THE most dimwitted comment I have heard in years
sum1
>
> Very well said, Glenn.
Oh, please. He didn't say anything except to repeat a bunch of tired
phrases about "historical perspective," "individual voice," and
"having a story to tell." Talk about tired licks.
> It is virtually impossible for those who do not
> play and perform jazz to evaluate others who do.
That's certainly convenient. No need to answer to anyone but those
who are unlikely to offer any meaningful criticism.
> There is simply too
> much disconnect between jazz music designed merely as a casual
> entertainment verus jazz music as a manipulative high art.
High art is indeed often nothing but maninpulation, a kind of
marketing in which the artist attempts to convince the critics (and
hopefully the public, which will then will funnel him a bit of loot)
that his painting of a square or his bleeting and honking on a horn is
not only art, but "high art."
> This, of
> course, explains in part the schism between serious creative jazz work
> and pop jazz. The former requires a lifetime of study, but most
> importantly the study must encompass real application.
The former requires convincing a few critics and other arbiters of
taste that what you're doing is "meaningful;" the latter requires
communicating with a large number of people to convince them to
support your art (rather than in the former of begging from the govt
for a grant).
> There is a
> profound difference between casual listening and reading about music
> as compared to the actual study of music
No kidding.
> Most average listeners
> simply are not equipped to deal with this music at that level of
> sophistication.
Almost. Most listeners are not equipped to deal with this music.
Period.
> Pop jazz offers a stripped down alternative that is
> purposely aimed at wide-spread audiences and lacks the layers of
> sophistication found in serious jazz music.
Do you purposefully attempt to make your life more complicated, more
difficult to live, more arduous to understand? As in life so as in
music - simple is most always best.
Larry Smithee
> lcsm...@earthlink.net (Larry Smithee) wrote in message news:<3cdae13f.03120...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
> > Very well said, Glenn.
>
> Oh, please. He didn't say anything except to repeat a bunch of tired
> phrases about "historical perspective," "individual voice," and
> "having a story to tell." Talk about tired licks.
History and perspective will always be important.
> > It is virtually impossible for those who do not
> > play and perform jazz to evaluate others who do.
>
> That's certainly convenient. No need to answer to anyone but those
> who are unlikely to offer any meaningful criticism.
>
Sorry I offended you but the fact remains that to understand much of
what happens in jazz requires study and a willingness and openness to
learn.
>
> > There is simply too
> > much disconnect between jazz music designed merely as a casual
> > entertainment verus jazz music as a manipulative high art.
>
> High art is indeed often nothing but maninpulation, a kind of
> marketing in which the artist attempts to convince the critics (and
> hopefully the public, which will then will funnel him a bit of loot)
> that his painting of a square or his bleeting and honking on a horn is
> not only art, but "high art."
>
Marketing has very little to do with high art. The proof of this is,
in part, the fact that it isn't popular. Low art (pop), on the other
hand is all about marketing. Most listeners are just not going to get
it and "marketing" just will not help to formulate acceptance. It's
education and study that will resulting in understanding the
difference between the bleeting and honking (you attempted to shove
into my mouth) and real jazz music.
>
> > This, of
> > course, explains in part the schism between serious creative jazz work
> > and pop jazz. The former requires a lifetime of study, but most
> > importantly the study must encompass real application.
>
> The former requires convincing a few critics and other arbiters of
> taste that what you're doing is "meaningful;" the latter requires
> communicating with a large number of people to convince them to
> support your art (rather than in the former of begging from the govt
> for a grant).
>
I'd rather keep the government out of it, period. Frankly, I don't
care if "large numbers of people" support high art jazz or not.
> > There is a
> > profound difference between casual listening and reading about music
> > as compared to the actual study of music
>
> No kidding.
>
Glad that you we can agree on something.
>
> > Most average listeners
> > simply are not equipped to deal with this music at that level of
> > sophistication.
>
> Almost. Most listeners are not equipped to deal with this music.
> Period.
>
>
>
> > Pop jazz offers a stripped down alternative that is
> > purposely aimed at wide-spread audiences and lacks the layers of
> > sophistication found in serious jazz music.
>
> Do you purposefully attempt to make your life more complicated, more
> difficult to live, more arduous to understand? As in life so as in
> music - simple is most always best.
No, "simple" is not most always best. Simple may often be best for you
and it might work for me sometimes...but not always. The great
advantage of simple jazz is that it avoids the need for education and
study and makes marketing it a much easier proposition. High art does
not complicate my life, make it arduous, or make it more difficult to
live. Just speaking for myself here, but it elevates my life and makes
it more meaningful. Simple music can be entertaining, but that's quite
different than meaningful, by which I mean to suggests that I might be
looking for music that moves somewhere beyond a backbeat and funk
backdrop, overlaid with some insipid melody. But again, that's me.
This may not be your cup of java and I'm fine with that. Like Art
Blakey once said, "jazz is a big pool and there is a board (style) for
every ass.
Larry
sum1
> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote in message news:<544b2430.03120...@posting.google.com>...
> > lcsm...@earthlink.net (Larry Smithee) wrote in message news:<3cdae13f.03120...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > >
> > > Very well said, Glenn.
> >
> > Oh, please. He didn't say anything except to repeat a bunch of tired
> > phrases about "historical perspective," "individual voice," and
> > "having a story to tell." Talk about tired licks.
>
> History and perspective will always be important.
Of course they will. So what?
> > > It is virtually impossible for those who do not
> > > play and perform jazz to evaluate others who do.
> >
> > That's certainly convenient. No need to answer to anyone but those
> > who are unlikely to offer any meaningful criticism.
> >
> Sorry I offended you but the fact remains that to understand much of
> what happens in jazz requires study and a willingness and openness to
> learn.
To understand anything requires study. So what?
> >
> > > There is simply too
> > > much disconnect between jazz music designed merely as a casual
> > > entertainment verus jazz music as a manipulative high art.
> >
> > High art is indeed often nothing but maninpulation, a kind of
> > marketing in which the artist attempts to convince the critics (and
> > hopefully the public, which will then will funnel him a bit of loot)
> > that his painting of a square or his bleeting and honking on a horn is
> > not only art, but "high art."
> >
> Marketing has very little to do with high art. The proof of this is,
> in part, the fact that it isn't popular.
Which is exactly why it requires an intermediary, someone to market
the product in a way people can understand it and perhaps be persuaded
to spend their money on it.
>
> No, "simple" is not most always best. Simple may often be best for you
> and it might work for me sometimes...but not always.
I didn't say always - you did.
> The great
> advantage of simple jazz is that it avoids the need for education and
> study
The great advantage of pointy-headed "high art" is to impress on other
people how out of touch they are and will always remain for not having
the proper education when in fact so called high-art is often nothing
more than pretentious noodling.
Which is exactly why such "art" needs marketing - and most "popular"
music does not.
> High art does
> not complicate my life, make it arduous, or make it more difficult to
> live. Just speaking for myself here, but it elevates my life and makes
> it more meaningful.
Really? Could you give us an example or two of a particualr piece of
music and the way or ways in which it has elevated your life?
Larry Smithee
> > High art does
> > not complicate my life, make it arduous, or make it more difficult to
> > live. Just speaking for myself here, but it elevates my life and makes
> > it more meaningful.
>
> Really? Could you give us an example or two of a particualr piece of
> music and the way or ways in which it has elevated your life?
You know what? I could. I could easily write out a summary on the
subject, applicable to myself of course. But something tells me that
you're not particularly interested and that I should avoid falling
into a "gotcha" trap. Yeah, I know it's a convienant out...deal with
it.
Larry
JC Martin
> The great advantage of pointy-headed "high art" is to impress on other
> people how out of touch they are and will always remain for not having
> the proper education when in fact so called high-art is often nothing
> more than pretentious noodling.
Proper education, eh? Generally, those who enjoy "high art" are those who
are more educated than your average citizen.
> Which is exactly why such "art" needs marketing - and most "popular"
> music does not.
Doesn't make sense. Pop music is the most marketed form of music out there.
And it starts in the studio while the album is being recorded.
-JC
Larry Smithee
> > Which is exactly why such "art" needs marketing - and most "popular"
> > music does not.
>
>
> Doesn't make sense. Pop music is the most marketed form of music out there.
> And it starts in the studio while the album is being recorded.
>
> -JC
Exactly...thus the title of the thread, ..."THE most dimwitted..."
Larry
sum1
> > The great advantage of pointy-headed "high art" is to impress on other
> > people how out of touch they are and will always remain for not having
> > the proper education when in fact so called high-art is often nothing
> > more than pretentious noodling.
>
>
> Proper education, eh? Generally, those who enjoy "high art" are those who
> are more educated than your average citizen.
I don't believe your statement contradcits mine.
>
>
> > Which is exactly why such "art" needs marketing - and most "popular"
> > music does not.
>
>
> Doesn't make sense. Pop music is the most marketed form of music out there.
> And it starts in the studio while the album is being recorded.
>
> -JC
Pop music may be the most heavily marketed but it is not the music
that is most _in need_ of marketing.
sum1
Gosh, I guess I'll have to.
Since Larry's not up to it, would anyone else care to explain how jazz
has elevated his or her life?
Zoot
> has elevated his or her life?
jazz players ar the nicest people. i can't imagine what kind of a
crumbum i might be without there influence.
btw smooth is for elevators silly.
JC Martin
news:544b2430.03121...@posting.google.com...
Then why is it the *most* marketed form of music? Deal with the reality of
it, and keep your personal prejudices out of the equation.
