[jazz_guitar] Re: Elitism in jazz
Kevin Brunkhorst
Jazz musicians? Maybe some do.
Audiences? Surely not. It's certainly not popular. Jazz music
accounts for about 5% of recorded music sales in the US. And live
jazz certainly does not draw large crowds.
Musicians of other styles? Who knows?
Questions of 'high art' and 'low art' are always difficult, and
require much study to truly address. When music is commodified, or
sold, it changes. Jazz does not commodify easily. In the 1930s, jazz
was the popular music of the time. But it was always good for
dancing. Bebop began to change all of that - it took the music into
the concert hall. Most people don't want to go to concert halls.
As far as ego is concerned, I believe there is a large
misunderstanding. I'm thinking about the scene in Ken Burns' Jazz TV
series where Wynton Marsalis talks about his desire for the audience
to be educated in jazz so they can grasp what he is plying, and his
brother Branford immediately calling that b.s. - that you don't have
to go to school to understand and enjoy a baseball game, so why should
jazz be different?
Ego is part of being a jazz musician, because a musician plays in
order to be heard, but is subject to the judgement of the listener.
This can be hurtful. Jazz is difficult, and can absorb a lifetime.
There are often few rewards for it. This can be hurtful too.
Many styles of popular music are designed to be popular - to reach the
largest number of people. This in itself is not a bad thing. But in
order to do it, musicians, players, or composers often remove any
content that might be difficult for all to understand. Too many chord
changes, for example, or too many pitches in a melody, can prevent a
tune from reaching any audience at all.
(Of course, the mass media - radio and TV - are already reduced to the
smallest common denominator, and usually consist of programmed rhythms
with few chords and not much, if any, melody, 'sung' by someone with
really good hair and teeth, under 25.)
I can't truly speak for others, but I would like everyone to hear my
music, and do not wish to exclude anyone from it. But I will not
lower its quality just to reach a large number of people. It has to
move me first, otherwise I cannot play it.
Really good musicians are not always 'playing' the music, but are
'being played' by it, anyway. There is no guarantee that others will
hear the same thing.
Kevin Brunkhorst
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "Koek Wei Chew" <wckoek@...> wrote:
>
> I wondered that people always held that opinion that there are certain
> music that had a higher status than another, like jazz and classical
> musicians are more being respected and alot of jazzmen are a little bit
> more ego.
>
> I've met some shredders and punk rockers that are quite egoistics too.
> And somehow I do admit that I held a lower view towards punk music.
>
> Does anyone have experience on this?
>
> Regards
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
jazz_guitar...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Koek Wei Chew
music that had a higher status than another, like jazz and classical
musicians are more being respected and alot of jazzmen are a little bit
more ego.
I've met some shredders and punk rockers that are quite egoistics too.
And somehow I do admit that I held a lower view towards punk music.
Does anyone have experience on this?
Regards
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
ski...@geusnet.com
conversation went to some of the super fast single note melodies that some
jazzers play. To me it sounds exhausting. I asked him who listens to this kind
of music. He asked me "Who do women dress for?" "Other women", I
replied. "Exactly", he said. "Same thing with some jazz."
Skip
===============
Quoting Kevin Brunkhorst <brunk...@hotmail.com>:
> .....Many styles of popular music are designed to be popular - to reach the
> largest number of people. This in itself is not a bad thing. But in
> order to do it, musicians, players, or composers often remove any
> content that might be difficult for all to understand. Too many chord
> changes, for example, or too many pitches in a melody, can prevent a
> tune from reaching any audience at all.
> (Of course, the mass media - radio and TV - are already reduced to the
> smallest common denominator, and usually consist of programmed rhythms
> with few chords and not much, if any, melody, 'sung' by someone with
> really good hair and teeth, under 25.)
> I can't truly speak for others, but I would like everyone to hear my
> music, and do not wish to exclude anyone from it. But I will not
> lower its quality just to reach a large number of people. It has to
> move me first, otherwise I cannot play it......
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Koek Wei Chew
commitment, passion and emotion to make all kinds of music, not only
jazz.
As I watched Joe Pass's video as well as Jim Hall's Jazz Guitar
Masterclass, I just felt that they are very honest and respect
towards every kind of music, even Jim Hall admitted that he doesn't
like rock and some music drop his IQ points in interviews.
Everyone is equal, and we shouldn't mock people over what they done
best.
