid but that's crazy to just review the trailer and call it a day. He's always rubbed me the wrong way as kind of a hostile boomer that hates new musicians vibe.
1:16:28 So true, big band vs small group is a whole different world. And yes you kind of need to be less feeling to play in a big band to get all the hits together with the rest of the band, you need to play the chart wheras in a small group you can be waaay more free.
You'd prefer "The Jazz Singer"?
Most of that sounds just like a You problem
This movie isn’t about Jazz, it’s about the artist’s obsession with perfection, Jazz is only a medium to reflect this obsession because it’s widely considered to be a difficult genre both to appreciate and perform
The movie, as a narrative about obsession, is excellent
Technique and "difficulty" is not a be-all-end-all of art, which is a point Adam Neely makes quite well in his video. Art is not sports, and often times in art great can be the enemy of good. That is not to say that it's impossible to improve at your art, or that it's bad to strive for growth, but art is much more complicated then just a game of skill, are no clear and concrete goals in art, there can be no "perfect" artwork, and arguing otherwise would be completely misunderstanding the fundamental nature of art as a subjective experience. In fact I would argue that this part of the movie is actually a bad, misleading, and potentially even harmful portrayal of art and artistry. Sure, it's compelling on an emotional level, but it doesn't mean that it's a coherent exploration of the idea, I definitely think that it's one of the weaker aspects of the movie, it definitely sacrifices the deeper exploration of these themes in favor of emotional weight and drama.
@@4vtNt2H2hqet54jjisn’t the point of the movie is that he loses the point of art as a mode of expression through his obsession with being “great” in what he sees as an objective criteria?
@@wiggy009I mean, you could read it that way, but the movie doesn't really offer any kind of critique to this "pursuit of greatness" mentality, at least not directly. I mean, clearly the commenters missed it, and it's not how I see the movie too. I feel like the movie hinges on the dichotomy, the all-or-nothing mentality, I think it clearly attempts to ask the question of "Is the pursuit of greatness worth this kind of sacrifice?", when in reality the mistake was in the question itself, the dichotomy was false for the start, you don't have to torture yourself physically or mentally to become a good, or even great artist, in fact doing so you'll likely make things worse, achieve worse results, or might even traumatize yourself (physically or mentally) to the point where literally can't do it at all (or worse). But we don't see it in the movie, in fact the final scene is grand and pompous, like we're meant to think "Look, he achieved greatness! But was it worth it?". I just, I'm honestly quite sad and frustrated with the way the movie handles this subject, it has a really strong emotional impact, and yet it's so superficial and detached from reality in the way it actually explores the questions it's asking. I just, I dunno man...
@@wiggy009 Not really. The film wasn't really about art creation or self expression through playing personal variations of the music of others where this makes more sense. Especially with how they focus on thing that are usually seen as basic requirements for being a good musician such as being able to keep tempo or playing the correct notes for a piece.
It was really just about him sacrificing everything to be the best drummer. Not to say it the movie is bad but it doesn't really delve into the artistic aspects of the music.
Erm a music teacher wouldn’t set up a film camera in their practice sessions to film themselves -15 points to gryffindor
a music teacher wouldn't be abusive -11101011 10100001 11010110 11010110 10011010 01100101 01101111 points
@@anomalousanimates beep boop boop 🤖
A RUclips movie reviewer would never say "I love Whiplash", they would say "I like Whiplash, the film". 1/10 for accuracy
That’s true. Nobody loves a neck injury
Heard this and immediately unsubscribed
The title made me think this was an ULTRAKILL video
i never knew people thought fletcher was a motivational figure😭like how do you miss the point that bad omfg
"sigma grind set"
@wrathofkaneeighty8 people using clips of whiplash in motivational contexts too like "i wanna be one of the greats" this is a film ab unhealthy obsession and it pains me to see people using clips to encourage viewers to keep honing their skills. literally use anything else bc ur being counterproductive
"baked alaska"
Because the movie is literaly telling you throughout how much of a cool guy fletcher is even tho people like this youtuber will try to convince you otherwise
@@olbap2014but it literally doesn't
as a jazz musician in college, i also love whiplash. i know a lot of jazz heads argue with it and hate that it “misrepresents” jazz, but i think it absolutely represents the worst of music school, of becoming a musician, of abusive teachers, of obsession and self-harm through practice, it highlights hardships not often brought to light. the music major is sometimes seen as “oh that must be such a fun major” rather than a serious, sometimes crushing endeavor, and I think whiplash handles it exceptionally well. it’s also a damn good movie.
they forget that nobody would watch a faithful jazz movie. general public hates jazz
@@nbshftr now thats just not true, the general public don't hate jazz. Jazz just doesnt have a movie *about jazz*
the thing is if you want to watch a jazz movie, there's like 20 documentaries on the legends that invented the music. straight, no chaser, ken burns jazz, etc
As tempting as it is to leave a “lol, triggered,” you’re clearly passionate about film, and Whiplash holds a special place in your heart. You (mostly) engaged with my video in good faith this time around, so I’ll do likewise.
I think because you care about film, you have assumed that jazz musicians talking about the film care about the storytelling aspects of the movie. However, the same way you say that I’ll be disappointed if I expect Whiplash to be an accurate portrayal of jazz culture, the same can be said of how you view jazz musicians’ reactions to the film. You want a film analysis, but that’s not what the reactions are. So for you, the analyses are lacking because they so rarely give you any relevant character or narrative information. Instead it’s “useless trivia.”
For you, it seems like information about setting (the world of jazz education, specifically in NYC) is only relevant as pertains to the narrative beats of the film. But for jazz musicians, all information is important regardless of its relevance to the plot, because it influences the real world culture and how people interact with it.
I have had parents of young jazz music students ask me if Whiplash was accurate. They were worried about the prospect of sending their kid to university to study music, because that was their impression of higher jazz education. Whiplash, the film, has actively dissuaded young musicians from jazz because they and their families assume the worst. The verisimilitude of specific details that come from Damien Chazelle’s experience (the musical jargon for example) lend weight to the idea that you should fear the study of jazz. Nitpicking details is part of a general emotional reaction that I have, and I know other jazz musicians have, on pushing back on the idea that this film defines jazz education.
Because…let’s be honest. Whiplash is the defining cultural documentation of jazz in higher education. This is largely because the movie is so good on its own merits as a psychological thriller. It’s a popular movie because it’s good and exciting and tells a compelling story.Because it’s good and exciting, its setting persists in the public consciousness far more than (IMO) lesser films that cover niche music subcultures like Pitch Perfect or Drumline. And so, every drummer gets asked about Whiplash, not Drumline.
There are much bigger questions that you could explore here. Can good art (Whiplash) have negative consequences? How much responsibility do movies have to the culture they represent? If the film is an honest representation of a person’s experiences and yields a great story, should any that other stuff matter?
Whiplash’s take on jazz education is colored by Damien Chazelle’s negative experience at Princeton High School in New Jersey under the direction of band director Anthony Biancosino, the real Terrence Fletcher. After my video was released, I received an email from somebody who attended Princeton, who had mixed feelings about the movie and its portrayal of their experience. This is what they said…
“…although real-life Fletcher (the legendary Dr. B, Anthony Biancosino), was tough, the movie completely overlooked how much love he had for both the music and his students. This man inspired joy in everyone who played for him, and though he was incredibly demanding, he was far from the cold, aloof, let alone abusive character that Hollywood must have thought would serve the movie better. That's one of the things that stung most about the movie in the band community-the villainization of this man who really was a hero of jazz education...albeit old-school jazz.”
So if your thesis is jazz musicians suck at reviewing Whiplash because they’re too biased to have an objective opinion, sure. If you’re trying to answer why so many jazz musicians don’t like the movie, you have to consider the meta-textural reasons why they might dislike it, and engage more directly with the professionals who dislike it.
But that’s not really in your wheelhouse. Instead you selectively engage with jazz artists based solely on whether or not their insight illuminates something for you personally within the text of the film, not based on what the film means to how the world interacts with jazz culture. You dismiss Antonio Sanchez, Ethan Iverson and perhaps most curiously - Nate Smith as a no-name who nobody will remember. Because of that all your video amounts to is 2 hours of nitpicks of nitpicks.
I admit my shit was messy, and the first 11 minutes of nitpicks weren’t particularly valuable. Cinema Sins level shit, some of it. It’s an old video after all, that I would do much differently if I did it today.