-JC
sum1
Probably because the most money to be made is in popular music.
> Deal with the reality of
> it, and keep your personal prejudices out of the equation.
>
> -JC
Yeah, I guess I have a lot to learn from you about that, eh?
sum1
Another one bites the dust.
Since Larry and Zoot are not up to it, would anyone else care to
sum1
Another one bites the dust.
Since Larry and Zoot are not up to it, would anyone else care to
Larry Smithee
Just thinking out loud here, and this can be taken for whatever it's
worth (probably not much), but my earliest jazz discovery was quite
accidentally a Louis Armstrong recording. I was only 10 years old at
the time but I knew following that brief exposure to Louis' music that
I wanted to play an instrument like his. I've pursued this beast of a
horn now for over 50 years and it's still kickin't my ass. There is no
top end to it and at no point can I say I've finally mastered the
instrument, or that I've learned everything I need to know to perform
jazz music. Despite years of studying the music, both formally and
informally, I am still discovering this music. It's also true that
after all these years it still amazes me when one of my favorite icons
comes along and plays some tired old standard tune and adds something
of their own to it, some new twist, something that I've never heard
done to that particular tune, it still turns me on and inspires me.
The closest analogy I can make about jazz music would be a subjective
parallel to love. It's a love interest that is deep in the heart and
either you have it or you don't.
Larry
gloveman
Hi Larry.
Great post! The Satch was an undeniable genius!
He could do things with that horn that no one will ever
come close to accomplishing.
gm
Zoot
o k have it your way you can't play jazz then you learn how
your life is not elevated fine
what was i thinking?
Zoot
> difficult to live, more arduous to understand? As in life so as in
> music - simple is most always best.
why does complicated = difficult? can't it just be interesting
Mike C.
hone life's necessary skills. Believe it or not, we're not all looking for
the easy road. Yes, interesting is a good word for it, as well.
--
Mike C.
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who
could
not hear the music."
--Friedrich Nietzsche
"Zoot" <aba...@ns-design.com> wrote in message
news:4700fe11.03121...@posting.google.com...
sum1
Of course it can. But would you prefer complicated = easy?
sum1
>
> Simply put, pop art
> does not require great amounts of study or intense contemplation.
If I want intense contemplation I'll visit a Buddhist temple for some
zazen. For music, art, or film, I prefer something that speaks
frankly and directly.
> It
> directs its listeners towards one or two elements that are then
> combined with mind numbing repetition.
Repetition of a theme is common to most all kinds of music, including
jazz. Whether the repetition is mind-numbing depends on the
individial listener.
> This, I suppose, is a good
> thing for large numbers of the population in need of this type of
> comfort zone that "smooth" is able to deliver, for example. This also,
> by the way, explains the relatively short life span of much pop art.
Almost all art is short-lived. There just happens to be more pop-art.
Also pop-art, or mass art, has existed for only a few generations.
It's still too early to say what or how much will be remembered.
> It's very direct and what it has it gives and it doesn't attempt to
> overlay layers of complexity and subtle meanings or technical issues
> that average listeners would not be equipped to deal with.
Unless I were a musician, why would I care about technical issues?
When you watch a film do you want to be reminded that you are matching
a film by some gimmickery that takes you out of the story and makes
you wonder how they filmed it?
Of course not. That stuff should be left in the background, where it
belongs.
As for layers of meaning, depth is often limited only by the
listener's immagination and willingness to explore.
Crawjo
that the genres of music encompassing these terms have always been in
flux. Jazz, of course, started out as a "pop" art form, whereas now it
is considered more along the lines of a "classical" art form. There is
nothing inherently wrong with pop art. The important question is,
rather, is there something wrong with TODAY'S pop art?
I believe there is, but before I explain that, I also want to touch on
this "high" art versus "low" art dichotomy.
To reduce these two terms to their simplest components, I would say
that high art is art that appeals to the mind, and low art is art that
appeals to (or is even about) the body. I think it is wrong to say
that "high" art is better than "low" art. The blues, for instance, is
a low art-form. That does not make it inferior to opera.
Art is a statement. It is a highly-contexualized, (sometimes) highly
complex statement, but it is still a kind of statement. What makes it
better than these words being typed into a computer screen (which are
also statements) is that it offers the viewer/listener/reader
transcendence. When a poster speaks of "elevating one's life" I
believe that the idea of transcendence is what he is getting at. That
is, transcendence of the day-to-day exigencies of life...that is what
great art, and great music, have to offer.
What is great about jazz is that it appeals to both the mind *and* the
body, more powerfully than any other music that I am aware of. I am
not a musician, so I cannot explain the technical aspects of the
music, but I do know that the complexities of it engage my mind in a
very fruitful way. When I listen to Cecil Taylor go off on a long
piano solo, technically, I have no idea what he is doing. But
emotionally (since emotions are off the mind) I do have some idea,
because it creates a feeling in me. And this feeling (of the mind)
becomes also something that I feel in my body, that makes me want to
move around a bit, tap my foot, or just shake my limbs a little. This
is what makes jazz great.
Now, what is it about today's pop music that makes it such crap? And
how can we call it crap? Isn't it all subjective? No, I don't think it
is "all subjective." If music were entirely subjective, then we would
never be able to have a conversation about it, because each of our
subjective experiences would be beyond the reach of everyone else's.
There is a commonality to our subjectivity, which is objectivity. When
a music offers transcendence, it offers its listeners a view of a
universal truth...which could be about anything, sadness, joy, beauty,
anything.
It is not repetition that makes pop music crap, because, as someone
earlier noted, most music relies on repetition in some form. Rather,
pop music appeals to, essentially, the lowest common denominator. The
repetition is so obvious, so unsuprising, that art devolves into
kitsch. The lyrics also appeal to the lowest common denominator. If
you deny that this is true, just listen to the lyrics of an artist
like 50 cent, for example. His music offers no transcendence
whatsoever, but is rather a music based on the celebration, and more
importantly, the glorification, of a shallow, violent, and egocentric
lifestyle. What is being sold in his case is not so much the music,
but the image. And one reason pop music has become so much worse in
the last half century is because image has become more centrally
important to the selling of the music, and thus, becomes more of a
determinant in what the music is actually about. The music is not
really about music anymore. When a television network can air a
program called "American idol," the winner of which is virtually
*guaranteed* to sell millions of records regardless of how good they
actually are, then you know that image, and kitsch, are truly
ascendent in pop music. As I said above, it has been trending in this
direction for the last half century at least.
Now, some will say, but wasn't jazz once derided for similar reasons?
Wasn't it born in houses of prostition, saloons, etc? Yes, it was. The
difference, however, is that jazz developed in such a way that it
transcended the conditions from which it emerged. Great jazz artists
like Miles Davis and John Coltrane had plenty of racism and stupidity
thrown at them during their lifetimes, and yet each of them found
transcendence in their music.
In my opinion, anyone who can look at contemporary popular culture and
not see a troubling decline is only fooling himself.
My .02.
Larry Smithee
>
> >
> > Simply put, pop art
> > does not require great amounts of study or intense contemplation.
> If I want intense contemplation I'll visit a Buddhist temple for some
> zazen. For music, art, or film, I prefer something that speaks
> frankly and directly.
would be difficult to miss something you know so little about.
> > It
> > directs its listeners towards one or two elements that are then
> > combined with mind numbing repetition.
>
> Repetition of a theme is common to most all kinds of music, including
> jazz. Whether the repetition is mind-numbing depends on the
> individial listener.
Yes, repetition is not just important, but it's essential in most art,
especially in music. I'm happy that we can agree on something. But as
for the mind-numbing part of my statement...when repetition is
elevated to become the principle focus of the music in the form of
EXACT repetition for the whole length of a 3 minuet tune, I'll just
bail out and leave the room.
> > This, I suppose, is a good
> > thing for large numbers of the population in need of this type of
> > comfort zone that "smooth" is able to deliver, for example. This also,
> > by the way, explains the relatively short life span of much pop art.
> > It's very direct and what it has it gives and it doesn't attempt to
> > overlay layers of complexity and subtle meanings or technical issues
> > that average listeners would not be equipped to deal with.
>
> Unless I were a musician, why would I care about technical issues?
The answer to this question is wrapped in the idea of intelligent
listening. Music is built upon several BASIC principles/elements that
combine to represent its structural organization. The inability of
listeners to recognize these very basic patterns will ultimately
result in their not following the musicians thought in the music as it
unfolds. Some very basic elements would include melody, form,
repetitive formulae, keys/modulation, tone color,
consonance/dissonance manipulation, tone color augmentation, etc. This
does not mean that a listener must actually THINK about this stuff
while listening. Intelligent listeners have these concept internalized
and simply understand them from their common use. This isn't rocket
science and is really pretty simple stuff but the vast majority of
listeners are clueless about ANY of the technical aspects that make
music function and work. Music has been around at least since the cave
dwellers, plays important roles in societies everywhere, is a huge
business today, and is a major art form. That's more than enough
reason to study it in at least a rudimentary manner.
Larry
gloveman
My only quibble with your fine post is I personally don't believe in
objectivity.
Objectivity is a construct of the human mind.
I have concluded that everything is subjective, hence your final statement:
"My .02."
Zoot
> Also pop-art, or mass art, has existed for only a few generations.
> It's still too early to say what or how much will be remembered.
i for one am ready to hear some tadum now. leiboracci not so much.