But somehow, alot of times, I really do look low upon music like
punks and emos alike, and I don't like their attitude either. I
feared that it was me, myself that hold on to theories and technique
too much, but still I don't felt too much of emotions towards their
music.
Just some rambling.
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Brunkhorst"
wrote:
> >
> > I wondered that people always held that opinion that there are
certain
> > music that had a higher status than another, like jazz and
classical
> > musicians are more being respected and alot of jazzmen are a
little bit
> > more ego.
> >
> > I've met some shredders and punk rockers that are quite
egoistics too.
> > And somehow I do admit that I held a lower view towards punk
music.
> >
> > Does anyone have experience on this?
> >
> > Regards
> >
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Adriel
Consider also the type of jazz may be more accessible. I play 1920s to 40s
jazz. More about melody and less about the soloist in many ways. It's about
dancing. That's still a large part of what most people access. Dance. That's
how none musicians approach music mostly. Listening to music as a listening
experience has always been a minority. Even in the days of Mozart, etc.
Ironically, jazz used to be the common man's music and classical was
elitist. At some point, in some ways that changed and jazz was elevated to
that status too.
Radio is a whole other issue. It is segregated and controlled. So using
radio as a litmus test, is a dead end way to look at jazz. Internet radio
and TVC may very well change that. Although, that brings about loads of
performance rights issues.
Jazz is hugely more popular in Europe. Especially gypsy jazz. None musicians
know the name Django. Here..'who?' is the common answer.
This could go even deeper if you look at the death of music and the arts in
general in the school system.
-Adriel
> From: Kevin Brunkhorst <brunk...@hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: <jazz_...@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:43:49 +0000
> To: <jazz_...@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [jazz_guitar] Re: Elitism in jazz
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
h575jazz_box
couple of reasons:
1. While it is true that many see music as something to dance to,
most people relate to music they can sing. people like having
something they can relate to (through some sort of story or lyrical
picture). Most jazz, being strictly instrumental, is not something
the generalpublic can relate to, or sing to themselves after the
song is over.
2. The complexity of the many chord movements (and sometimes notes
played) do not appeal to the general public (unless put to some good
lyrics...see above, i.e. a "Steely Dan" type of group). This
complexity of movement, is I believe, what attracts musicians
(especially guitar players) to the music.
Regarding the many notes being played...I agree with the instructor
quoted in a prior message...these are jazz players playing to
impress jazz players. I hear many, so called, good jazz players
flying up and down the fingerboard with great speed and
accuracy...flexing the physical skills and timing of thier
hands....and for the most part it sounds like crap! It usually ends
up sounding more like someone practicing scales than playing music.
It doen't matter how fast it is...clean it is or how many notes you
play, if it doesn't sound like music the general public is not going
to listen.
On the radio thing....this media is controled and with a great
amount of focus on making $$...but if jazz were written and played
to be more appealing to the general public.....i.e. singable,
dancable etc. the radios would play it more. I believe this is
possible without having to water down the technique and complexity
that make jazz such a wide open, fun, improvisational style of
music.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
pecpec
baseball more if you have played it. I took a visual arts appreciation
course many years ago that really helped me appreciate great vs good
vs not-so-good visual art. I myself am a terrible visual artist and
have never tryed to do much with it. I'm sure that if I did I would
have an even better educated opinion about it that I got from
classroom study. Now for my risky opinion - having started in rock and
gone to jazz I think it is simply the case that a great jazz musician
is musically higher functioning over a great rock musician in every
way. I'd add that I would rather listen to good rock than what (to my
ears) is not-so-good jazz. And there is plenty of lame jazz out there.
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Brunkhorst"
<brunkhorstk@...> wrote:
>
JVeg...@aol.com
"Ego is part of being a jazz musician, because a musician plays in order to
be heard, but is subject to the judgement of the listener. This can be
hurtful. Jazz is difficult, and can absorb a lifetime. There are often few rewards
for it. This can be hurtful too."
I think Steve Swallow said that playing jazz isn't something you do because
you want to, you do it because you have to. That of itself places a serious
jazz player in another 'space', and can create an appearance of aloofness or
perhaps 'elitism'. Add to that what's been said in this thread already about
the dumbing down of the consumer, and the fact that most serious jazz
players aren't making very much of a living, and you can make a good case for not
playing the music at all, or maybe even justify a bit of 'attitude' on the
part of the jazz musician. How many of you have ever walked off the stand after
a crummy set and received all sorts of compliments?...