But I have a personal relationship to Buddy Rich’s legacy through my comp teacher Greg Hopkins. I also studied big band music at MSM for my masters - Schafer is pretty directly based on MSM/Julliard, and have went on to have my big band play at festivals including North Sea jazz. I have stakes in how aspects of my life are portrayed in cinema, and I can’t help but dislike aspects of it because of how it so negatively portrays aspects of my own life in ways that don’t feel truthful and that actively dissuade others from becoming Jazz musicians.
Me releasing a RUclips video dismissing Whiplash at a formative moment in your life (15) clearly struck a raw nerve, and you have had an axe to grind with me for a while. Me making a “lol, triggered” comment on your video didn’t help, but in my defense, that first video was largely incoherent rambling, so I’m glad you sharpened your axe a bit more and came after me with research.
But so much of this video felt to me like somebody who just was going after my RUclips video for no other reason than I made him angry at an earlier point in their life. So for that I’m sorry.
I still don’t really like whiplash.
.
lol triggered
Beat meat to it
Thanks for sharing what you think about this
@@WowReactsOnly😘
You’re giving this 21 year old kid way more grace and respect than he gave you or anyone, thanks for staying classy and being insightful.
As a jazz musician (I know stinky) who enjoys Whiplash, the reason why most jazz musicians dislike the movie is very simply because it's an objectively bad representation of the jazz world, it is a mischaracterization of what it's like to be a jazz musician. Like seriously nearly everything related to jazz in the movie (other than the lingo that is) is wrong, so I don't blame jazz musicians for disliking the movie. When the most popular movie about something you're passionate about gets it completely wrong you're bound to be a bit bitter.
But I'm not saying that Whiplash is a bad movie, no Whiplash is a fucking amazing movie. But if you go into Whiplash expecting a good portrayal of the jazz world then you're not gonna like it, and that's where most people slip up going into it. I had already heard all of the criticism of the movie prior to watching it, so rather than expecting it to be a good jazz movie, I just went into it expecting a good psychological thriller, and I loved it. As a psychological thriller completely detached from jazz, Whiplash is a masterpiece, but when you look at it from a jazz perspective, it falls short.
Purely out of curiosity, setting aside Fletcher, and subsequently all the stuff he does in the movie, what would you say is incorrectly portrayed?
As a musician myself, I love Whiplash. No, I've never seen a situation like that myself, but... I mean... it's a discipline, you can find all kinds of weirdos in the medium.
And tbh it isn't the first nor the last movie to portray music incorrectly, and that doesn't take away that it is a good flick, or at least a very entertaining one. It's like bashing Karate Kid because it doesn't portray karate accurately.
I feel like watching it before going to jazz school/not having a jazz focused high school made it to where I could appreciate the scenario and the rest of the movie for what it is, a warning about obsession
Despite Fletcher being such a standout character, the breakup scene is what really sticks with me. How much would you sacrifice to achieve greatness? And her mocking of the idea, it feels like the better my mental state is the more I agree with her. Taking care of your needs (sleep, socialization, etc) is essential to success, not opposite it.
Maybe it's just where I am in life, but I think that that's the climax of the movie. Everything before it builds toward his total rejection of his social needs. Everything after is the fallout of that decision. He lost the last thing he felt he had to lose, and his safety net (his father) was never going to be enough.
Music education funding in the US is at the mercy of public opinion, so music educators are used to having to defend their field / justify why it’s a worthwhile career for students. It’s a great movie about abuse that will likely be misunderstood by many as a cautionary tale against being a musician, just because of the socioeconomic context it exists in.
As an avid fan of TD Bloons, I must remind you to finish that TD Bloons 3 tribute
this man makes a 2 hour video and you apparently expect more
Been watching this video this whole time playing TD 6. Scrolled down accidentally and immediately Bloons
@@Numptaloid i enjoy all of Mr. Mad's videos, but the vigil must be kept
I honestly can understand jazz musicians getting defensive when talking about the movie. It's like 90% what most people know about jazz culture and that's not really a good thing. So pointing out that it's inaccurate is kinda what they have to do.
These videos aren't great as movie reviews, but they're also not movie reviewers.
my biggest gripe on this movies influence is for a while a lot of band kids assumed that the movie is what jazz is all about. misrepresentation causes massive damage to an already hard to understand form of art.
Sure but they should at least watch the movie before saying anything. Rick Beato couldn't even bother to do that
"teachers don't slap students! The way this teacher talks to his student is so weird and not what normally takes place!"
Yeah it's almost like that's the point of the movie...
I slightly disagree only because cooks love ratatouille because it shows falling in love with cooking and how thats exactly what it feels like. Whiplash doesn’t feel like what jazz musicians like about jazz, and when going to a jam session for the first time there’s sm anxiety is about messing up and thats what whiplash is like. I love whiplash as movie, but I do wish there was a non psychological thriller jazz movie that went as mainstream as it(i think soul represents jazz pretty well). Jazz musicians don’t like whiplash the same way cooks don’t like the bear. I think you should watch adam neely’s video on how laufey’s music isn’t jazz because he concludes that laufey isn’t jazz and that is okay, and it brings up a lot of points that helps make this take solidify.
edit: As a jazz musician, jazz feels like a horror movie, and i love it because the most while appealing to mainstream media the best.
Before watching the vid, I have to be honest; as a Jazz musician this is one of my favorite movies. I hate that the crux of the issue with people like Neely and Beato is "It's not realistic to the art of performing jazz"
Of course it isnt realistic, it's a movie. Jazz performance is just the backdrop for the actual story which is an abusive relationship and the lengths people will go for success.
Can’t believe you actually made the 2 hour video talking about Whiplash, the dream has come true. You’ve made me a very happy man today NoMad
As a musician I love this movie - I take Adam Neely's point that it's bad that "nobody has fun" in the movie, but lets be honest we've all met a musician who wasn't having fun because they're too lost in the next recital or next exam (which is the critique the movie makes)
58:32 Fletcher using the phrase, "out of tune player" actually makes more sense considering he's putting the focus on "the player", the subject, and not "the playing", the action, which is definitely the more abusive way to say it.
I loooove Whiplash but I honestly don't understand your your annoyance. If I watch a physicist review the physics of Interstellar, I want them to be as nitpicky as possible, that's the whole reason I'm watching.
When he asked Adam Neely to go over the acting and directing I rolled my eyes. Adam cant give a good take on those things because he isn’t as well versed on what makes good acting and good directing good. He’s just able to point it out. Also he treats Adam as if Adam is trying to make a large statement, which he isn’t. That’s why after every nitpick Adam says something along the lines of “but this is all for the sake of drama.”
That's your perspective. But it is equally valid to criticize the videos for not actually understanding the movie and just being nitpicky for nitpicking sake.
Its why people find CinemaSins annoying
Did you watch the whole thing? Its not about nitpicking, its about nitpicking while not understanding that its a movie, it has a plot, with jazz references that serve the plot. Thats where the jazz elite reviewers go wrong.
@@lukekline9513The videos at no point claim to be reviews of the film as a film. The entire point is that they are subject matter experts critiquing the accuracy of the film. This is an entire genre of RUclips video, I'm not sure why you guys are so pissy about it when a jazz musician does it.
Underrated RUclipsr
Fr ever since the schlat vids the algorithm has been putting his bangers in my feed, I dont even realise it's him half the time until i click the video
best vid recommendation evaa
Most of the jazz musicians critiques of the movie prove that the movie succeeded in portraying exactly what it was trying to convey. Its not supposed to be an accurate representation of a jazz band, it's a fictionalized representation of manipulation and how obsession can ruin lives
They must have read the movie description as "this is a documentary of a totally average and normal jazz band where everyone does everything by the book" and then got disappointed when it was a psychological thriller
You know why I, as a person with 0 jazz experience or moviemaking experience, know that Whiplash is not about jazz?
I can not remember one scene of Neman being creative. No one scene of him trying something on his drums for fun. Not one scene of him discussing music theory or anything like that with anyone.
This is a fucking SPORTS movie.
What relevant sports movie is anything like whiplash like seriously.
As someone who actually has extensive experience in music education, yeah that’s a big problem with it. For 8 years I learned percussion instruments, and virtually none of that time was actually creating something original. Music education has been corporatized in its execution as a mechanical skill, not an artistic one. You’re measured by your ability to play on a mechanical level, and the ability to create your own works won’t get you far unless they are technically impressive. This is what Whiplash gets most right about music education.
Based
Youd be surprised if you met a university grade music student. They are kind of unimaginative. It was a shcok to me, at least
Maybe that the movie loses focus on the actual music of jazz is the whole point. Like, as he says in this video, it's a movie about obsession and ambition and abuse. the cameras are often shooting really close to the faces of the individuals, or on the drums - the movie directs us to the egos of the characters, and to the objects they obsess over. we forget about the ensemble and collaboration, and instead we spend the whole time with these two characters and the weird abusive dynamic they share. perhaps the movie isn't 'really about music' because obsession and ambition aren't really about music.