> Unless I were a musician, why would I care about technical issues?
it is possible to be moved by music to the point where you want to be
a musician. i wish everyone could be so moved. jazz is a music that
was created by musicians for themselves. not dummied up for others to
enjoy [purchase]. yes some of the great things about jazz are
technical and after that comes some other really good stuff. it has do
do with experiencing the process which has do do with that
"elevation" you don't get. so when do you start your music
lessons ?
Adam Bravo
"Crawjo" <dcj0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21293da1.03121...@posting.google.com...
So far, all agreed.
> Now, what is it about today's pop music that makes it such crap? And
> how can we call it crap? Isn't it all subjective? No, I don't think it
> is "all subjective." If music were entirely subjective, then we would
> never be able to have a conversation about it, because each of our
> subjective experiences would be beyond the reach of everyone else's.
> There is a commonality to our subjectivity, which is objectivity. When
> a music offers transcendence, it offers its listeners a view of a
> universal truth...which could be about anything, sadness, joy, beauty,
> anything.
We can have conversations about it about our perceptions of it through our
own frame of reference. We can also dissect technical issues, though the
relevance of that is debatable.
> It is not repetition that makes pop music crap, because, as someone
> earlier noted, most music relies on repetition in some form. Rather,
> pop music appeals to, essentially, the lowest common denominator. The
> repetition is so obvious, so unsuprising, that art devolves into
> kitsch. The lyrics also appeal to the lowest common denominator. If
> you deny that this is true, just listen to the lyrics of an artist
> like 50 cent, for example. His music offers no transcendence
> whatsoever, but is rather a music based on the celebration, and more
> importantly, the glorification, of a shallow, violent, and egocentric
> lifestyle. What is being sold in his case is not so much the music,
> but the image. And one reason pop music has become so much worse in
> the last half century is because image has become more centrally
> important to the selling of the music, and thus, becomes more of a
> determinant in what the music is actually about. The music is not
> really about music anymore. When a television network can air a
> program called "American idol," the winner of which is virtually
> *guaranteed* to sell millions of records regardless of how good they
> actually are, then you know that image, and kitsch, are truly
> ascendent in pop music. As I said above, it has been trending in this
> direction for the last half century at least.
Here I don't really see how you think modern pop is "crap." You've said that
it has devolved and is kitschy, but give no reason for why you think this
way. Transcendence seems a vague term - what does it transcend? "Lowest
common denominator" implies that you already have a system of value that you
are judging against.
Since my above paragraph was a bit unclearly written (sorry; it's early), my
basic question is this: what system of value are you judging this music
against?
> Now, some will say, but wasn't jazz once derided for similar reasons?
> Wasn't it born in houses of prostition, saloons, etc? Yes, it was. The
> difference, however, is that jazz developed in such a way that it
> transcended the conditions from which it emerged. Great jazz artists
> like Miles Davis and John Coltrane had plenty of racism and stupidity
> thrown at them during their lifetimes, and yet each of them found
> transcendence in their music.
So the early jazz players were playing as much "crap" as modern pop players?
Luke Kaven
[...]
>My only quibble with your fine post is I personally don't believe in
>objectivity.
>Objectivity is a construct of the human mind.
>I have concluded that everything is subjective, hence your final statement:
>"My .02."
Would you say that trees don't exist, objectively? That it isn't
objectively true that your mother exists or that you exist? That 2 +
2 doesn't objectively equal 4? Or is it that status of other kinds of
facts that your claim pertains to? In the realm of values, do you
think it isn't objectively 'bad for you' if you get a (heaven forbid)
terminal illness?
Luke
Luke Kaven
[...]
>The answer to this question is wrapped in the idea of intelligent
>listening. Music is built upon several BASIC principles/elements that
>combine to represent its structural organization. The inability of
>listeners to recognize these very basic patterns will ultimately
>result in their not following the musicians thought in the music as it
>unfolds. Some very basic elements would include melody, form,
>repetitive formulae, keys/modulation, tone color,
>consonance/dissonance manipulation, tone color augmentation, etc.
Wonderful, as usual.
> This
>does not mean that a listener must actually THINK about this stuff
>while listening.
A qualification -- these things still involve thinking, but at
different levels of conscious awareness. You are thinking about each
move in a game of ping-pong, and you are conscious of it, but if you
were to be *introspectively conscious* of such, you'd be slowed down
too far.
This doesn't take away from you point, really, which is otherwise
excellent.
> Intelligent listeners have these concept internalized
>and simply understand them from their common use. This isn't rocket
>science and is really pretty simple stuff but the vast majority of
>listeners are clueless about ANY of the technical aspects that make
>music function and work. Music has been around at least since the cave
>dwellers, plays important roles in societies everywhere, is a huge
>business today, and is a major art form. That's more than enough
>reason to study it in at least a rudimentary manner.
>Larry
Most western listeners are acquainted with the major scale, and with a
number of its behaviors, enough to formulate the relevant expectations
for the development of a typical pop song. This involves, again, a
conscious awareness, but not necessarily an "introspectively
conscious" awareness.
Again, this is only a relatively minor qualification on your point,
which otherwise stands.
Luke
gloveman
What I'm saying is all that we experience is mediated through our personal
senses. Therefore, it would be arrogant to assume that what I experience
is the same as
what you are experiencing. In fact, all the discussion about jazz in
this NG is a person's opinion and is only valid for the person
expressing it. You may consider the present state of "pop music" to be
on the decline. I have lived long enough to have been through several
decades of music. Each generation has disparaged the generation
following it as regards their musical tastes.
In the fullness of time, a different perspective is gained, by what some
refer to as 20/20 hindsight.
Yesterday's kitsch becomes today's epitome of taste.
Your reference to having a terminal illness reminded me of something
Karl Jung was supposed to have said. I paraphrase:
Someone came to his door and announced they had won a huge amount of money.
He bade the person to come in saying that was indeed a misfortune and
that they both should sit down to discuss how he should deal with this
tragedy.
Another time a person knocked on his door bearing the news that they had
been told that they
had an incurable illness. He also bade that person in while telling him
he'd break out a bottle of champagne to celebrate this great news.
To expand on a trite old expression goes, art and all we experience is
in the eye of the beholder.
gm
Larry Smithee
LMFAO, Zoot.
Larry
Crawjo
> What I'm saying is all that we experience is mediated through our personal
> senses. Therefore, it would be arrogant to assume that what I experience
> is the same as
> what you are experiencing. In fact, all the discussion about jazz in
> this NG is a person's opinion and is only valid for the person
> expressing it. You may consider the present state of "pop music" to be
> on the decline. I have lived long enough to have been through several
> decades of music. Each generation has disparaged the generation
> following it as regards their musical tastes.
> In the fullness of time, a different perspective is gained, by what some
> refer to as 20/20 hindsight.
> Yesterday's kitsch becomes today's epitome of taste.
So would you say therefore that there is no way to distinguish
aesthetically between Beethoven's 5th symphony and an 8-year-old
schoolboy trying to make the sound of a fart by placing his hand under
his armpit and squeezing?
We all have our tastes. But I deny that art is purely subjective. If
it were, then there wouldn't be any use in discussing it, because we
would never be able to get past our subjectivity. But this is not
true, we are able to talk and share our love for music all the time.
This implies something above and beyond the subjective. In a way, when
an opinion is well-formed and shared with others, what is subjective
becomes objective, because my opinion of something is an objective
fact.
When we say we like a certain type of music, we rarely leave it at:
"This is just what appeals to me." We try to identify what it is in
the music that makes us feel pleasure when listening to it. When we
isolate these elements, and are able to convey them through language
to others, we share our pleasure. We also articulate values that we
believe great music, or great art, should hold. If somebody says they
like "A Love Supreme" because Coltrane's playing seems like a cry of
thanksgiving toward his creator, and someone else says they like a
song by 50 cent because he talks about blowing people's brains out and
slapping around women, I do not think we could hold these two opinions
to be equally valid. That is one expresses values that are
life-affirming, the other does not. To deny this would be to deny the
existence of universal truths outside the realm of science.
If there are no universal truths outside the realm of science, then it
is entirely legitimate for me to steal money from your purse, if I can
get away with it. Sure, from *your* perspective, you won't like it
because you will be out of money, but from my perspective I'll think
it is great, because, after all, I got money for free. Do we really
think that the only basis for declaiming my action as "wrong" is what
society happens to feel at the moment? Is society the ultimate arbiter
of moral truth? That seems absurd. One could then claim that genocide
was morally acceptable as long as most of society agreed that it was.
But as soon as we say no, there must be moral truths, outside of
scientific truths, we start to encroach on the realm of art. Art is
not moral in a simplistic way, its morality is as complex as the
artistic statement itself. But I deny that all reactions and
perceptions of art are created equal. If person A characterizes
Joyce's Ulysses as analogous to the story of Homer and the Odyssey,
and Person B says that Ulysses is actually about the Uncanny X-Men,
then one statement is more authentic, more valid, than the other, yes?
Art cannot be pure subjectivity. As Proust noted, the artist creates
something not only for his readers, but for himself. The writer plumbs
the depths of his own soul just as he probes the souls of his readers.
This is not pure subjectivity. If there were no readers, if "In Search
of Lost Time" had only been written by and for Marcel Proust, it would
still be a work of art.
sum1
> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote in message news:<544b2430.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> > lcsm...@earthlink.net (Larry Smithee) wrote in message news:<3cdae13f.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > >
> > > Simply put, pop art
> > > does not require great amounts of study or intense contemplation.