Cheers,
JV
Juan Vega
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Adriel
the case in the 40s. Ellington, Goodman, Dorsey, Basie all had loads of
instrumental music that people could sing and dance to. Be-bop as innovative
as it was also killed jazz as the common man's music and made it more of an
acquired taste.
Now there is something happening that is brining old jazz back. Ballroom
dancing is hot again. So for me this is great as I love the OLD stuff but,
yes for new jazz, it's very much a minority audience. Then again let's look
at progressive rock or say rock fusion like Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, etc.
those are also niche genres and they're mainly for musicians.
The real question is where exactly is the line that makes modern jazz niche
and therefore less commercial. If you can ride the line between virtuosity
and accessibility, I think given the chance more people would listen to
jazz. There's a misconception that jazz is musical masturbation (the
aforementioned run on solos) but, that's more about lack of musical
paragraph and sentence structure, i.e. phrasing! As guitar players we can
potentially be the worst offenders as well as piano players. Only horn
players have a limit of breath, so they at least have to phrase by way of
breathing (even if the phrasing is horrible) Well unless they cycle breathe.
As far as radio, considering Clear Channel owns radio, it's either satellite
radio or internet. Clear Channel has abandoned jazz and any other none pop
commercial music for Britney, etc.
-A
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Adriel
This is something that applies to all musicians who have undertaken music as
their life's work and pleasure. You have no choice but, to do it. Every time
I've thought of quitting, I have had no choice but, to continue.
_A
> From: <JVeg...@aol.com>
> Reply-To: <jazz_...@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 12:32:52 -0400 (EDT)
> To: <jazz_...@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [jazz_guitar] Re: Elitism in jazz
>
>
> "Ego is part of being a jazz musician, because a musician plays in order to
> be heard, but is subject to the judgement of the listener. This can be
> hurtful. Jazz is difficult, and can absorb a lifetime. There are often few
> rewards
> for it. This can be hurtful too."
>
>
> I think Steve Swallow said that playing jazz isn't something you do because
> you want to, you do it because you have to. That of itself places a serious
> jazz player in another 'space', and can create an appearance of aloofness or
> perhaps 'elitism'. Add to that what's been said in this thread already about
> the dumbing down of the consumer, and the fact that most serious jazz
> players aren't making very much of a living, and you can make a good case for
> not
> playing the music at all, or maybe even justify a bit of 'attitude' on the
> part of the jazz musician. How many of you have ever walked off the stand
> after
> a crummy set and received all sorts of compliments?...
>
> Cheers,
> JV
>
> Juan Vega
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Faizal Ali
----- Original Message -----
From: pecpec
To: jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 12:09 PM
Subject: [jazz_guitar] Re: Elitism in jazz
I'd have to agree with Wynton. I think you can appreciate good
baseball more if you have played it. I took a visual arts appreciation
course many years ago that really helped me appreciate great vs good
vs not-so-good visual art. I myself am a terrible visual artist and
have never tryed to do much with it. I'm sure that if I did I would
have an even better educated opinion about it that I got from
classroom study. Now for my risky opinion - having started in rock and
gone to jazz I think it is simply the case that a great jazz musician
is musically higher functioning over a great rock musician in every
way. I'd add that I would rather listen to good rock than what (to my
ears) is not-so-good jazz. And there is plenty of lame jazz out there.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Kevin Smith
> As I played more and more, I just realised that it
> takes honesty, commitment, passion and emotion to
> make all kinds of music, not only jazz.
Well, I can respect rockers and punkers as people, but
as musicians? Not so much. I don't see how anyone
could compare pounding away of power chords and
pentatonic scales. If people someone enjoys the music
(I do sometimes) then that is great - they are
entertainers putting on a show - but to call them
"musicians" is in the same sense of a jazz musician or
classical musician makes me laugh. It would be like
someones walking up to Picasso and saying, "I'm a
painter too - I paint houses." Or someone walking up
to Maya Angalou and saying, "I'm a poet too, I write
Hallmark cards."
I've played all these kinds of music and to me, the
difference is night and day, there just is no
comparison in the musicmanship involved in writing or
performing these musics. Now, there may be some
excellent musicians hiding in the ranks of the
punkrockers, but until they chose to use their skills
for something actually skillful, I will continue to
consider them braindead entertainers performing to a
braindead audience.
> <brunkhorstk@...> wrote:
>> Who holds jazz in higher regard than other types
>> of music? Jazz musicians? Maybe some do.
>> Audiences? Surely not. It's certainly not
>> popular. ...