I don't get why people give it 1/10 for the 'accuracy', but I can definitely say my experience of the film was half-diminished (get it?) due in part to me being a musician. When I rewatched it recently I couldn't help but think of how unprofessional it would be if someone were to pull off what Nieman did at the final scene during a gig. While it really doesn't take away from the overall story, It can be distracting for those who see something as unrealistic. Which can make dramatic moments in the film have less impact or even seem silly. It's like if you were a math professor watching a movie where the climax of the story is the solving of an equation, but the math on the board is incorrect; and you can't help but notice when you're supposed to be experiencing the climax of the film. Ofc unrealistic things happen all the time in movies, but the importance of realism is dependent on the film; and with Whiplash I'd say it's somewhat important. The story is really more dependent on the characters and amazing acting then jazz itself. This story could be set within many artistic disciplines, but jazz education happens to fit the archatypes of these characters well. Ultimately I would say there's moments in this movie that I don't feel I experienced properly because I was distracted by something unrealistic And yeah that is kind of a fault within the film for me, but the story is phenomenal and it's easy to say that every choice in the making of this movie seemed to be in the service of a great story. So maybe they sacrificed realism in service of the story? Does that deserve - points? if the movie would have been more realistic would it have been better or would the story have suffered? are my panties in a twist? idk guys I'm rambling now have a good night
also Thomas Pridgen's name is pronounced Prih-Jen
It’s difficult to watch media about something in your particular niche of expertise and not be yanked out of the story by inaccuracies.
Of course it's unprofessional. I'm not sure how they could more clearly indicate that everyone thinks this is very weird and only Neiman and Fletcher are into it. The bassist to Neiman's right asks him "the fuck are you doing?" and everyone is following along because they're trying to keep the show going. Andrew's dad looks on in horror. Earlier in the film Fletcher is forced to apologise for Andrew's obsessiveness causing him to ruin a show. I see that scene and I imagine an audience fascinated but kind of disturbed - anyone would be able to tell something is off. I don't see how that could possibly be a flaw.
@@mxnevermind To quote myself, which comes directly after the part of my comment you're referring to. "While it really doesn't take away from the overall story, It can be distracting for those who see something as unrealistic. Which can make dramatic moments in the film have less impact or even seem silly."
So... yeah, I didn't even make the blanket statement of calling it a flaw. I said its a fault within the movie for me. To the average jo, there's a lot of great drama to be engaged with. To me, I see two losers jacking themselves off by degrading the art for the sake of their hubris. I have the mental capability of understanding why it's a good film, it's just not for me. I understand why ya'll think that the music community disliking Whiplash is annoying, and it totally can be; but like at least take the time to understand our points plz.
@@ztuckyThat's my bad, I jumped the gun. I still do have trouble understanding your perspective though, maybe you could help me.
You call the final scene, and, I'm presuming, other parts 'unrealistic' and I guess my response to that is- would these situations truly be an unrealistic result from these personalities clashing in this way? I'll absolutely grant that the movie is exaggerated beyond anything I'd ever expect to see in my life but everything that happens *is* in the realm of possibility, at least as I see it. Would you disagree?
I think a lot of people have already said this, but as I see it the issue here is that the movie is kind of bastardizing jazz as its setting in a way that feels like appropriation. It's not unlike the trend of incredibly good period pieces upsetting historians by being otherwise fantastic movies with poor historical accuracy. That kind of thing enters the culture and shapes peoples' understandings. I remember watching Whiplash, and then watching Adam's video, and feeling like he was nitpicking a bit, for sure. I remember feeling like there was some emotional power there, when I watched the movie, that Adam wasn't quite addressing. It felt somewhat unfair. But he also made some really good points, that stuck with me. Now, watching your video, I feel like the exact same thing is happening, just in the other direction. You're both fixating on the things you care most about, and kind of glossing over the other parts. Adam is removing the emotion from the movie. You're working awfully hard to justify the way jazz is portrayed in this movie, but you're doing so in service of the plot, not in service of the jazz.
I feel like you're both kind of right. Whiplash is a really good psychological thriller, wearing jazz as a setting the way Buffalo Bill wore people's skin. Maybe that's a little dramatic, but I'm tired and it's the first analogy that came to mind. Like Adam says, it really isn't difficult to imagine this movie as a sports movie instead. The jazz itself isn't so important to the message and the plot that it couldn't be swapped out for any other profession. This could even have been a movie about physics, chemistry, or maths.
It also isn't difficult to imagine changing some things about the way jazz is portrayed here, and in so doing making the movie much less harmful to the cultural perception of what jazz is like in the modern day. Modernize Fletcher's obsession with greatness and align his goals more with being the next big thing, or revitalizing jazz with new ideas. Or, if his fixation on the past is so integral to the story, contrast it. Similarly, perhaps contrast Neiman's abusive experience more starkly, to make it clearer that this isn't what all jazz is like while at the same time highlighting the manipulativeness of Fletcher: imagine a scene where Neiman is watching some more modern jazz musicians jamming, but he convinces himself that he isn't ready to join them because he has to be perfect. The movie could at once show what modern jazz culture is really like, and show that Fletcher has created a critic in Neiman's own head.
I think you need to be more willing to accept Whiplash's flaws, and that a movie doesn't only have a responsibility to be moving or entertaining, but also to the material and culture it's borrowing from.
Yeah, I’ve said elsewhere that so many people misunderstanding the point of Whiplash really is sort of Whiplash’s fault because the movie doesn’t present any view of jazz or musicianship to contrast with Fletcher. There isn’t a gentler version that the audience wants for Neiman that Neiman rejects. It’s *just* Fletcher’s ideology even though that doesn’t even make sense in the reality of the movie.
Fletcher gets fired for his actions towards Neiman, so wouldn’t there be other music instructors who reach out to Neiman to pull him back into the fold?
The fact that Fletcher is the only music authority in the movie means abuse in service of excellence is the only frame the movie offers to explain Neiman’s journey. It’s completely expected in that context to get to the end thinking he achieved greatness but at what cost.
But a better version of the movie could’ve made it clear that he isn’t even great now either. That Fletcher’s ideology is actually what keeps him from greatness. That it isn’t a Sophie’s choice. Neiman is *just* losing.
I don't see it as a responsibility the movie had but what I'm getting from this discourse is that whiplash's biggest sin is just being the most popular jazz related thing of like the past 20 years, it'd be great if a movie or something else showing the great parts of jazz also became really mainstream. Even if I don't think the movie should've been different, especially as I don't think there was a way to know in hindsight the place it was gonna occupy in pop culture, I can understand the frustration jazz enthusiasts have with it a bit more now
I like much of your dissection and I'm not particularly fond of Rick Beato. However, I think a central point that none of these jazz guys can quite put into words is that since media related to Jazz has drifted away from relevant popular culture - save Frank Sinatra, La La Land, Christmas music, etc. - a movie like Whiplash can be damaging to the public image of jazz (especially college jazz education).
There's a risk of putting a brainworm in the minds of audience members who aren't as keyed in to the exaggerations and hyperrealities of the film as you are, that playing jazz and jazz education is really this miserable and stressful for everybody all the time, and that characters like Fletcher are stock characters you could expect to find in a Jazz department at a university until they are inevitably expelled.
It also is the sort of film that could give perverse inspiration to young jazz musicians - the category of people who get the wrong message from The Joker, The Big Short, and the like. But I've noticed as some others have mentioned that now, when I'm playing in a jazz group, the Not My Tempo jokes are abundant, and I've yet to have a stand thrown at me.
There are serious issues in music/arts ed though, especially when it comes to SA or theatre profs encouraging young women to develop eating disorders to 'fit' into certain roles.
What's with the thumbnail? Dude's criticism over Whiplash was very valid
had the same thought and now I'm watching the video. that's what thumbnails are supposed to do, right? I'm still watching and he hasn't brought up Neely yet, but judging by what I've seen so far, I don't think this video will shit on him
He clearly got his feelings hurt by a RUclipsr critiquing his favorite movie and is taking it personally. Adam Neely's critique was nuanced and he didn't say the movie itself is bad, he just pointed out inaccuracies because he makes videos ABOUT MUSIC.