> > If I want intense contemplation I'll visit a Buddhist temple for some
> > zazen. For music, art, or film, I prefer something that speaks
> > frankly and directly.
> That your preferences in art range so narrowly doesn't surprise me. It
> would be difficult to miss something you know so little about.
Really? Do you prefer people who when trying to communicate take
forever to get to their point, or never get to a point, or bury their
point in a deep thicket of words that have to be sorted and parsed
before you can grasp what they're getting at?
> > > It
> > > directs its listeners towards one or two elements that are then
> > > combined with mind numbing repetition.
> >
> > Repetition of a theme is common to most all kinds of music, including
> > jazz. Whether the repetition is mind-numbing depends on the
> > individial listener.
>
> Yes, repetition is not just important, but it's essential in most art,
> especially in music. I'm happy that we can agree on something. But as
> for the mind-numbing part of my statement...when repetition is
> elevated to become the principle focus of the music in the form of
> EXACT repetition for the whole length of a 3 minuet tune, I'll just
> bail out and leave the room.
Fine. That's your personal preference. However, saying you don't
like this kind of music is quite different from saying that this kind
of music is of no value or less value than other kinds of music.
Louis Armstrong and Benny Goodman were hugely famous. They were jazz
musicians. Do you think most people who bought their records or paid
for concert tickets really knew much about these things, or even cared
to know about them? And yet these artists were able to communicate
quite directly with their audiences.
sum1
> > Almost all art is short-lived. There just happens to be more pop-art.
> > Also pop-art, or mass art, has existed for only a few generations.
> > It's still too early to say what or how much will be remembered.
>
> i for one am ready to hear some tadum now. leiboracci not so much.
>
> > Unless I were a musician, why would I care about technical issues?
>
> it is possible to be moved by music to the point where you want to be
> a musician.
Indeed. And most people who have been so inspired were not inspired by jazz.
> jazz is a music that
> was created by musicians for themselves. not dummied up for others to
> enjoy [purchase].
I think you've missed the first couple of decades of jazz history.
Luke Kaven
[...]
>Really? Do you prefer people who when trying to communicate take
>forever to get to their point, or never get to a point, or bury their
>point in a deep thicket of words that have to be sorted and parsed
>before you can grasp what they're getting at?
A lot of your postings are of the form:
(Really?, So I see, So you're saying)...<egregious parody of the views
being discussed> (Is that it?)
Your assumption here is that complex ideas don't need to be complex,
and that you should be able to understand it. Rather, it can be a
challenge to grasp complex ideas even when presented with the utmost
simplicity and in commonsense language.
But it should be obvious to you (though it isn't, or you feign
ignorance) that none of us are espousing the ridiculous things you
describe, namely to "take forever to get to their point", or to "bury
their point in a deep thicket of words", or the musical equivalent
thereof.
As an example, I invite (ok, dare) you to read an essay by a noted
philosopher, this one a member of the Ordinary Language school who
writes using common sense language, and with the utmost economy and
simplicity for the ideas being presented. I'll put it to you that the
ideas are deep, and could not be put any more simply than they are,
and that even though they are put simply, you will have a damn hard
time trying to figure out what they are saying (which shouldn't be an
embarassment to you--it does take work). But the essays in question
have demonstrated importance in the history of ideas and are worth
understanding for many reasons. I put it to you as a challenge, and
you cannot blame pedantry, the author, or anyone else for the
difficulty. Google up an essay by Sydney Shoemaker, read it, and then
get back to us.
I have a prediction on this, but I'll keep it to myself until you get
back.
Luke
Adam Bravo
news:<3FDCF163...@telusplanet.net>...
> > What I'm saying is all that we experience is mediated through our
personal
> > senses. Therefore, it would be arrogant to assume that what I experience
> > is the same as
> > what you are experiencing. In fact, all the discussion about jazz in
> > this NG is a person's opinion and is only valid for the person
> > expressing it. You may consider the present state of "pop music" to be
> > on the decline. I have lived long enough to have been through several
> > decades of music. Each generation has disparaged the generation
> > following it as regards their musical tastes.
> > In the fullness of time, a different perspective is gained, by what some
> > refer to as 20/20 hindsight.
> > Yesterday's kitsch becomes today's epitome of taste.
>
> So would you say therefore that there is no way to distinguish
> aesthetically between Beethoven's 5th symphony and an 8-year-old
> schoolboy trying to make the sound of a fart by placing his hand under
> his armpit and squeezing?
We can say that one is more complex than the other, but I think the
8-year-old gets a hell of a lot more pleasure from the farting.
> We all have our tastes. But I deny that art is purely subjective. If
> it were, then there wouldn't be any use in discussing it, because we
> would never be able to get past our subjectivity. But this is not
> true, we are able to talk and share our love for music all the time.
> This implies something above and beyond the subjective. In a way, when
> an opinion is well-formed and shared with others, what is subjective
> becomes objective, because my opinion of something is an objective
> fact.
Yes, but that fact applies only to you.
> When we say we like a certain type of music, we rarely leave it at:
> "This is just what appeals to me." We try to identify what it is in
> the music that makes us feel pleasure when listening to it. When we
> isolate these elements, and are able to convey them through language
> to others, we share our pleasure.
But there's no reason they should apply to anybody but myself.
We also articulate values that we
> believe great music, or great art, should hold. If somebody says they
> like "A Love Supreme" because Coltrane's playing seems like a cry of
> thanksgiving toward his creator, and someone else says they like a
> song by 50 cent because he talks about blowing people's brains out and
> slapping around women, I do not think we could hold these two opinions
> to be equally valid.
That's your opinion, yes. Now support it. For one thing, most people do look
that which they like as beautiful.
Also, FWIW, I don't think a Love Supreme sounds like a cry of thanksgiving
to his creator. It sounds like good music to me. If I didn't know Coltrane's
intent before hearing it, I would have just easily categorized it as his
statement about how much he loves his wife, or the thrill he gets from
comprehending the universe in an atheistic fashion. This is heresy, I know,
but I'd be willing to bet most people couldn't listen to it and tell you who
it was dedicated to.
That is one expresses values that are
> life-affirming, the other does not. To deny this would be to deny the
> existence of universal truths outside the realm of science.
What is "life-affirming?"
> If there are no universal truths outside the realm of science, then it
> is entirely legitimate for me to steal money from your purse, if I can
> get away with it. Sure, from *your* perspective, you won't like it
> because you will be out of money, but from my perspective I'll think
> it is great, because, after all, I got money for free. Do we really
> think that the only basis for declaiming my action as "wrong" is what
> society happens to feel at the moment? Is society the ultimate arbiter
> of moral truth? That seems absurd. One could then claim that genocide
> was morally acceptable as long as most of society agreed that it was.
> But as soon as we say no, there must be moral truths, outside of
> scientific truths, we start to encroach on the realm of art. Art is
> not moral in a simplistic way, its morality is as complex as the
> artistic statement itself. But I deny that all reactions and
> perceptions of art are created equal. If person A characterizes
> Joyce's Ulysses as analogous to the story of Homer and the Odyssey,
> and Person B says that Ulysses is actually about the Uncanny X-Men,
> then one statement is more authentic, more valid, than the other, yes?
Only because of the intent of the author - one misinterpreted the artist's
intent.
> Art cannot be pure subjectivity. As Proust noted, the artist creates
> something not only for his readers, but for himself. The writer plumbs
> the depths of his own soul just as he probes the souls of his readers.
> This is not pure subjectivity. If there were no readers, if "In Search
> of Lost Time" had only been written by and for Marcel Proust, it would
> still be a work of art.
It would be sort of pointless for everyone else but Proust, however.
So if you believe there is an objective standard by which we can judge art,
what is this objective standard, or at least part of it? Nobody seems to
have one.
Of course, many don't believe in absolute truth, even within the realm of
science. I see no reason to outside of religion, and the God I subscribe to
has nothing to say about art.
Zoot
IDKWTMWYPE
, Zoot.
> Larry
zoot
sum1
> But it should be obvious to you (though it isn't, or you feign
> ignorance) that none of us are espousing the ridiculous things you
> describe, namely to "take forever to get to their point", or to "bury
> their point in a deep thicket of words", or the musical equivalent
> thereof.
Of course you are. You're saying that music that does such things is
better than music which doesn't.
> As an example, I invite (ok, dare) you to read an essay by a noted
> philosopher, this one a member of the Ordinary Language school who
> writes using common sense language, and with the utmost economy and
> simplicity for the ideas being presented. I'll put it to you that the
> ideas are deep, and could not be put any more simply than they are,
> and that even though they are put simply, you will have a damn hard
> time trying to figure out what they are saying (which shouldn't be an
> embarassment to you--it does take work). But the essays in question
> have demonstrated importance in the history of ideas and are worth
> understanding for many reasons. I put it to you as a challenge, and
> you cannot blame pedantry, the author, or anyone else for the
> difficulty. Google up an essay by Sydney Shoemaker, read it, and then
> get back to us.
>
> I have a prediction on this, but I'll keep it to myself until you get
> back.
>
> Luke
Anything in particular you recommend?
sum1
> But it should be obvious to you (though it isn't, or you feign
> ignorance) that none of us are espousing the ridiculous things you
> describe, namely to "take forever to get to their point", or to "bury
> their point in a deep thicket of words", or the musical equivalent
> thereof.
Of course you are. You're saying that music that does such things is
better than music which doesn't.