Don't confuse sales with respect. I feel that jazz
and classical musicians are well respected for what
they can do. That's not to say we are vauled or
wanted/needed. When I see a couple of boxers, I have
no interest in spending any time or money to watch
them pummel each other, but I can still have immense
respect for their skill and dedication and the
tremendous amount of work it took to get there.
I wish that we lived in a world where respect and
accomplishment equalled money but we don't. What
people are saying with their money is that they are
entertained. Unfortunately, the teeming masses are no
longer entertained by "high art". The teeming masses
are no longer educated in the world of art. More
people read Stephen King than Dostoevsky. More people
have seen Armagedon than any Krzysztof Kieslowski
film. More people will go to see Keanau Reeves act
than will go to see Anthony Hopkins. And of course
more people prefer the musicmanship of Madonna over
the Kronos Quartet.
That's not to say that these pop artists are more
"respected". They are just found to be more
"entertaining" and there for are more "valued" (i.e.,
"paid for") by the teeming masses.
I'm not saying that "high art" is dead. But it is
being kept alive by a minority. I'm not bitter about
this (OK, maybe the tiniest bit) but I do accept it.
I know that some of my friends will roll their eyes
when I put in a Meldau CD or try to take them to
Kirasawa film or loan them a copy of Sartre. I don't
think less of them (OK, maybe the tiniest bit), but I
do refuse to join their cult of mediocrity. If they
want to call a hamburger haut cuisine, they can go
ahead. I may even join them once in a while and enjoy
it. But don't expect me to give up my gourmet tastes
anytime soon. People will call me a nob for that. I
say that I have discriminating tastes and high
standards.
>> ... Ego is part of being a jazz musician,
>> because a musician plays in order to be heard,
>> but is subject to the judgement of the listener.
>> ...
I disagree - this is not true for everyone. I don't
play music to be heard. I play music to please myself
far more often that I do to be heard. I had a stretch
of 7 years where I didn't play any gigs and was
perfectly happy playing for my own enjoyment.
Eventually I realized that I could make more money
teaching and could make a little money playing.
That's great. That makies me a lucky man. But even
if I was the last man on earth and had no audience,
I'd still be trying to master Coltrane changes and
still writing chord melodies.
Yeah, I may be "subject to the judgement of the
listener" as to whether I get paid (or even listened
to.) But whether or not I am living up to my
potential as a musician - I'll reserve that judgement
for myself. Sure I can make more money and achieve
more adoration in a Black Eyed Peas tribute band, but
that wasn't what I was talking about. I'm talking
about self-respect and musicmanship. But we don't
live in a world where self-respect and musicmanship
are rewarded. If you want to get rich and famous,
then infamy and beauty are probably better bets that
skill and discipline.
>> "Koek Wei Chew" <wckoek@> wrote:
>>> ... jazz and classical musicians are
>>> more being respected and alot of
>>> jazzmen are a little bit more ego.
>>> I've met some shredders and punk rockers
>>> that are quite egoistics too. ...
To be honest, in my experience, the biggest egoes and
most closed minds are on the least talented musicians.
Most jazz or classical musicians have listened too
some pop music and often enjoy some of it. They may
even have some of their CDs. Many "high art"
musicians have listened to lots of genres from all
over the world. But we live in the world where
someone who listens to the last 40 years of American
rock music is considered more open minded than someone
who listens to 500 years worth of music from all over
the world. Why are we close-minded? Why are we
snobs? Because we'd rather spend $20 to go see
Russell Malone than spend $300 to go see Green Day.
Because we go against the tastes of the teeming
masses, then they are insulted and must label us are
snobs.
But enough of my ramblings.
It's all just MHO (overstuffed and full of itself
though it may be.) Sorry if I offened anyone.
Peace,
Kevin
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
John Amato
played whatever gigs came my way in the form of
rehearsed units, solo jobs, theatre gigs, shows,
musicals, restaurants, dance halls, private parties,
concerts, churches boats, (never played on a plane
yet) you name it (always preferring the "Jazz Gig" ...
'the Jazz' genre for me brings the greatest and most
amount of personal staisfaction and artistic pride of
achievement ...
... starting from roots in folk, blues, and rock in
the 60s, then graduating to Jazz, for me was a step up
and into a love affair with the music we call "Jazz"
... It's a music we play because of prefefrence ...
because of 'taste" ... not a "snopish taste" ... but
one of "cultured" preference (most jazz musicians I
know have gone to college or music school ... there
are a few exceptiosn) ... I say 'cultured' becuase
jazz requires a certain amount of disciplined
knowledge ... a certain amount of intellectualism
(not 'genuis" stuff) ... but a mindset of thoroughly
thought out approaches to the music, the instrument,
and the art of "Improvisation".