@@xXxzAAa0aAAzxXx thumbnails are supposed to grab our attention, sure, but it still may be seen as disrespectful
@@jerrodshack7610 this
I really, genuinely enjoyed this video a lot, but I was a little concerned by that clip of someone discussing 300's racism- I have no idea if the particular video that was clipped from did a good job of analyzing the movie and its themes, but 300 is straight up a racist, fascist, homophobic film. I don't think it's a badly produced movie or unwatchable, it's just really, really not the sort of thing you want to subtly politically align yourself with. This is absolutely not a "cancel threat" or "callout post", I was just wondering what you meant by that.
LOL
What DID he mean, tho?
People who rate accuracy are literally not judging based on film critiquing. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. They are not film critics, they're musicians. They're coming to this from purely a musician's perspective. Not sure why this is disingenuous to you, they aren't pretending to analyse the movie according to its quality in storytelling.
Because that's treating it like a documentary, which is stupid. You can say the music is better or worse either in quality or suitability to what the film is trying to communicate, but let's just assume they were all playing classical but referred to it as jazz. That would come off as silly, but it really doesn't have a significant bearing on the film unless it goes further than the misnomer.
The issue is that musicians are latching onto issues that are the actual narrative devices being used to tell the story and using these as justifications for why the movie is a "disservice to jazz music" for reasons x, y or z.
Tldr; it's less giving insight or context to why something may or may not be realistic and every take is more some redditor "acktualllllyyy" shit
ironically half of this video is just you nitpicking other peoples videos
The jazz musician reviewers remind me of the videos called like "pianos are never animated correctly!" and it was like an independent film with an indie budget
Admittedly, people like Charles Cornell and Adam Neely do still seem to have an appreciation for the representation of music in modern media. It's just that, with so much experience with the field, it's jarring to see such a number of (small) inaccuracies. They still seem to enjoy and respect the work of the creators behind them
@@quesopicante5743 idk its just so condescending and completely undermines art to tell someone they animated something 'wrong'
@@quesopicante5743yes Adam Neely said it’s a good film but it’s sad to see it become the average person idea of what jazz is
@@c-test2435If you’re depicting things incorrectly for no other reason then convenience or ignorance then how is it that you aren’t undermining your own art?
This isn’t like a single piano scene in a movie about superheroes. Music is the entire subject matter. More realism only improves it on an artist level. Deciding that isn’t necessary because most people don’t care isn’t artistic excellence, it’s compromising your own quality yourself.
@@EWall1498I agree, it's embarrassing these people are acting like it's nitpicking to expect a movie ABOUT JAZZ to be remotely accurate to the subject matter.
And before some idiot responds "iT's NoT aBoUt JaZz", I'm aware that jazz is not the literary theme of the film. But it IS the thing that the film is about in a literal sense.
most jazz musicians like whiplash because its a good movie. most jazz musicians dislike whiplash as an accurate representation of studying jazz
To say "The teacher has unreasonable expectations" as a critique of this film means you completely missed the entire point
What if I told you the teacher comes off as obviously abusive to a comically absurd degree and that the seriousness that other characters take with him as he is constantly confidently wrong about the thing he's supposedly the best at is extra funny. It's a silly movie.
@Razsteroid There's nothing he's really "confidently wrong" about though. He just has high standards. Also being obviously abusive doesn't make it unrealistic that people still try to please him. Real abuse is usually like that
@@stanieldaniel5912 There's nothing he's confidently wrong about? He has the same understanding of music that the kids in 'Hackers' do about programming. But Hackers is a corny movie about hacking the planet. Whiplash is I think trying to be a serious movie about musicians but with the same ignorance of it's material. The things the teacher goes mental over are comical and any of the characters who took freshman music class would be seriously wondering if this guy is a psycho homeless dude who wandered in. It's a goofy and unintentionally funny movie.
I mean imagine the Longest Yard but no one making the movie knew what the rules to football were. That's Whiplash.
@Razsteroid Just because the timing they were playing at wasn't audibly off tempo to the audience? Or the 'out of tune' player wasn't clearly and blatantly out of tune? That's the point. He's overtly perfectionist. He hears problems that nobody else does. It's not a documentary. It's meant to be over-the-top. He wasn't necessarily "wrong" about anything he was bitching about, he just had standards that real people don't have. That's the point
@@stanieldaniel5912 Teacher never once teaches the students and instead just demands ridiculous things like exact tempo playing and praises Buddy Rich in the same way a drunk at the bar would call John Madden the greatest football player of all time. You gotta play those single strokes longer, man. Fastest drummer wins Jazz. This is presented not as the characters delusions, but as them perfecting Jazz by playing the forbidden rhythm against the impossible tempo. This is bad! Well, if that's the point, then that's the point. The movie is silly.
i love this video so much you clearly really understand whiplash and understand the difference between it not being a jazz movie and it being more of a thriller but with the back setting of jazz, i cant believe this is your third video about this topic and it still feels like its the things you are saying are different and fresh
the bear pfp.
@@biteof78 hell yeah
I’m only halfway thru but it seems like ur right about a lot but ur treating it as if they claim to have some sorta movie knowledge when to me it seems like they’re just saying what breaks that suspension of disbelief for them as people who’ve spent all their time in that space
I agree with this take. Adam didn’t go more into the characters and direction of the film because… he isn’t an expert on that. He went over the nitpicks he’s familiar with because it’s what is entertaining (to some). It doesn’t take merit away from the movie unless you’re extremely fickle.
I agree with this take. Adam didn’t go more into the characters and direction of the film because… he isn’t an expert on that. He went over the nitpicks he’s familiar with because it’s what is entertaining (to some). It doesn’t take merit away from the movie unless you’re extremely fickle.
About 45 minutes in and have come to the conclusion that those crying baby noises earlier in the video were apt and apply to all of you.
What ?
18:10 I don’t think it’s wrong to criticise a movie ignoring some aspects of it. I dislike the way whiplash is filmed and no amount of anything else can fix the (for me) horrible camera work. I don’t think it’s bad criticism, since people who care about camera angles the most will find it useful.
Uh L take idc that you you specified “for you”
@splorinmusic2409 na it was a W take
@@tyepod6482 I'm willing to have a discussion. I find that what the camera was looking at was perfectly in tandem with how we were supposed to feel, and that's the whole goal of cinema. Tanner is going crazy? Were looking at blood and sweat and his expressions to see he is going to far. We are supposed to feel tense during a rehearsal scene? jump cuts and constrained medium shots. How is this horrible I don't understand
14:26 "Doesn't do anything for anyone" bruh wtf do you mean- obviously it does, there are people solely watching the video to learn about accuracy or the professional's thoughts
gonna push back against a lot of this video's point that film criticism must be a certain way; i disagree with a lot of your decisions on what counts as "good insight" and "bad insight" and feel that a lot of these decisions are emotionally charged. (im a pretty big fan of adam and do admittedly have some personal stake though) it feels like a lot of this video boils down to you requiring that film analysis being how you want it, and especially coming from someone who really likes whiplash.
it really seems like youre only interested in purely plot-related reviews, though, which, i don't know, its not "bad criticism" to just focus on other elements of the movie for fun. i understand that it may be annoying when intentional discrepancies get dismissed as simple screenwriting/directing mistakes, but i also just get the impression that you get emotionally charged at anything less than a stellar review highlighting all of the great elements of whiplash. (so much of this mistaken "inaccuracy spotting" is just a misunderstanding that people may easily get if theyre watching isolated clips of the movie) it just feels like you get really mad about adam's nitpicking because most of it doesn't really have much bearing on the overall movie, but i dont feel that your criticism of the "inaccuracy spotting" being completely useless is fair at all. for example, the drummer at the beginning pointing out niemann's tense playing is cool to know, especially for me, a classical pianist who's tangentially interested in all the little tidbits of jazz performance information. adam's style of dry presentation isn't meant to be "passive aggressive" and snobbish more than it just being more of an internet persona that aligns with his more ironic sense of humor (i hardly think he was actually trying to mock you when he commented "lol, triggered"). it rubs me the wrong way when you get mad that adam spends time focusing on little tidbits of insight (whether you deem it legitimate or not doesnt really matter it's still neat insight in my opinion) rather than complimenting all the acting and whatever that's already been done dozens of times. i dont know, i think its nice to engage with media through different lenses for fun sometimes rather than "reviewing" it in standard ways (whiplash has already been "reviewed" in standard ways so many times, i hardly see why it matters that people go at it in other ways)
personally, as a musician, on my first time watching whiplash it rubbed me the wrong way simply because it doesnt portray music accurately. i understand that the "point" of the movie was to make music performance this grotesque form of itself to show the toxic relationships that it can form, but, still, it felt off. i'm actually really glad that adam came to and shared the conclusion that he did, because it let me put my own thoughts into my own words. as someone who has an intimate connection to music performance, it feels like music isnt the most condusive to this kind of story. i have to suspend my disbelief so much at certain points in the movie that it breaks the immersion due to my personal experiences. this isn't "bad criticism," it's just how i, and maybe adam, respond to the movie on a personal level.