> As an example, I invite (ok, dare) you to read an essay by a noted
> philosopher, this one a member of the Ordinary Language school who
> writes using common sense language, and with the utmost economy and
> simplicity for the ideas being presented. I'll put it to you that the
> ideas are deep, and could not be put any more simply than they are,
> and that even though they are put simply, you will have a damn hard
> time trying to figure out what they are saying (which shouldn't be an
> embarassment to you--it does take work). But the essays in question
> have demonstrated importance in the history of ideas and are worth
> understanding for many reasons. I put it to you as a challenge, and
> you cannot blame pedantry, the author, or anyone else for the
> difficulty. Google up an essay by Sydney Shoemaker, read it, and then
> get back to us.
>
> I have a prediction on this, but I'll keep it to myself until you get
> back.
>
> Luke
Luke Kaven
>Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>
>> But it should be obvious to you (though it isn't, or you feign
>> ignorance) that none of us are espousing the ridiculous things you
>> describe, namely to "take forever to get to their point", or to "bury
>> their point in a deep thicket of words", or the musical equivalent
>> thereof.
>
>Of course you are. You're saying that music that does such things is
>better than music which doesn't.
No, that isn't what I'm saying. I don't know how you want to play out
your analogy, but the music of Charlie Parker, or Bud Powell, or any
of a number of others, is rather economical. In order to have the
kind of tight thematic continuity that this music has, there can be no
unresolved excess. I don't actually think that your analogy works too
well, and that the musical equivalent of "getting to the point" is a
bit strange. Though players like Miles later on would use less notes,
that doesn't mean they were saying less or more. In fact, if you want
to compare in another way, I'd say that what Miles does with a
(numerically) few notes is much more sophisticated than what Mr. Koz
does with an equal number of notes.
>> As an example, I invite (ok, dare) you to read an essay by a noted
>> philosopher, this one a member of the Ordinary Language school who
>> writes using common sense language, and with the utmost economy and
>> simplicity for the ideas being presented. I'll put it to you that the
>> ideas are deep, and could not be put any more simply than they are,
>> and that even though they are put simply, you will have a damn hard
>> time trying to figure out what they are saying (which shouldn't be an
>> embarassment to you--it does take work). But the essays in question
>> have demonstrated importance in the history of ideas and are worth
>> understanding for many reasons. I put it to you as a challenge, and
>> you cannot blame pedantry, the author, or anyone else for the
>> difficulty. Google up an essay by Sydney Shoemaker, read it, and then
>> get back to us.
>>
>> I have a prediction on this, but I'll keep it to myself until you get
>> back.
>>
>> Luke
>
>
>Anything in particular you recommend?
You might try this one. If I had access to everything in print
online, I might have selected something that did not reference any
outside literature, but this ought to do.
sum1
> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
> >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
> >
> >> But it should be obvious to you (though it isn't, or you feign
> >> ignorance) that none of us are espousing the ridiculous things you
> >> describe, namely to "take forever to get to their point", or to "bury
> >> their point in a deep thicket of words", or the musical equivalent
> >> thereof.
> >
> >Of course you are. You're saying that music that does such things is
> >better than music which doesn't.
>
> No, that isn't what I'm saying.
It most certainly is.
You and Larry deride musicians who make music that speaks directly to
a large number of people.
You prefer instead musicians who disdain their audience, who prefer
speaking in ways that require repeated listening to unravel or
specialized knowledge to understand.
> >Anything in particular you recommend?
>
> You might try this one. If I had access to everything in print
> online, I might have selected something that did not reference any
> outside literature, but this ought to do.
>
> http://humanities.ucsc.edu/NEH/shoemaker1.htm
Thanks. I'll have a look, maybe over the year-end holdiays.
Larry Smithee
> Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote in message news:<ucmutv4jcv7cij49p...@4ax.com>...
> > su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
> > >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
> You and Larry deride musicians who make music that speaks directly to
> a large number of people.
>
> You prefer instead musicians who disdain their audience,
Speaking for myself, no I don't
who prefer
> speaking in ways that require repeated listening to unravel or
> specialized knowledge to understand.
Why would you want to invest in a music art that requires no thought?
Music that can be consumed in but a single hearing and then discarded
like a fast food container seems like wasted effort to me. One of the
things that make music a great adventure is that you can listen to
some music hundreds of times and still uncover new discoveries. I can
still listen to much of Stravinsky's music and be affected that way.
John McLaughlin's music (especially is early works) does that to me as
well. Sometimes the new discoveries amounts to no more than some sort
of nuance I didn't hear before, or a counterpoint rhythm that I didn't
take note on an earlier hearing. My point is that music that contains
the potential to keep giving is worthy of investment and my
investigation.
Frankly, I have no problem with your choices of music. In fact I could
care less. I simply object to your insistence in espousing "smooth" as
prime examples of great jazz art, which it clearly is not, and which
demeans the great jazz artists that are truly worthy of the mantel.
Elevating G, Koz, and other commercial musicians as serious jazz
artists is like saying that Bugs Bunny comics represents examples of
great western literature, which would be an equally preposterous
assumption, for sure.
Larry
Luke Kaven
[...]
>Elevating G, Koz, and other commercial musicians as serious jazz
>artists is like saying that Bugs Bunny comics represents examples of
>great western literature, which would be an equally preposterous
>assumption, for sure.
>Larry
Wonderful response. Only, SVP, substitute Mickey Mouse for The Bunny.
The Bunny is actually pretty hip.
Luke
Luke Kaven
>Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
>> >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>> >
>> >> But it should be obvious to you (though it isn't, or you feign
>> >> ignorance) that none of us are espousing the ridiculous things you
>> >> describe, namely to "take forever to get to their point", or to "bury
>> >> their point in a deep thicket of words", or the musical equivalent
>> >> thereof.
>> >
>> >Of course you are. You're saying that music that does such things is
>> >better than music which doesn't.
>>
>> No, that isn't what I'm saying.
>
>It most certainly is.
You were referring to the musical equivalent of things that "take
forever to get to their point" and "bury their point in a deep thicket
of words". It ought to be clear to you that I don't accept that
characterization as anything but a parody of my views.
>You and Larry deride musicians who make music that speaks directly to
>a large number of people.
No, I don't. If that's what they want, then let them have it. You
know I've said this a number of times before here. The problem that I
see involves the appropriation of resources belonging to jazz (bin
space, air time, stage time, column inches) by instrumental pop
through a hostile takeover. If you want your instrumental pop, then
fine. Just don't destroy The Precious Thing.
>You prefer instead musicians who disdain their audience, who prefer
>speaking in ways that require repeated listening to unravel or
>specialized knowledge to understand.
I don't know about "disdain for their audience". That seems to be
pretty much evenly distributed in all genres. Neither here nor there.
As far as repeated listening and specialized knowledge is concerned, I
just tend to prefer music that makes me feel as though I gained
something today that I didn't have yesterday--something that I can
carry with me and use for the rest of my life.
Given that music runs around in my head most of my waking life, I need
to listen to things that can express the various shades and nuances of
mood and feeling that I can relate to. Last night it was Herbie
Nichols, Yusef Lateef. It is about poetics. Could be Angels in
America too. [God help me when I get some TV jingle stuck in my head,
and it takes hours to get it out, and it gives me nothing in return.]
>> >Anything in particular you recommend?
>>
>> You might try this one. If I had access to everything in print
>> online, I might have selected something that did not reference any
>> outside literature, but this ought to do.
>>
>> http://humanities.ucsc.edu/NEH/shoemaker1.htm
>
>Thanks. I'll have a look, maybe over the year-end holdiays.
In some ways, it would have been more to the point to recommend John
Dewey's _Art as Experience_, which is certainly more tied to the issue
at hand. [Though I have recommended this to you before.] It is a
philosophy of nature, but also a treatise about aesthetics and
education, all of which are continuous. Dewey is a bit more florid in
his writing though, and his latter-day proponents probably do a better
job of explaining him, especially in a contemporary way of speaking.
But as far as why music of a certain kind (or any art of that kind for
that matter) produces experience par excellence, this is one very
important source.
One reason I suggested Shoemaker to you was because he represents a
contemporary version of a school called Ordinary Language Philosophy,
and I could use that to argue that even when ideas are stated simply
and made very clear, they still pose a challenge. Might have gone
down the wrong road with you on that one though, which is not to
criticize you. We'll see what comes of it.
Luke
ric
> >> >Of course you are. You're saying that music that does such things is
> >> >better than music which doesn't.
> >>
> >> No, that isn't what I'm saying.
> >
> >It most certainly is.
>
> You were referring to the musical equivalent of things that "take
> forever to get to their point" and "bury their point in a deep thicket
> of words". It ought to be clear to you that I don't accept that
> characterization as anything but a parody of my views.
Don't argue with sum1. If he says you are saying something (even if you
aren't), then you *must* be saying it (or at least meaning to say it.)
Just ask Henthoff.
--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...
sum1
sum1
> As far as repeated listening and specialized knowledge is concerned, I
> just tend to prefer music that makes me feel as though I gained
> something today that I didn't have yesterday--something that I can
> carry with me and use for the rest of my life.
I would venture that is what most people want out of their music.
Some people get it from jazz, some from r&b, some from country. Each
has the capacity to be meaningful; none are more or less capable than
the other.
> [God help me when I get some TV jingle stuck in my head,
> and it takes hours to get it out, and it gives me nothing in return.]