--- JVeg...@aol.com wrote:
John Amato
Isaiah 55:11
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Jeff Shirkey
> excellent musicians hiding in the ranks of the
> punkrockers, but until they chose to use their skills
> for something actually skillful, I will continue to
> consider them braindead entertainers performing to a
> braindead audience.
My view is that this sort of statement embodies the precise nature of
the elitism that's at issue. I happen to see plenty of musical and
artistic value in artists like Elvis, James Brown, Otis Redding, Bob
Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, The Beatles, The Stones, U2, and on and on.
Is this music as complex as jazz? No, certainly not. But that doesn't
diminish its value and artistic worth. And certainly people who
listen to these and other artists aren't brain dead. Well...ok...some
of them may be. ;) But I still think the artistic merit of the music
is considerable.
For one thing, when you combine lyrics (which are essentially poetry)
with music, that changes the nature of the art form quite a bit. A
new kind of artistic statement is made that doesn't depend solely on
the musical skills of the artists to do things like improvise of the
changes, and so forth.
I suppose what I'm saying is that Wes Montgomery affects me in ways
that The Stones don't--but also vice versa. And there's plenty of
room in my music collection for both of them.
Jeff
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
John Cebula
I think the same holds true for all forms of music. My wife works for a symphonic orchestra as a business manager, so I attend a lot of concerts. The program notes add to my enjoyment, but essentially my response is emotional rather than intellectual (it's just the opposite when I read a novel). However, the more I learn about the conventions of the music, the more I take from the experience. Maybe both Marsalises are right!
As for "elitism in jazz," my wife also plays jazz alto, so I've met a fair number of jazzers. Except for reticience about rap, almost to a person the jazzers I've met are the most receptive to different musical genres and the most musically conversant musicians I've met (and I'll stress this is entirely personal). Although I've played rock for many years, I have a long way to go before I'll call myself a guitarist, let alone a jazz guitarist, but I remember talking to a rhythm guitar player in a big band ensemble several years ago, who told me that he admired the way rockers can bend notes, do hammer-ons and pull-offs, etc. He made me less self-conscious about my roots.
As a final thought, if jazz isn't egalitarian, what kind of music is?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Kevin Smith
> I happen to see plenty of musical and
> artistic value in artists like Elvis, James Brown,
> Otis Redding, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, The
> Beatles, The Stones, U2, and on and on.
I enjoy some of that music too. But I don't fool
myself that into thinking that these guys are great
musicians. From a purely musical stand point, would
you sit through a two hour instrumental concert of the
music Dylan or Elvis? These guys wrote some pretty
songs, wrote some nifty lyrics, and connected with the
zietgheist of their generation, but I don't think that
musicians will be sitting around analyzing their
musicmanship. Even today, I have yet to see a class
called "A Critical Analysis of Bob Dylan's use of the
I, IV and V Chords" or "Interpretaions of the use of
the Minor Pentatonic Scale by the Rolling Stones" at
the university. But I do see classes, seminars and
lectures on real musicians.
> ...
> But that doesn't diminish its value and
> artistic worth. ...
I'm not saying that it has no value or artistic worth.
I'm saying that it is not "musically significant."
And I don't think that they are trying to be that. I
think that they are trying to write some nice songs,
some catchy lyrics, get laid and make a little bread.
There is nothing wrong with that. Heck, if I could do
it as well as they could, I might do it myself. But
if I had, I hope that I wouldn't delude myself into
thinking that I was a musician in the same sense of
Bach or Coltrane.
> And certainly people who listen to these
> and other artists aren't brain dead.
> Well...ok...some of them may be. ;) ...
Of course, I was being hyperbolic. And the real sin,
IMHO, isn't listening to these, but in thinking that
these guys are musicians in the same sense of Bach or
Coltrane.
> But I still think the artistic
> merit of the music is considerable.
But I'm not talking about the broad category of
"artistic merit". I'm talking narrowly as
musicmanship. Britney Spears may be an "artist", but
I cringe when I hear people refer to her as a
"musician".
> For one thing, when you combine lyrics (which are
> essentially poetry)...