kind of confused now why you made two videos on this one video of his with your first video receiving the same criticism i just made and you liking said comments implying that you appreciated what they had to say 😭😭😭
i could go through a lot of whataboutisms with this video that i left out in my original comment
you argue that these misrepresentations of the film draw undeserved negative reception towards it but you do the same with the subjects of these videos (you keep tone-policing adam's video and turn it from a relatively harmless and neutral self-aware tongue-in-cheek review to this malicious undeserved takedown of a movie)
you get mad that these reviews " arent good insight" then proceed to repeat this for every point of insight that these "professionals" point out
you.. get mad at nitpicking and then do it far more poorly and for longer and more unfairly..
idk id love to actually discuss this with you instead of getting mad at a wall but i wont expect that of you cause a 2 hour video is tough work and i dont expect you to have to read all the comment word walls on top of that haha
@@ciriuflus So why are you doing the exact same thing that Nomad is doing if it bothers you so much? I think Nomad's video hit a little too close to home for a few people and now they're writing their own essays in the comments trying to defend Adam's Cinemasins surface level critisms of a film.
@@SpungleGrundlei like adams video sorry man i dont think this guys criticisms are really that good and i think i explain why decently enough lol
we can do the whataboutism cycle forever but i cant be assed with internet drama with random people i just hope the original creator of the video sees this haha
Calling someone emotionally charged when you write a whole ass of essay to glaze a pretentious way of viewing a piece of art is kinda silly.
Also he is entirely objectively correct in saying that it is bad criticism to say a movie is bad or a bad representation of something because it has to fit within the format of a movie. Getting mad at the movie for having scenes that are tense where people are playing sloppy isn't constructive, it isn't something that actually helps make it a better movie, and it doesn't even actually provide any real insight for the audience. It's just complaining for the sake of complaining.
Obviously certain elements will have to be exaggerated or done in a way that isn't realistic because who the fuck wants to watch a two hour movie of people silently playing the drums with no expression and perfect technique??
If what you're whining about doesn't actually affect the movie's quality in a negative way, it isn't valid criticism and it's not being "emotional" to call that out as a blatantly reductive way to view film.
Even at the end where you're talking about how you respond to the movie personally, you're still not giving any actual criticism or proving any of his points wrong. You can feel however you want about a piece of art but that doesn't change it's objective quality. There's movies that are really well made that I don't like at all for personal reasons but I would never say they're bad or somehow a bad representation of something just because I don't like it.
Unless there's an actual flaw that can be fixed in order to improve the project, you aren't giving any valid feedback. Complaining that an instrument is being played wrong or that the main antagonist of the movie is presenting an incorrect point of view doesn't make you smart. Those things are intentional and even in places where maybe it isn't as purposeful to have inaccuracies, it's still an extremely low budget film from a first time director shot in a short time frame. Needless nitpicking serves 0 actual purpose and is just being pretentious for the sake of feeling like you're smarter than other people.
If you seriously think this movie is a bad representation of jazz because it's not literally just a documentary of real life people then don't even bother watching movies. Newsflash; film isn't supposed to be "realistic" or "accurate" to real life. It's meant to be an expression of thought and emotion conveyed through picture, sound, and prose. That's the point of a movie.
2 hours of whiplash / jazz culture essay thingy, by this guy who keeps appearing in my feed? HELL YEAH
It’s wild how quickly this video flew by, watching again with adblocker off
If the result is that people think Fletcher is right then the movie is not doing it's job is it now? Fuck I hate how much people idolize this abusive shit
I know people who openly embrace the type of ideology Fletcher has and the movie does little to shoot down the notion that it’s true.
The movie is sort of presenting the scenario matter of factly. It shows the abuse, but doesn’t do anything to suggest the abuse isn’t actually making Neiman great.
The fact that Neiman gives the best performance of his life as the climax instead of crumpling into a wet noodle on the floor suggests the movie thinks Fletcher’s tactics did indeed improve him, and that the moral issue is whether it’s worth cost.
The idea that such abuse could actually destroy talent is nowhere to be found. Fletcher says, “The next Miles Davis could never be discouraged”, and the movie does nothing to suggest that’s incorrect. But it is. PTSD can discourage you from getting out of bed, it could certainly discourage you from practicing the very thing that triggers your trauma for 8 hours a day.
I supposed the one students s**cide could be seen as evidence of this. But the moment is so rushed passed we really don’t process it that way. We’re more primed to think that kid was great but couldn’t handle the abuse; not that the abuse actively hindered his musical development.
@@EWall1498 to me that just makes the movie more nuanced, abuse CAN make someone get better at something, but it's obviously not the right way to go about it, and in the last scene you have time to reflect (at least I did) on everything Neiman lost and sacrificed to get there, he's leaving aside his personal relationships, feelings, physical and mental wellbeing, all just to please his abuser, was it really worth it? even if yes realistically the movie should've ended with Neiman in a horrible state after having his life ruined, I think it makes for a much more uneasy but interesting ending that Fletcher got what he wanted, because I can see that happening in real life too
@@T-------- sure but I think the problem is people end up finishing the movie and walking out with the perception of what fletcher did being good as it helped him and they end up taking the wrong and pretty dangerous ideas out of the story
34:08 i like whiplash as a film but as much as i hate to admit it, i gotta agree with Beato here, as a drummer punching drumhead (especially the well made one by Evans like the one they used in the scene, and they even used the 2ply coated one) is almost impossible no matter how strong or how angry you are. You will ended up hurting yourself. Realistically , the condition of the drumhead have to be really wear down or poorly made in order for it to be easily broken. BUT, as a film enthusiast i can understand the purpose of the scene and yeah not every thing has to be accurate.
ALSO speaking of Greyson Nekrutman, now he plays for metal band and people were kinda upset on why he never play jazz anymore lol
It would have been a better scene if he had just hurt himself. It would get across the futility of his obsession if that's what the movie's about. If anything it shows the opposite. What a silly movie.
Thank you for verbalizing every frustration I've had with these "critical" videos for the past years.
Leave it to the video essayist to make his two-hour yap sesh longer than the runtime of Whiplash.
You are very intellegent
Mr. Smartypants over here
@@HeartOfNoMad yap
The music RUclipsrs are not reviewing the films, they are doing exactly what you said about spotting the inaccuracies. They’re not trying to review the film. Adam Neely literally said it’s a good film and it’s well acted. The goal of the movie isn’t to portray jazz in New York, and the goal of Adam’s video isn’t to review the movie, it’s to critique the portrayal of the music. You’re getting mad at a musician for reviewing the music in the film and not reviewing the film itself the way you would, even though he never said that’s what he’s doing. Apples and oranges bro
You’ve already said the film has hundred of good reviews. If you want to hear people say how good the film is, (which I agree with, I love the film), then go see those reviews. Like Adam said, it’s a sports movie (maybe a bit harsh) but his point is, it’s not a movie about music, like you said it’s a psychological thriller, jazz is just the vessel used to portray that. If you ask almost anyone about jazz, the extent of their knowledge is almost always just Whiplash, which I think is harmful to jazz and music. You keep calling it a review, when that’s not what it is. Even if it is, you’re getting mad at a musician not critiquing the film in the way a film critic would. You’re getting insight from someone out of your bubble about the film and have made a 2 hour video getting annoyed by it. Then again I’ve just written these two massive comments
I really disliked the point in the video when he criticizes Adam for not going more in depth on the direction or acting. No shit Adam isn’t going more in depth. Adam went to music school, not film school.
Adams video is literally titled “whiplash reviewed by a jazz musician” like i used to be one of those kids mindlessly yapping about historical inaccuracies in fury and saving private Ryan its mindless jargin but they review it anyway your right apples and oranges but the oranges are telling the apples how to be apples
@DevinSantos-t2k Were you born yesterday? Do you not understand that RUclipsrs title their videos to drive engagement?
The most important bit is that, whether intentional or not, the main focus of the film isn’t jazz. It’s about with obsession with greatness.
Which is why beyond lingos and things they play, nothing (at least to a majority of people) feels like it represents jazz culture.
It rather uses it as a medium for its story.
So in a way it’s a ‘bad’ jazz film. But it’s a great film about obsession for greatness.