How do you know it has given you nothing in return? Perhaps some day
that ditty, lodged in the recesses of your mind, might help you write
a song - or win a trivia contest! If nothing else, it gave you a few
minutes or hours of pleasurable diversion. You should be greatful for
what you have received.
sum1
> > Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote in message news:<ucmutv4jcv7cij49p...@4ax.com>...
> > > su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
> > > >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>
> > You and Larry deride musicians who make music that speaks directly to
> > a large number of people.
> >
> > You prefer instead musicians who disdain their audience,
>
> Speaking for myself, no I don't
>
> who prefer
> > speaking in ways that require repeated listening to unravel or
> > specialized knowledge to understand.
>
> Why would you want to invest in a music art that requires no thought?
I don't think I've argued that I prefer music that requires no
thought, which is probably impossible in any case.
> Music that can be consumed in but a single hearing and then discarded
> like a fast food container seems like wasted effort to me. One of the
> things that make music a great adventure is that you can listen to
> some music hundreds of times and still uncover new discoveries.
Yes, indeed. The thing is, you can do that with lots of popular music
as well. Take a look at one the newgroups that discuss one of the
older pop musicians, artists who have been around a few years like
Bowie, Springsteen, Dylan, the Dead, the Stones. You'll find plenty
of messages and discussion of just this, people pointing out things
they've never heard or never noticed in music that they've been
listening to for 10, 20 or 30 years. Jazz has no special claim in
this regard.
These pop musicians make music that speaks to the listener on first
listen - which is what helps make them popular. But there's obvioulsy
something more to them, which explains their longevity.
Many contemporary jazz artists on the other hand are notorius for
making music that puts listeners off, music that is fairly
impenetrable and requires extra-ordinary effort to accomodate. ASnd
when I hear such music my feeling is - why bother? It's like a crazy
guy over in the corner mumbling to himself. In his own little world
his mumblings are logical and consistent. But it's not really a world
I care to make the investment to understand.
>
> Elevating G, Koz, and other commercial musicians as serious jazz
> artists is like saying that Bugs Bunny comics represents examples of
> great western literature, which would be an equally preposterous
> assumption, for sure.
Bugs Bunny will no doubt have a place in the history of animated film,
if not film in general.
And thanks to the utter lack of repect, thanks to all the derision and
scorn heaped upon him by the Pat Metheny's of the world, the G man
will thanks to them be remembered for a long time to come.
Luke Kaven
>Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>> [God help me when I get some TV jingle stuck in my head,
>> and it takes hours to get it out, and it gives me nothing in return.]
>
>How do you know it has given you nothing in return? Perhaps some day
>that ditty, lodged in the recesses of your mind, might help you write
>a song - or win a trivia contest! If nothing else, it gave you a few
>minutes or hours of pleasurable diversion. You should be greatful for
>what you have received.
What a stretch! First, it doesn't give me any pleasure. It's just a
cognitive reflex. It just takes time to get it out of my head.
Second, any piece of music seems just as overwhelmingly unlikely to
win me a trivia contest. I'd rather have something with a known
return than bet on long shots.
sum1
> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
>
> >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>
> >> [God help me when I get some TV jingle stuck in my head,
> >> and it takes hours to get it out, and it gives me nothing in return.]
> >
> >How do you know it has given you nothing in return? Perhaps some day
> >that ditty, lodged in the recesses of your mind, might help you write
> >a song - or win a trivia contest! If nothing else, it gave you a few
> >minutes or hours of pleasurable diversion. You should be greatful for
> >what you have received.
>
> What a stretch! First, it doesn't give me any pleasure. It's just a
> cognitive reflex.
So are many of our responses to humor.
> It just takes time to get it out of my head.
Because your mind enjoys playing with it.
> Second, any piece of music seems just as overwhelmingly unlikely to
> win me a trivia contest. I'd rather have something with a known
> return than bet on long shots.
Well, it was just a thought. Maybe only a cognitive reflex.
Zoot
o k Larry what is LMFAO?
Larry Smithee
LMFAO means "laughing my f#@king ass off". Just expressing the effect
your humorous post had on me. Have a good day.
Larry
Joseph Scott
> was created by musicians for themselves. not dummied up for others to
No. Jazz was being created for the enjoyment of urban listeners for
money as far back as we can trace jazz. You'd be much closer if you
said folk is a music that was created by musicians for themselves (I'm
not talking about the professional musicians who participated in the
"folk revival," I'm talking about actual folk music in the first
place). Jazz's history has been within the world of professional
entertainment.
Joseph Scott
Zoot
folk is a form of story telling. isn't it? its about words. you kind
of want to tell the same story every time.
jazz is absolutely not about words and being the actual creative
process you want a new story each time.
sum1
But some people say about particular instrumental compositions that
this one is about the death of the artist's wife, or that one about
his celebration in finding god, in which case each replaying is
telling the same story again, but perhaps with a few different
embellishments, which is exactly the same thing you can do with words,
no?
Zoot
> this one is about the death of the artist's wife, or that one about
> his celebration in finding god, in which case each replaying is
> telling the same story again, but perhaps with a few different
> embellishments, which is exactly the same thing you can do with words,
> no?
what people?
when a musician talks to the crowd it's show business. then they play
the head or the chart. that is a tribute to composition. when the jazz
part gets started the rules change and players start thinking out loud
and they're not thinking about gawd or petunias no mater what they
might tell the fans.
Luke Kaven
[...]
>But some people say about particular instrumental compositions that
>this one is about the death of the artist's wife, or that one about
>his celebration in finding god, in which case each replaying is
>telling the same story again, but perhaps with a few different
>embellishments, which is exactly the same thing you can do with words,
>no?
Dedicating a song to a theme does not mean that the piece is literally
some sort of "story" about that theme. The abstract elements of art
are all in play.
Luke
sum1
> > this one is about the death of the artist's wife, or that one about
> > his celebration in finding god, in which case each replaying is
> > telling the same story again, but perhaps with a few different
> > embellishments, which is exactly the same thing you can do with words,
> > no?
>
> what people?
Some of the folks that post here.
> when a musician talks to the crowd it's show business. then they play
> the head or the chart. that is a tribute to composition. when the jazz
> part gets started the rules change and players start thinking out loud
> and they're not thinking about gawd or petunias no mater what they
> might tell the fans.
Good. I'm glad that's settled. All that shit about "telling a story"
is just so much smoke to blow up the assholes of newbies.
sum1
Glad to hear it, Luke. Now we can dispense with the pretense of "telling a story."
Luke Kaven
>> [...]
>> >But some people say about particular instrumental compositions that
>> >this one is about the death of the artist's wife, or that one about
>> >his celebration in finding god, in which case each replaying is
>> >telling the same story again, but perhaps with a few different
>> >embellishments, which is exactly the same thing you can do with words,
>> >no?
>>
>> Dedicating a song to a theme does not mean that the piece is literally
>> some sort of "story" about that theme. The abstract elements of art
>> are all in play.
>>
>> Luke
>
>Glad to hear it, Luke. Now we can dispense with the pretense of "telling a story."
I think this literal-minded parody version of the theory was your
invention, and we can dispense with that. That still leaves a claim
that playing music 'expresses something' and that when one plays, it
is typically 'about something'.
It's always been in the jazz vernacular to say that a player is
"saying something" (or not), or "talking to you", or "telling you a
story". It is partly a metaphor, and partly real. What I say in the
preceding paragraph is more to the point.
Luke Kaven
Your version of the story has very little to do with the point being
made. You made up a very strange story, and then you knocked it down
yourself. Has nothing to do with what was being argued.
gloveman
And such a good Chrrrristian boy, LOL!
sum1
sum1
> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
> >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
> >> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >But some people say about particular instrumental compositions that
> >> >this one is about the death of the artist's wife, or that one about
> >> >his celebration in finding god, in which case each replaying is
> >> >telling the same story again, but perhaps with a few different
> >> >embellishments, which is exactly the same thing you can do with words,
> >> >no?
> >>
> >> Dedicating a song to a theme does not mean that the piece is literally
> >> some sort of "story" about that theme. The abstract elements of art
> >> are all in play.
> >>
> >> Luke
> >
> >Glad to hear it, Luke. Now we can dispense with the pretense of "telling a story."
>
> I think this literal-minded parody version of the theory was your
> invention, and we can dispense with that. That still leaves a claim
> that playing music 'expresses something' and that when one plays, it
> is typically 'about something'.
Of course it's about something. Everything is about something. In
which case, how can you say that a musician isn't saying "anything"?
If it's in the abstract, how do you KNOW that the musician isn't
saying anything? Maybe you just can't get your ears around it?
gloveman
Nope, I see it was someone else.
I guess I have to learn to follow the lines better :o/
gm
Luke Kaven
These are good questions.
How can you tell the difference between a dialect of a very obscure
language and artful gibberish? You look for various cues, including
regularities in the sounds, and the behavior of others around you.
You learn a lot this way. Whether or not you'll ever get your ears
around something in this example is partly a matter of whether you're
going to be a tourist in this country or learn the language.
Now as for the difference between saying something simpliciter, versus
saying something meaningful, consider this.
Take a text in a language you cannot speak at all, and wholly
unrelated to yours in any way you can tell. Imagine that, given the
phonetic rules for this language, you are able to pronounce the words,
though you still have no idea what they mean. Imagine that you are
then asked to read a story that, known to your hosts, is as moving a
story as was ever written in that language. Imagine, finally, how
this sounds to a native speaker. The words are there, but they aren't
delivered with any feeling. Now imagine an experienced adult speaker
of that language reading the same work. The reading is of course
mediated through a vast network of experiences, which enables the
reader to grasp and convey the significance of the work.