OK, this is another of my pet peeves, the "lyrics are
poetry" thing. With VERY few exceptions, lyrics don't
even come close to poetry. They are sophmoric,
solipsistic, and insipid. Go to your local poetry
section and see how many books of lyrics there are.
Sure, a few current "sensative artists", but after
they fade from the pages of Rolling Stone Magazine,
their books go to the discount bin. They still sell
Keats and still study Dickenson and 100 years from now
they still will. Can we say the same of Dylan and
Springsteen. I think that they are great song
writers, but that is not the same thing as poetry.
> A new kind of artistic statement is made
> that doesn't depend solely on the musical
> skills of the artists to do things like
> improvise of the changes, and so forth.
But I am specifically talking about musical skill. I
would agree that the listed people are skilled pop
preformers.
And for the record, I don't consider improvisation the
only outlet of "musical skill". Composition and
techincal performance are also important outlets.
I guess my big bone to pick is the lowering of
standards in our culture. With the industrial
revolution and democratization of the western world,
we've become so obsessed with lifting up the common
man, that we've forgotten to aspire to the uncommon.
We've forgoten that "the elite" used to be a good
thing. I'm not talking about people who are elite by
birth or bank account, but by vision, hard work and
accomplishments. If wanting to separate the
accomplishments of truly great and timeless artists
from the mundane work of people who don't have any
intelligent understanding of what they are trying to
do - if this makes me an elitist, then I'll proudly
wear that badge. I may listen to some Beatle CDs, but
if people ask me who are the great musicians in my
collection, I'm heading for Bach and Coltrane. I
enhoy a hamburger from time to time, but if someone
asks me where to get a gourmet meal, I'm not sending
them to Wendy's.
I could keep going for an hour on the subject, but
I'll spare you all.
Again, my intention is not to offend, merely to share
my opinion.
Peace,
Kevin
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Fernando
art' without the snootiness or shame ... both can be extremely clever
cheerio
fernando
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Smith <ksjazzguitarnews@...>
wrote:
>
(snip)
> I
> enhoy a hamburger from time to time, but if someone
> asks me where to get a gourmet meal, I'm not sending
> them to Wendy's.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Jeff Shirkey
On May 22, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Fernando wrote:
> Good analogy. I think we can appreciate 'high art' and also enjoy 'low
> art'
My point: The best of rock, folk, blues and even pop is not "low art".
Jeff
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Jeff Shirkey
>
> I enjoy some of that music too. But I don't fool
> myself that into thinking that these guys are great
> musicians. From a purely musical stand point, would
> you sit through a two hour instrumental concert of the
> music Dylan or Elvis?
No, but I wouldn't sit through even 15 minutes of Coltrane singing
either. My point? They simply do different things, and we ought to
judge them by different criteria.
> These guys wrote some pretty
> songs, wrote some nifty lyrics, and connected with the
> zietgheist of their generation, but I don't think that
> musicians will be sitting around analyzing their
> musicmanship. Even today, I have yet to see a class
> called "A Critical Analysis of Bob Dylan's use of the
> I, IV and V Chords" or "Interpretaions of the use of
> the Minor Pentatonic Scale by the Rolling Stones" at
> the university.
You obviously haven't looked here:
http://www.music.indiana.edu/som/generalstudies/courses.shtml
The courses there aren't *exactly* what you have in mind above, but
many are very close. And IU's music school is one of the best in the
country. These and other courses are offered as general studies
courses, but they are taken seriously by the faculty who teach there.
For the record, I am an IU grad, BA and MA.
>
> I'm not saying that it has no value or artistic worth.
> I'm saying that it is not "musically significant."
> And I don't think that they are trying to be that. I
> think that they are trying to write some nice songs,
> some catchy lyrics, get laid and make a little bread.
You diminish the importance and impact of the art form. If all
Springsteen did was write catchy tunes for mass consumption, I (and
scores of others) would have no interest whatsoever. There's a world
of difference between artists with integrity (like Bruce) and someone
like Britney Spears. I suppose I object to the fact that you lump
them all together into one pot. There are very important differences
between them.
>
>> For one thing, when you combine lyrics (which are
>> essentially poetry)...
>
> OK, this is another of my pet peeves, the "lyrics are
> poetry" thing. With VERY few exceptions, lyrics don't
> even come close to poetry.
Well, again, I cited artists whose lyrics do, in many cases, rise to
the rank of poetry. But that's really not all that important to my
argument, when all is said and done. When you introduce lyrics into
the equation the impact of the musical statement as a whole changes.