(And funnily enough, I feel I like it a bit more after Tyler the Creator’s Chromakopia, which explores how in his journey for greatness, had ended relationships with people around him and such. Obviously there’s way more to it, but this movie kind of follows this pattern you see amongst many who reach the top, or are trying to.)
The conflict between most jazz musicians and most fans of the movie Whiplash (and I do mean fans, not just the general public who liked it) boils down to two purists nerding out about their preferred art form. All the jazz musicians talk about is jazz and they disregard the movie and its context. You, similarly, disregard how the jazz musicians defend their passion, how they always talk about jazz as a culture and history rather than as another music genre. You saying you’re a jazz fan at the very end surprised me. How did you find that gentleman’s essay objectionable to the point of drawing such a massive strawman? The symbolic meaning of Buddy Rich as Andrew’s idol to emulate adds to the interpretation of the movie and its characters; doesn’t saying “No, he probably just likes him for such reasons, end of story” limit our understanding of the movie? Again, it’s good that you’re passionate, and if your and every jazzist’s reaction to Whiplash prove anything is that the movie stirs strong emotions on everyone, so it accomplishes what it aimed for. Them being protective of jazz reads the same as you getting defensive over the film, although in my bias they are more justified. In general, I think the section on Beato went on an excessively long tangent, and Neely’s video was not persuasively critiqued. They repeat their points: fine, but you should put the example and not repeat yourself as much either. I leave the comment to justify having watched the whole thing.
this! you took the words out of my mouth, jazz is not a few people on youtube who make youtube videos for a living (though ethan iverson is one of the most important jazz musicians of the 21st century). i think there's very real things and important things to talk about when it comes to how this movie portrays jazz, but the environment is just way too cloudy to even see to that.
I love hearing jazz musicians talk about jazz, and all who I’ve seen commentate on the movie Whiplash have all been very insightful. For some reason it’s the film bros who say “No! Talk about the movie and nothing else. No jazz talk allowed.” And it’s like… Going beyond the movie when discussing it enriches discourse and the viewing experience. I don’t know why they’re so averse to what amounts to very light criticism.
Your comment motivated me to check out Ethan Iverson’s music, why is way overdue from my part as someone who’s only been seriously listening to jazz and learning about jazz for 2 years. Thanks!
In terms of who’s most justified, I also feel like jazz musicians are most justified just because most of their annoyance is involuntary. They can’t help but see when things are wrong. When things are so comically wrong that they stop connecting to the movie, it’s not their fault or their responsibility to ignore everything they know just to make up for where a piece of media fell short.
On the other hand, it should be the easiest thing in the world to understand that when someone’s suspension of disbelief gets broken, they will struggle to connect to a film. I like action movies. But if someone told be they didn’t like a specific action movie because they are an actual Navy SEAL and the movie got multiple tactical things wrong, I wouldn’t feel tempted to lay into them as if their superior technical knowledge is the same thing as inferior media literacy.
Most of these musicians *did* understand the basic point of the movie and praised numerous things about it. They can’t help it if the movie got the technical stuff so wrong that they feel disconnected from it anyway.
Commenting at the very top of the Rick section just to give a little story. When I was in college doing Jazz Studies (in 2019 actually) and Rick did a series of guest lectures at my school. To make a long story short, during one of the arranging lectures he asked if anyone would be willing to provide something they were working on for him to give feedback on. None of the current arranging students offered theirs so I offered something I had done the year prior. My arrangement contained "the licc" (iykyk) in it and the moment he heard it he stopped the music and proceeded to berate me for around 10 minutes in front of all of my peers and teachers about how I was "not serious as a musician" and I was "demeaning jazz as an art form". No critique on my actual arrangement, just assumptions about my character based on a silly joke. He has a very small ego and when he feels offended he just explodes. Such a shame because he really does have a ton of knowledge to share he just can be so insufferable sometimes.
This is not surprising at all, his most popular videos are always just "old man yells at cloud".
that's genuinely nasty behaviour im sorry u had to go through that omfg
Whiplash 3: NoMad Returns
40:15 I'm assuming that picture is ai, which is ironic given that he had just complained about the use of generative ai
This was very interesting to watch as someone who is both a professional jazz musician and professional film critic. I agree with most of what you said, I will say you were a bit hard on Adam, but if this is your one exposure to him, I totally get it LMAO
i literally JUST saw one of those stupid jazz musicians "correcting" what was wrong with whiplash and all i could think of was "this is why people despise jazz musicians." coming from a drummer WHO PLAYS JAZZ, they're all so up themselves
People saying Jazz Drummers don’t have muscles have never watched ZachGrooves
Damn good video and really solid points. I think a lot of our discussion on media is now warped by people who just assume things or learn about media through cultural osmosis, but then instead of talking about these pieces of media they don't discuss them as that, they talk about like it's the one and only interpretation or like they absolutely know the source material. I think the buety of art is that it is changing and you can interpretate and understand it very differently. The best feeling for me is when you realize you were wrong about certain art and you can get a better understanding or appreciation for it.
18:00 okay im sorry bleeding hands are absurd? thats like super common for people playing at full tilt like that with like most instruments. For an example look at like, any photos of zach hill's drum set.
Zach Hill mentioned 🗣️ 🔥🔥🔥🔥‼️‼️‼️
ZACH HILL ❤
girl what...
Namedropping Zach Hill as if what he's doing back there is anywhere close to 'super common' is crazy. Professional jazz drumming does not make your hands bleed, these are the kinds of crazy things people think after watching this movie.
@Razsteroid You're right. Professional jazz drumming does not typically do that. However, andrew is not doing professional jazz drumming in the movie, he's pushing his body far past what should be done as a student. the scene in which his hands bleed is set in the middle of a montage where it is implied HOURS have passed with him doing wild movements that are very inefficient compared to typical jazz drumming movements. (its almost like the inaccuracies in his playing is the movie telling us that this type of absurd, perfectionist mindset is betraying the true nature of jazz) Also Zach Hill is a good example here because all his bleeding hand pics are from multi hour practices, not on stage, because that kind of thing wouldn't happen in a typical recording or production.
43:05 the irony of this, he's not putting the actual work to find out if music is dying, and yet he's saying that people don't wanna do the work in music, art, and (for some reason) video games
though, i do agree at 44:21 sorta, if you're depending on a machine to do art for you, you're limiting your creativity and your potential. but if you're using a machine to help you do art, for example using an animation software that allows you to tween your animation so you don't have to waste minutes or hours of your time trying to rotate and position the dang part or shape to be where you want it to be
video games do be art tho
@@clanofclams2720 but video games have been the most popular it has ever been in history since its popularization in the 70s & 80s
Adam saying it should be a sports movie, and then having the ‘Music should be fun’ segment genuinely angered me, because how can you not see that I could make that exact point with sports.
Shouldn’t sports be fun? But if I’m watching a movie about a player who pushes themselves the point of destruction to try and be the best in the world, the fun isn’t gonna be there anymore
Games should be fun, not sports. There’s overlap there, but it’s an important distinction to make
@ I consider any level of playing a sport as sports. Even if it’s something as simple as playing in a park. So to me, you can have fun playing sports with your friends, in the same way you can just play music and have fun with your friends
it makes sense for a sportsperson to push themselves to the point of the destruction, as sports achievments are objectively measureable. you can't do that with music, as it's abstract and subjective. running faster makes you a better sportsman, but playing the drums faster does not necessarily make you a better musician
I think the point is that sports are inherently competitive and pit people against each other, whereas music is more collaborative. Sure, you can be competitive with anything, but it’s not the nature of music that you win a contest or competition and that’s what makes people think you are great.
Sports have championships, statistical records, direct head to head bouts that determine greatness. But with music… there is nothing Fletcher had that Neiman *actually needed* to be considered great. No competition that Neiman could win that would make him great.
Nothing has actually been accomplished by the end of the movie. It’s under explored that the reality of Neiman’s situation is that everything he’s being put through is tangentially related to greatness at best. He could just leave the movie entirely and play drums somewhere else and be just as capable of greatness.
@@EWall1498 Fair enough, I can understand that
I'ma be real with your criticism of the 'Experts Review' bit. You're approaching their reviews from an objectively incorrect perspective, as you're assuming their commentary is a reflection of how they view the movie as a whole. They are being sat down and asked to review specific scenes for their accuracy to their respective field of expertise, which has quite literally zero bearing on the films they're reviewings' quality as actual films, it's entirely to do with whether they're accurate representations of the thing that person is an Expert in. Often, the experts will specify that, 'This is fun as a movie, but in terms of accuracy it's .'