In music, I think the same is true. The musician is able to bring to
bear a tremendous amount of life experience in the way s/he both
composes music and plays it, and this is increasingly discernible in
the end music as one becomes a more experienced listener. [And some
people with little musical training have uncanny intuition about a
musician's sincerity just from the purely affective aspects of a
musical performance.]
Luke
sum1
Interesting analogy.
But it doesn't quite work because in fact the non-natives (read:
smooth jazz players) are the most popular readers, suggesting that
they have a strong grasp of the vernacular.
Luke Kaven
>Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote in message news:<l8gquvgq096516fkj...@4ax.com>...
[...]
Wait, the analogy works here too. The smooth jazz "dialect" *is* a
common vernacular dialect of the masses, mostly borrowed from rock.
The smooth jazz dialect is *designed* to be popular from the ground
up. The smooth jazz players are natives to that dialect. There isn't
much to smooth jazz, and that's the point of it. If there were more
to it, fewer people would like it, and it would fail to be popular.
Larry Smithee
> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
> Wait, the analogy works here too. The smooth jazz "dialect" *is* a
> common vernacular dialect of the masses, mostly borrowed from rock.
> The smooth jazz dialect is *designed* to be popular from the ground
> up. The smooth jazz players are natives to that dialect. There isn't
> much to smooth jazz, and that's the point of it. If there were more
> to it, fewer people would like it, and it would fail to be popular.
Excellent point, as usual. I really like the language analogy a lot,
since music IS a language. Thus, the idea that jazz improviser's can
tell stories. The problem is that many listeners will not be able to
follow the player's creative thought unless they have some grasp of
the elements being employed assembled in their musical language. It's
much, I think, like a highly educated adult speaking to a very small
child using the full breadth of their language skills acquired over
long years of practice and study. To the child the language would
sound like gibberish but an adult of equal ability would easily follow
the points (the story). I think Sum, like many listeners, approaches
music on a superficial plane, unable to grasp the deeper complexities
of the art form due to their lack of education and study within the
art form. Like the small child they hear and can detect the small
words now and then, but the larger more important contextual messages
are being missed, resulting in a disconnect with the story that's be
presented. They escape to simpler art forms like "smooth" that is
designed especially for audiences with limited musical capacities,
with its modest musical demands, that require little in terms of
education to follow its logic. Logic also follows that this simpler
music will have a much wider audience and I'm okay with that. What I
know has taken me a long time to learn and I'm realistic enough to
understand that the average joe blow isn't going to travel down a path
that requires years of education and dedicated study. To say that this
simpler, less developed, and more accessible smooth music is on an
equal level as that of John Coltrane's work, for example, would be as
ridiculous as asserting that fuzzy pictures of Elvis sold at truck
stops is equal to a work by Rembrandt.
Larry
sum1
Then the oppposite must be true, no? That if no one likes it, it must be good.
sum1
> Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote in message news:<so8tuvgej8naiiedv...@4ax.com>...
> > su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
>
> > Wait, the analogy works here too. The smooth jazz "dialect" *is* a
> > common vernacular dialect of the masses, mostly borrowed from rock.
> > The smooth jazz dialect is *designed* to be popular from the ground
> > up. The smooth jazz players are natives to that dialect. There isn't
> > much to smooth jazz, and that's the point of it. If there were more
> > to it, fewer people would like it, and it would fail to be popular.
>
> Excellent point, as usual.
His analogy is specious. Luke's claim is that the non-native speaker
has no grasp of the language, which if true would mean he would be
unable to communicate (at least via language). But the reality is
quite different. Smooth jazz is the vernacular to "real jazz"
catholicism.
> I really like the language analogy a lot,
> since music IS a language. Thus, the idea that jazz improviser's can
> tell stories. The problem is that many listeners will not be able to
> follow the player's creative thought unless they have some grasp of
> the elements being employed assembled in their musical language.
And even then, sometimes you can't follow because - quess what? -
there's nothing to follow! It's just some guy noodling and making
noises that everyone pretends is "high art." It's like a guy speaking
in tongues - in the speaker's mind there many be some logic to his
rambling, but for the rest of us it's gibberish.
> It's
> much, I think, like a highly educated adult speaking to a very small
> child using the full breadth of their language skills acquired over
> long years of practice and study. To the child the language would
> sound like gibberish but an adult of equal ability would easily follow
> the points (the story).
It's more like a highly-educated dweeb trying to impress the rest of
us by using esoteric language. It's like a room full of academics
talking to one another.
The average person isn't at all interested in this kind of pretentious
and ultimately meaningless kind of discussion.
> I think Sum, like many listeners, approaches
> music on a superficial plane, unable to grasp the deeper complexities
> of the art form due to their lack of education and study within the
> art form.
I think Larry - like many jazz nobs - approaches music on a
pretentious plane, unable to enjoy simple pleasures such as whistling,
toe-tapping, and dancing due to his preoccupation with setting himself
above others by defining entertainment as an "art form."
What a git.
Luke Kaven
>Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
[...]
>> Wait, the analogy works here too. The smooth jazz "dialect" *is* a
>> common vernacular dialect of the masses, mostly borrowed from rock.
>> The smooth jazz dialect is *designed* to be popular from the ground
>> up. The smooth jazz players are natives to that dialect. There isn't
>> much to smooth jazz, and that's the point of it. If there were more
>> to it, fewer people would like it, and it would fail to be popular.
>
>
>Then the oppposite must be true, no? That if no one likes it, it must be good.
Might I interest you in a jar of tiger repellant I have? This
marvelous creme works wonders. It must work well--see, not a single
tiger anywhere around me.
Luke Kaven
>lcsm...@earthlink.net (Larry Smithee) wrote
>> Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>>
>> > Wait, the analogy works here too. The smooth jazz "dialect" *is* a
>> > common vernacular dialect of the masses, mostly borrowed from rock.
>> > The smooth jazz dialect is *designed* to be popular from the ground
>> > up. The smooth jazz players are natives to that dialect. There isn't
>> > much to smooth jazz, and that's the point of it. If there were more
>> > to it, fewer people would like it, and it would fail to be popular.
>His analogy is specious. Luke's claim is that the non-native speaker
>has no grasp of the language, which if true would mean he would be
>unable to communicate (at least via language). But the reality is
>quite different. Smooth jazz is the vernacular to "real jazz"
>catholicism.
Eh?
>> I really like the language analogy a lot,
>> since music IS a language. Thus, the idea that jazz improviser's can
>> tell stories. The problem is that many listeners will not be able to
>> follow the player's creative thought unless they have some grasp of
>> the elements being employed assembled in their musical language.
>
>And even then, sometimes you can't follow because - quess what? -
>there's nothing to follow! It's just some guy noodling and making
>noises that everyone pretends is "high art." It's like a guy speaking
>in tongues - in the speaker's mind there many be some logic to his
>rambling, but for the rest of us it's gibberish.
Sometimes that's true too. But I can't tell where you're drawing the
line. Could you give me examples of well-known players you think fit
into this category?
>It's more like a highly-educated dweeb trying to impress the rest of
>us by using esoteric language. It's like a room full of academics
>talking to one another.
>
>The average person isn't at all interested in this kind of pretentious
>and ultimately meaningless kind of discussion.
Please, let me have a list of some of the well-known musicians you'd
put into this category.
Luke
Zoot
oh good
glad to see we musicians have you fans fooled
fool
Zoot
> > >smooth jazz players) are the most popular readers, suggesting that
> > >they have a strong grasp of the vernacular.
no
smooth fans are just non natives with even less or no grasp of the vernacular
they are average
Zoot
sweeeeeeeeeeet
i especially liked the part about when sum1 opens his mouth to show
his ignorance he looks like a fooo
Zoot
sure it does sweety
now eat your pabulum
sum1
Thanks, I've already got a tin and as you say it works wonders.
sum1
Tell you what, Luke. I'd be happy to give you some examples, but
first I'd like to have a few from you.
Between yourself, Larry, ric, Tom, JC, Mike C, and any other smooth
jazz basher who'd care to join in, let's see if you can't put together
a list of 20 smooth jazz albums that you have listened to _in their
entirety_.
The list must not include any Kenny G album.
Between the lot of you, a list of 20 albums should be quite easy.
sum1
Have you nothing to contribute but insults? What a small man you are.
I hope 2004 brings you peace and enlightenment.
Zoot
> I hope 2004 brings you peace and enlightenment.
first i'm a big fat guy o k ? next i'm kind of sure you actually read
this stuff so i think you know that i contribute much besides insults
[well deserved] like if you are going to explain jazz to people you
might want to learn it first hand [to play it] or when you open your
mouth, those who do know jazz can see what a fool you are. no insult
intended.
happy
trolling in 04
sum1
Is the last your new year resolution?
sum1
>
> Tell you what, Luke. I'd be happy to give you some examples, but
> first I'd like to have a few from you.
>
> Between yourself, Larry, ric, Tom, JC, Mike C, and any other smooth
> jazz basher who'd care to join in, let's see if you can't put together
> a list of 20 smooth jazz albums that you have listened to _in their
> entirety_.
>
> The list must not include any Kenny G album.
>
> Between the lot of you, a list of 20 albums should be quite easy.
But apparently it isn't.
Your collective silence speaks volumes.
Luke Kaven
>su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote
>> Tell you what, Luke. I'd be happy to give you some examples, but
>> first I'd like to have a few from you.