Words convey meaning(s) which, combined with music, produce an
emotional/artistic impact that neither could achieve on their own.
> They are sophmoric,
> solipsistic, and insipid.
Maybe Britney's songs, but not Dylan's. Not Springsteen's.
> They still sell
> Keats and still study Dickenson and 100 years from now
> they still will. Can we say the same of Dylan and
> Springsteen.
A couple of comments. First of all, the fact that people revere Keats
and Dickenson (and scores of others) is a product of certain sets of
assumptions about what constitutes great poetry that are certainly
*not* timeless, nor are they without all kinds of cultural (and
other) biases. So I reject out of hand the argument that Keats (et
al) stand for all time as being worthy of being labeled "classic
poets" or some such thing. Second, yes, I do think that people will
be talking about and studying Dylan and Springsteen generations from
now.
>
> I guess my big bone to pick is the lowering of
> standards in our culture.
But that's precisely my point. There are different sets of criteria,
hence different standards when judging the worth of different types
of music. I really enjoy Allan Holdsworth, and he inspires me and
moves me in a lot of ways, not least of which is his technical
prowess on the instrument. I also love BB King who can slay my with a
single, well-placed note. Tell me then. Who is the better musician?
By what criteria do you care to judge them?
> With the industrial
> revolution and democratization of the western world,
> we've become so obsessed with lifting up the common
> man, that we've forgotten to aspire to the uncommon.
That's a nice rhetorical flourish (and part of me even tends to
agree), but I'm not sure you have any proof that could back up that
claim.
> We've forgoten that "the elite" used to be a good
> thing. I'm not talking about people who are elite by
> birth or bank account, but by vision, hard work and
> accomplishments. If wanting to separate the
> accomplishments of truly great and timeless artists
> from the mundane work of people who don't have any
> intelligent understanding of what they are trying to
> do - if this makes me an elitist, then I'll proudly
> wear that badge. I may listen to some Beatle CDs, but
> if people ask me who are the great musicians in my
> collection, I'm heading for Bach and Coltrane.
I actually agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly (except the idea
that anything is "timeless"...that's a Romantic sentiment and
assumption that I reject), but I'm willing to include a whole lot
more artists (and, yes, I would call them "musicians") in that
elite list.
>
> Again, my intention is not to offend, merely to share
> my opinion.
Likewise...
Jeff
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Brian
Some say classical music is the ultimate "high art". No, it's not creativity (unless you composed it) it is interpretation. This begs the argument if, in fact interpretation less "artful" than composition......or is it just as artful but different?
Taking the question further, is a jazz player's version of, say, a Beatles song higher art than the original act of composition? Is a jazz guitar player's improvisation on a Beatles song higher art than the original George Harrison less is more approach to soloing?
Is substituting Em7-Eb9-Abma7-Dbma7 for C-Am-F-G higher art or just different?
It's all interpretation. I personally find more bs in a Kenny G recording than in "School Days" by Chuck Berry. But then again like Dennis Miller says....It's only my opinion, I may be wrong. Or something to that effect.
Keeping score in music is like the government trying to legislate morality....It doesn't work.
Peace to everybody...this world can use it.
Brian
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
John Cebula
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Donnie Loeffler
I guess I have to say this becuase alot of artists get confused:
just becuase something is complex doesn't make it any better or have a
higher intrinsic value...I respect all artists who really research and
deevelop their trade..doesn't matter what kind of genre either, does
that mean it's "my bag" or that I'm going to "enjoy" it or "support
it" NO , but I will respect it...the only artists who I don't respect
are those who offer their trade or talent for free...(and I'm not
talking about those who will offer it to a REAL non for profit org!)
Also, let me say that how much money earned isn't the issue, either!
If that's the case, jazz certainly wouldn't be high on the list, or
classical these days...it's the fact and notion that you, the artist,
believe that your talent is worth a reasonable amount of money/value
for your services, is certainly acceptable...
Heritage has nothing to do it with either, just becuase many forms of
music have a "heritage" that doesn't make them any better than other
forms of art or music...
It's simple, if you're audience believes they have been entertained,
that's the bottom line!
Sincerely,
Donnie Loeffler
singer/songwriter/composer/ - jazz and a little bit of everthing else!
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, John Cebula <joceb2005@...> wrote:
>
> Just for the record, I remember reading a statement by Paul Simon
that his lyrics aren't poetry, and that anyone who confused his lyrics
with poetry neither understood Simon's lyrics nor what poetry was. In
a similar vein, Elton John said he wrote "musical Kleenex" (which is a
fairly decent metaphor).