Looking at those videos and critiquing them by saying, 'The quality of the drumming has nothing to do with the quality of the movie' is pointless because no one is going into those videos under the impression that the expert's rating is an actual review of the film's quality as a movie. It's simply for fun, a way to get perspectives on these things and learn from people who have lot of knowledge on a given topic. As for the review of the drumming in Whiplash that you cover towards the end of the accuracy segment, it is actually correct to call the drumming nonsense.
Most of the drumming throughout the movie is actually dubbed over, with only very small sections actually being played by the actor. That's not a criticism, it's not me saying that's bad, that's just literally how the scenes were constructed, and if you actually tried to play those sections how the actor is playing them in reality, it would sound quite literally nothing like the actual sounds that are being used in the dub over. Once again, that isn't a criticism of the movie, or a black mark upon it's quality, it's simply a factual statement about the accuracy of that scene.
A note on music schools:
It would be misleading to say that Berklee is the "Harvard of Jazz." Berklee is a fairly easy school to get into (the hard part is scholarships), and jazz has actually been de-emphasized recently.
Whiplash's school was aesthetically designed more after Manhattan School of Music than Berklee. I haven't been to MSM before but I can tell you berklee looks nothing like that, while Neely says in his video that the video accurately portrays the halls of MSM. Neither MSM nor berklee, however, are traditionalist jazz schools, as both specialize in modern jazz (although MSM is also a great place to study older jazz). In this way, the school is likely inspired by Juilliard, which is known for its traditionalism and selectiveness.
New England Conservatory is certainly a PWI and definitely not perfect, but I would point out that one of its most famous graduates is Coretta Scott King (MLK's Wife) and that it was the first conservatory to offer a degree in jazz. NEC is an extremely progressive institution relative to the field, and it was the first institution to really acknowledge jazz and other african american musics as artistically significant.
Also, you are completely correct that jazz has become too focused on schools rather than music, and that this is a flaw of the genre. I couldn't agree more.
Okay, actually the fact that he misses down on one is actually pretty obvious.
It honeslt ysounds like they edited it thinking it was an 8/4 count in rather thqn a 7/4 count.
Yes that one bothered me too.
What Nomad is missing is what Whiplash could be for jazz musicians! The film could be more accurate to the jazz culture, but the story would have to be more sensitive, the characters would have to be portrayed with more contradictions.
Making and studying music is full of contradictions! It is fun and rewarding but it also has all the toxic elements in the film. However, if the film wanted to be more accurate it would have to be less Hollywoody and more artsy.
A film with similar themes, but dealt in a much better and more matture way is 2022's Tár. All the characters are more complex than Whiplash. The discussion on aesthetics, ethics and culture on the dialogues are great and Todd Field gets the technicalities of classcial music right!
Nomad is accusing the musicians of not understanding that jazz is the "setting for the movie". But setting is also important, and it could be done poorly, and if done so, it will break the suspension of disbelief for those who can pick up on those flaws!
For kinda cheap american entertainment is good for what it is, but why getting so worked up about the consensus in the jazz community in regards to a 10 year old film that was ridiculously popular!
Isn't Tár a US film too?
Nothing has to be accurate in a MOVIE and how “deep” a character is SUBJECTIVE
@Igorsbackagain-c6q Nothing HAS to be accurate in a film. Still, if it's not, it will break the suspension of disbelief... if the story happens in a jazz environment, it's just weird for a musician to see something that makes no sense, like a bass player moving his hands up and down the neck weirdly when he's supposed to be playing a walking bassline. It takes you out of the movie experience. Now, I understand that this won't happen to a non-trained person. And that's fine. But it will happen with jazz musicians, and pretending that it won't is just silly.
@BodaciousCarmichael It is, and it's also part of the same cultural industry. My point was that even in Hollywood, it is possible to do a better job!
@@JohnathandosSantos let me put it this way if New York is the setting of your movie you shouldn’t expect it to be accurate because IT IS A MOVIE ONE THAT HAS A CREATIVE VISION let me repeat CREATIVE VISION
Berkeley is not music Harvard. This shit is what people who know shit don’t take this movie seriously.
2 hours of nomad is an early christmas present
I saw Whiplash during the Five Week summer program at Berklee. It was one of the coolest experiences of my life
The point you are trying to get across Adam Neely is also the point Adam Neely is trying to get across about Whiplash. Just as the purpose of Whiplash is not to be accurate and taken seriously, Neely's video is nicknamed "critic by a jazz musician" and he stresses at the beginning of the video that the review is gonna be nitpicky and pedantic because that's what he was trying to do: he was trying to not do the unoriginal movie review and made more of a critical view of the tiny mistakes the movie made when compared to real life.
Just as you say Whiplash's unique value is not in its realism, Adam Neely's video's unique value is to BE realistic. There's nothing wrong with that.
By the way I hate Adam Neely because he's annoying, but to be fair he acknowledges at the beginning of the video that he's going to do a realist take on the movie, giving his own insight with his own experience, I don't know why you were expecting a full drama movie critique.
"Today I'm reviewing this wheat bread... Why isn't it sour?"
@doofusloofus8359 So stupid to imply Whiplash has nothing to do with jazz and no one can talk about except letterboxd folk. It's called content! You always want to make it original and from your own perspective. Neely is not a film critic, and probably his friends and audience were bothering him to talk about the movie, etc. Such a disingenous response.
But it’s not a jazz movie. It’s like reviewing Ratatouille based on the accuracy of the rats and giving it a 1/10 because rats don’t talk.
@@redspiderlilys6 That's not the point you bozo. When making content for RUclips you don't have to engage directly with the content you're reviewing, you have the liberty to engage in whatever way you want. I'll give you an example: those videos called "Honest Action" where they analyze how many times the Wet Bandits would have died if Home Alone was realistic. It doesn't have to be serious. Adam Neely CLEARLY specifies in the beginning of the video that he is going to review the movie only from the perspective of jazz. There is a purpose to that also, as many people unrelated to jazz could see Whiplash and misinterpret that it's a common occurrence, or that everything about the film's way of learning music is valid and accurate. Neely is simply saying "here's all the stuff I know for a fact aren't in this way". He clarified that the movie was good, and that it's not the final review of the movie. I think he was in his right to make that video and he was probably right about all the things he said in it. Still a pedantic twat btw but still, I feel like people purposefully mock him as if he was trying to review the movie seriously when it was clearly a gimmick and a gag: the video is called "as reviewed by a jazz musician". He insists he is not a movie critic, just a jazz player.
If you want to review Whiplash seriously you have a movie critic channel, but if you're Adam Neely you just talk about jazz and you review all the jazz related elements of Whiplash and then move on. It's not hard to understand, and it's not hard to TOLERATE. But so many of you are twice as pedantic as he is by saying "BUT UM EXCUUUUSE ME it's just a movie YOU NITPICKY SHIT" and it's like yeah, it's just a movie, that's what he is saying.
@@redspiderlilys6 hasnt responded in 10 hours hes washed + dumb
lol, triggered
I don't know how much I can really add to this entire discussion, all I can really say is that I *do* think discussion of accuracy should be open in any piece of work. Ultimately Whiplash really could've been in just about any setting. An office, a circus, a car dealership, it doesn't particularly matter. Ultimately, the movie is about Fletcher pushing Nieman to greatness, no matter the cost to Nieman's health or sanity. The use of jazz is ultimately an aesthetic, and any effect it really has is superficial (setting, score, etc.).
I've seen comments of people who say that Whiplash caused a discouragement of people wanting to join the jazz industry or take up jazz in education, and I am inclined to disagree, at least on the ground that Whiplash is responsible. I think those people discouraged might have thought of the movie as a statement on jazz itself, but really it has completely nothing to say about the industry other than suggest that people can and do work dangerously hard for it. I'm not an expert but I feel as though I agree, as this is basically any other industry. But that's not really the point to Whiplash. So if people turn away from jazz, is that Whiplash's fault necessarily? I say no.
The point is that people like Fletcher are not in jazz alone, they are in *every facet of society.* There are manipulative, harmful people who force people into molds to be the next big thing. And sometimes they get what they want, they get their Caravan, but what does that do to the people they shape? It is a statement about creating sensations out of people, not about jazz.
I don't think the accuracy of jazz in the movie is above criticism, I think people are and should be free to talk about it as they wish, and while I am *not* by any definition a musician, I can understand completely if someone who *is* one looks at a scene in Whiplash and goes "oh that just wouldn't happen" or "that's not how that works." But I think that critique, while it can impact their view of the movie as a whole, should *not* impact the critical review of the story.
The movie is silly.