>>
>> Between yourself, Larry, ric, Tom, JC, Mike C, and any other smooth
>> jazz basher who'd care to join in, let's see if you can't put together
>> a list of 20 smooth jazz albums that you have listened to _in their
>> entirety_.
>>
>> The list must not include any Kenny G album.
>>
>> Between the lot of you, a list of 20 albums should be quite easy.
>
>
>But apparently it isn't.
>
>Your collective silence speaks volumes.
I asked you a question outright, and you've not answered it so far,
except to say that you'll answer my question if I answer another one.
I'm not going to do work for you just to get you to answer a
straightforward question. Either you answer the question or you
don't. As a passive aggressor, you do your best to draw out other
people and turn the conversation back on them with crafty one-line
zingers while not revealing anything about yourself. If you look back
on our history, I've tried to answer most of your questions with
respectful and often comprehensive answers. I hope to get the same
from you.
Mike C.
regarding the silence of those who very obviously have him in a killfile.
Hey, Shri: I asked you to cite examples of great jazz players that you know
of who recorded before the 1970s. Your silence speaks volumes.
Of course, I may have asked offlist, but your silence still speaks volumes.
--
Mike C.
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who
could
not hear the music.
--Friedrich Nietzsche
"Luke Kaven" <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote in message
news:anmfvvo8bpinh8vqn...@4ax.com...
Larry Smithee
If you look back
> on our history, I've tried to answer most of your questions with
> respectful and often comprehensive answers. I hope to get the same
> from you.
He can't, Luke, because he doesn't know anything. He's over his head
intellectually and has nothing to draw upon to gauge jazz music except
his foot-wagging big toe. I don't know how old any of the members of
this ng are but many years ago Dick Clark had an early tv show that
featured teenage dance music (white pop usually), along with some
current (for the time) pop groups lip sinking their big hits as the
teens danced and boped around the tv studio. Those who remember will
know that at one point in the show Clark would pull aside a couple of
teens and play a brief snippet of new pop music not yet released and
ask them to rate the music using some sort of scale system. The funny
part came when Clark would ask these kids to verbalize why they did,
or did not like a certain song. Interestingly, their answers then were
much the same as Sum has often characteristically expounded upon
here…"the music has a good beat and is easy to dance to". I mean, this
was consistently the answer to Clark's question of why. Which, I
think, is probably a good enough gauge for teen age dance music. But
my point is that like many of those kids on Clark's early tv show
that's all Sum knows and anything more musically profound is wasted
energy on him. This also partly answers the question of why the twit
continually harasses the ng with inane copy/pasted crap about smooth
pop. A wiser person would be smart enough to shut up, listen and
learn, but Sum's ego won't allow that. Again, he's like a very small
child who can't comprehend an adult's vocabulary. Unlike most
children, however, Sum just brushes it aside and assumes there is
something wrong with the music, period. It's really sad. Sadder still
is the fact that I've met plenty of people like this dolt.
Larry
Jack Woker
> children, however, Sum just brushes it aside and assumes there is
> something wrong with the music, period.
And, that people whose tastes run a little deeper, who hear things he can't
hear, are fakers who are just trying to be hip.
jack
Larry Smithee
> > Unlike most
> > children, however, Sum just brushes it aside and assumes there is
> > something wrong with the music, period.
>
> And, that people whose tastes run a little deeper, who hear things he can't
> hear,
Obviously true...
are fakers who are just trying to be hip.
>
> jack
I don't know, Jack, but have you bothered to actually read this entire
set of threads? I know to do so would be a daunting task given its
length but it might enlighten you as to which end is up here.
Larry
sum1
Nice try, Luke. Try to defelct the conversation back to me and my
personality. That bird, though, won't fly.
You and the other smooth-jazz bashers CANNOT provide any evidence that
you have in fact actually listened to a so-called smooth jazz
recording from start to finish, an experience that would seem
necessary in order to offer some reasoned critique on the sub-genre.
sum1
> Well, that's an interesting twist. Dum1 cites some type of "symbolism"
> regarding the silence of those who very obviously have him in a killfile.
>
> Hey, Shri: I asked you to cite examples of great jazz players that you know
> of who recorded before the 1970s. Your silence speaks volumes.
>
> Of course, I may have asked offlist, but your silence still speaks volumes.
>
> --
> Mike C.
You know, Obi-wan, you have to be the lamest Jedi of them all.
If you hadn't put me in your kill-files you would have read plenty of
messages in which I mention pre-1970 jazz musicians that I enjoy and
listen to regularly.
Quit hiding behind your kill-files. Read the messages that are posted
so that you can particiapte properly in the discussions. If you have
a question, ask it direct and ask it here.
(Now, someone hit reply and send this message to the group so that our
cowardly Jazz Jedi can read it.)
sum1
> Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote in message news:<anmfvvo8bpinh8vqn...@4ax.com>...
>
> If you look back
> > on our history, I've tried to answer most of your questions with
> > respectful and often comprehensive answers. I hope to get the same
> > from you.
>
> He can't, Luke, because he doesn't know anything. He's over his head
> intellectually and has nothing to draw upon to gauge jazz music except
> his foot-wagging big toe.
Yeah, me and Count Basie.
sum1
Almost.
"... people whose pretentions run a little deeper, who pretend to hear
things others can't, are fakers just trying to be hip."
Luke Kaven
[...]
>You and the other smooth-jazz bashers CANNOT provide any evidence that
>you have in fact actually listened to a so-called smooth jazz
>recording from start to finish, an experience that would seem
>necessary in order to offer some reasoned critique on the sub-genre.
You should have been able to answer the original question that was put
to you off the top of your head in a minute. For all the time you
spend writing here, you could easily have done that much. Instead,
you throw up an expensive gauntlet. So you aren't answering the
straightforward question. So much the less.
Zoot
> > jazz basher who'd care to join in, let's see if you can't put together
> > a list of 20 smooth jazz albums that you have listened to _in their
> > entirety_.
> >
> > The list must not include any Kenny G album.
> >
> > Between the lot of you, a list of 20 albums should be quite easy.
when a connoisseur bites into a shit sandwich, chances are he knows
he's not going to finish and the fact that you guys would finish it
and have 19 more says it all.
Adam Bravo
"Zoot" <aba...@ns-design.com> wrote in message
news:4700fe11.04010...@posting.google.com...
Oh, but I thought that you were supposed to give music time, and bask in its
ugliness in the hope that some day you'll "get it."
sum1
> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
> [...]
> >You and the other smooth-jazz bashers CANNOT provide any evidence that
> >you have in fact actually listened to a so-called smooth jazz
> >recording from start to finish, an experience that would seem
> >necessary in order to offer some reasoned critique on the sub-genre.
>
> You should have been able to answer the original question that was put
> to you off the top of your head in a minute.
Of course I can. The point is - you cannot. At least zoot admitted
his ignorance. Instead you throw up excuses.
sum1
zoot, I have to give you credit for owning up to your ignorance.
Perhaps I can recommend a few albums to help broaden your perspective,
but as for your anger I would suggest professional help.
Good luck and let me know about the albums, eh?
Luke Kaven
>"Zoot" <aba...@ns-design.com> wrote
>> > > jazz basher who'd care to join in, let's see if you can't put together
>> > > a list of 20 smooth jazz albums that you have listened to _in their
>> > > entirety_.
>> > >
>> > > The list must not include any Kenny G album.
>> > >
>> > > Between the lot of you, a list of 20 albums should be quite easy.
>>
>> when a connoisseur bites into a shit sandwich, chances are he knows
>> he's not going to finish and the fact that you guys would finish it
>> and have 19 more says it all.
>
>Oh, but I thought that you were supposed to give music time, and bask in its
>ugliness in the hope that some day you'll "get it."
That was never claimed (and it's kind of a parody if you ask me).
I've said before that, like many things, the appreciation of music is
an *investment*, and like any other investment, if it doesn't promise
to pay off, then one usually doesn't invest in it. Most of what
humans (or any animal for that matter) do is a calculated expenditure;
that's the nature of rationality. Those people who see promise in
music are more likely to invest their time in it. Given that you
think the goal of art is to give you pleasure and nothing else, then I
can see why you'd think (wrongly) that those who invest themselves in
what to you doesn't appear yield pleasure are merely masochistic.
Luke Kaven
>> [...]
>> >You and the other smooth-jazz bashers CANNOT provide any evidence that
>> >you have in fact actually listened to a so-called smooth jazz
>> >recording from start to finish, an experience that would seem
>> >necessary in order to offer some reasoned critique on the sub-genre.
>>
>> You should have been able to answer the original question that was put
>> to you off the top of your head in a minute.
>
>Of course I can. The point is - you cannot. At least zoot admitted
>his ignorance. Instead you throw up excuses.
Sorry, I can't engage you if you don't answer questions. It's your
life; you can waste it baiting victims if you like.
JC Martin
news:fKmKb.52179$BQ5.31528@fed1read03...
One can easily discern that a rag like the Enquirer takes little effort to
absorb its content. Same can be said about contemporary instrumental pop.
-JC
Mr Zed
> Sorry, I can't engage you if you don't answer questions. It's your
> life; you can waste it baiting victims if you like.
And why shouldn't he, with twits pouring out of the woodwork like
there's no tomorrow.
Mr Zed
> he's not going to finish
Fair enough. But what really does bother the normal people is that
the "connoisseur" then proceeds to say things like, "oh, this is
really geat stuff. best sandwich i ever had. just give it time and
to figure out what the cook was trying to do, and you'll see what i
mean".