DID YOU KNOW:
the movie is called whiplash because that is an injury you get in car accidents WOAH
45:19
How was a obvious joke not obvious to you?
I’ve never seen the movie, nor do i know anything about jazz, but damn do I love a video essay breakdown like this
Incredibly well thought out analysis and arguments. I died laughing 1:43:50 with the clip you used, perfect sarcasm, hit me like a truck. Outstanding vid
Why are you engaging with things that aren't reviews as if they're reviews? There are tons of "[expert in field] reviews accuracy of [movie about field]" videos. Those aren't reviews of the quality of the film. They're pointing out basic inaccuracies about the subject matter that could have easily been fixed if they had consulted anyone remotely competent in the field before running with the script.
You miss the point
The movie is fine, I'm just tired being asked my opinion of it as a jazz drummer.
"musicians love comedy about music" 35:56
w h a t ? ? ? cuz being a musician doesn't make you not like psychological thrillers about music
Watched the film in school (music class) a few weeks ago.
I didn't like it, but also didn't hate it per se, which is rare for me with this kind of movie, so it must be allright.
Off topic, but I’m not even subscribed to NoMad, yet he shows up in my feed all the time. I saw the intro and was all “alright let’s get into this…” and saw NoMad on screen and went “IT’S THIS GUY AGAIN”
also, I'm pretty sure the guy who "looks like a jock" is the one that (spoiler alert) later takes neemans place temporarily, which would further justify nieman's reaction and serve as fletcher trying to mess with neeman (and succeeding) if the choice to make the guy look like a jock and not like a "real" jazz musician was deliberate
if you put the video in 1.25x speed and squint your eyes, you can kinda imagine Timmy Chalamet yapping to you about Whiplash for nearly 2 hours
Nomad’s “just watch the movie” is like schaffrillas’ “JUST USE THE DEHYDRATION GUN”
just wanted to say before watching that your thumbnail game was on point with this one!
didnt even realize it was the schlatt man until after i clicked
whiplash actually got me into jazz because it made me realize i had so much more to achieve as a drummer
I just want to thank you for putting into words what has been bothering me about not only the musician discourse around Whiplash, but also the issue around Music RUclips and "Expert" RUclips as a whole. It really does feel like we've lost a major sense of media literacy, and the major misinterpretations we see regarding media that features music or jazz as a setpiece tell more about the detractors than it does of the media itself. Maybe the movie isn't as inaccurate as it appears on the surface if elitism such as what we see through Rick Beato and Adam Neely is apparently so commonplace in music academia.
There is something to the tyrannical band leader. Of course, there is not a singular way to do it, but a tyrannical band leader can work really well. It can really make the group extremely sharp and push them to insane heights. As a musician, it can really simplify things to just give all control to one person, whatever they say is fact, you just have absolute laser focus on your own parts.
Similarly, there really is something to the saying, a scared musician is a focused musician. And by scared I don't mean scared to come to rehearsal, but more so that playing mistakes do not go unnoticed and are not responded to with everlasting kindness. Not throw a cymbal at their head, but simply making it clear that there was a mistake, not letting it slide, and communicating that you really don't appreciate it. As a musician, that is comforting in a strange way, because it means your efforts will be appreciated, that we are ALL contributing to a serious rehearsal, that we aren't just goofing around and it all doesn't really matter. And it works. Like if someone keeps making the same mistakes, you can just sit there with a smile and be like "oh no it is all right, just try again", or you can like physically cringe, rub your temples in frustration. It looks mean, but that is kinda the point, so that you as a musician feel more motivated to not f-up again.
Again, not saying every group should do this, this is for a certain type of serious and motivated group of musicians, like the ones that go to conservatory.
33:02 "In fact he just starts talking about spinal tap because his brain looks like a wind-up chimp playing Neil Peart" What a beautiful line
Calling Whiplash a movie about Jazz is like calling The Lion King a documentary
This guy makes Adam Neely look deep.
My favorite professional reacts clip is the sushi chef for penguins of Madagascar 'for me, impossible'
1:46:40 "The vibe I got from them wasn't "music is fun", the vibe was more like, "if I make a mistake I'm gonna get shot in the head""
EXACT PINPOINT ACCURACY
And here's why... that's because those aren't jazz musicians. They're marching band, or more aptly, Drum Corps musicians. While Whiplash doesn't accurately portray modern jazz education, it sure as shit portrays modern Drum Corps culture (a whole world that is DEFINITELY worth looking into).
I always hated that Adam Neely video (and generally 99% of his content because I think a lot of his takes are conceded and highest). I'm happy that somebody [you] pointed out every flawed argument he made and actually analyzed the film. I also always hated that he (and many others) would disregard this movie because, "well it didn't happen to me, so..." and that always drove me insane.
As someone who has been in very abusive musical structures that have lead to that exact level of self abuse, self doubt, and self destruction that Niemann portrayed, it's harmful and disrespectful to hear so many limelight musicians claim it's all inaccurate because, again, it didn't happen to THEM specifically.
Your video has inspired me to finally make a video highlighting all of my frustrations with the music world, and really what the movie Whiplash meant to me as somebody who's experienced the exact same emotions as Niemann. I love Whiplash for how accurate the abuse is and how accurate the drive to be "the best" is, especially if you're someone with anger issues. Because real shit, most musicians don't strive to be "the [historical] best", they just strive to be great and to get paid.
Also, I'm so sick and tired of people in the arts acting like sports are a plague and only for the scum of the Earth. Just say you don't watch sports and don't care for them. It's fine. But don't act like sports aren't equally artistic. Watch a historic game of football with 2 teams who are considered "the best" of the time. The insane feats those people pull off are unbelievable to watch. The same way you listen Coltrane pull off Giant Steps with ease. Just because you weren't as popular as the jocks doesn't mean sports are a joke.
Anywhoodles, thank you for this great video. I can't believe I sat through all 2 hours of it, but I'm just happy somebody finally shat on Adam Neely. So again, thank you for that (and for that beautiful thumbnail that made me click)
I’m a jazz university student and I love whiplash, because I didn’t view it as a “jazz movie”, because it’s not. However I think a big problem is that outside viewers often do view it as a “jazz movie”, it HAS effected how non-jazz fans view and interact with jazz music. And yes this is not the movies responsibility, but I think it’s understandable why jazz musicians don’t like this. I do agree though that instead of being a little baby about it the musicians should take it as an opportunity to expose real jazz to these people.
This was a goontastic video
"Hey this guy doesn't look like an animator, he isn't wearing a messenger bag and a newsboy hat. I bet he doesn't even draw."
Its a movie about an important genre of music that is still experienced by the public, made by people who have nothing to do with jazz and have missed the point . Its a movie made for people who never listen to jazz ,
I personally saw Fletchers character as the embodiment of the troubles the world gives someone with a larger goal than normal. Someone that comes from a normal background that leaves them at the mercy of the world and how you have to practically be off your rocker to achieve a higher than average goal. Working 16 hours a day for 20 plus years while walking a fine line because you cant afford one mistake while surrounded by people who want to use you to elevate their own status and if yhey cant use you, theyll destroy you, take everything and leave you with nothing over and over until you learn how to combat, deal with and overcome while becoming apathetic to your own suffering for the sake of obtaining something greater than your father (who will never understand) did. Just a rando thought🤷♂️
“Musicians don’t like movies” is quite a take, Rick
I feel like a point that can be argued is that while many of these complaints lie on elitism, they also lie on wish-fulfillment. Like, let's think about the way these jazz musicians think about the movie. They don't like that it's ugly, that is viseral, like I keep thinking in that last point that guy made "music is fun". When they learn that this movie is about Jazz they want a movie that reflects why they love jazz, why they chose to dedicate their lives into jazz. And there are films in my opinion that show that. Yes, none about how it is to learn jazz, but many that celebrate it as great music. But this movie doesn't do that, it doesn't celebrate jazz, it questions it. For me, it is very interesting that the musicians that are more willing to reflect on their bad experiences learning music are more willing to engage with this. Really says a lot that the people who are the most critical of the movie are the ones that definitely seem the most privileged.
This is just nitpicking nitpicks.
Save yourself 2 hours.
You missed the point
It's funny how so many of your complaints with the reaction vids stem from you doing the exact same thing to the videos that you accuse them of doing to the movie. Just continually missing the point of them and not realizing that those videos weren't made for you. You simply weren't the target audience.
Sir Nomad, even if you never think about "Jshitt" ever again, we will always admire the work and passion you put into your videos. Consistently making high quality posts like this only proves your dedication for content and your live for art. Thank you Sir Nomad.