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Everything you need is one click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Jeff Shirkey
On May 22, 2006, at 7:26 PM, John Cebula wrote:
> Just for the record, I remember reading a statement by Paul Simon
> that his lyrics aren't poetry, and that anyone who confused his
> lyrics with poetry neither understood Simon's lyrics nor what
> poetry was.
This opens up a huge can of worms, but here goes. If someone else
(let's say it's a literary scholar) says that Paul Simon's lyrics are
poetry, whose claims do we believe? The artist's or the scholar/
critic's? In many cases (I may even argue *all* cases) the artist is
usually the last person to know the full significance of his (or her)
art, and is also often the last person who gets to make
pronouncements about its status, influence, and so forth.
> In a similar vein, Elton John said he wrote "musical
> Kleenex" (which is a fairly decent metaphor).
Considering that Bernie Taupin wrote the lyrics, I suppose I'd like
to read that quote in context. I doubt Elton John could have been
referring to lyrics at all, since he didn't write them.
Jeff
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
DAVID RUDICK
Well, anything that has an "F' hole and a "G String" is high art to me...but then again, I ain't that sophisticated.
Glenn Gould wasn't above making up voices and silly little tales...and I dare say he was a decent player.
To me "History of the World, Part 1" is about as good as it gets...Mel Brooks a genius...
I have to admit though, I just can't get behind Ted Nugent...To me, I rather be stuck in an elevator with a Jehovah's witness, a born again and an insurance salesman...at least they are trying to help others.
Oh yeah, and Bob Dylan...a total genius when your in the mood...a whiner when you aint.
Be good,
DR
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Fernando
music' are NOT the same thing ... also 'low art' does NOT necessarily
mean 'rubbish'...
BTW who's seen 'Jerry Springer the Opera'?
Fernando
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Shirkey <jcshirke@...> wrote:
>
>
> On May 22, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Fernando wrote:
>
> > Good analogy. I think we can appreciate 'high art' and also enjoy 'low
> > art'
>
> My point: The best of rock, folk, blues and even pop is not "low art".
>
> Jeff
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Fernando
(snip)
Testosterone theatrics LOL
>To me, I rather be stuck in an elevator with a Jehovah's witness, a
born again and an insurance salesman...at least they are trying to
help others.
LOL you got the first two right LOL not sure about the insurance
salesman though... LOL
ski...@geusnet.com
and the girls, and I haven't seen either since I've been here...
Skip
========================================================
Quoting Donnie Loeffler <more...@yahoo.com>:
"....Also, let me say that how much money earned isn't the issue, either!
If that's the case, jazz certainly wouldn't be high on the list, or
classical these days..."
minordjango
everything is as good as everything else is postmodernism. It
permeates our society. If this is true, then nothing is bad. "One
man's trash is another man's treasure, and who am I to judge?" Giving
up the ability, or the willingness, to judge between good and bad in
art can be dangerous.
Oh well, that being said, I love James Brown, T-Bone Walker and Bob
Dylan, but I can distinguish between them and 50 Cent or Toby Keith
on the one hand, and Mozart or Duke Ellington on the other. Some are
good, some bad, some high, some low. Regardless, Maya Angelou and Bob
Dylan are not "as good as" Shakespeare and Dante. Never in a million
years.
Cheers
minordjango
Ronald Murray
mass appeal product, hardly high art.
On May 22, 2006, at 7:33 PM, Jeff Shirkey wrote:
>
> On May 22, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Fernando wrote:
>
> > Good analogy. I think we can appreciate 'high art' and also enjoy
> 'low
> > art'
>
> My point: The best of rock, folk, blues and even pop is not "low art".
>
> Jeff
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Guitar chords Guitar music Guitar sheet music
> Jazz music Jazz guitar Jazz guitarists
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> Visit your group "jazz_guitar" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> jazz_guitar...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Everything you need is one click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Fernando
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "minordjango" <tnita@...> wrote:
>
> One thing concerns me a bit in discussions like this. The idea that
> everything is as good as everything else is postmodernism.
yeah but also keep in mind tha PoMo is about taking the mick as well
i.e. what you may face value as a 'loadarrubbish' may well carry a lot
of hidden references that were simply not reckoned. If so, you've just
made the guy's day!
> It
> permeates our society. If this is true, then nothing is bad.
democratisation of art, yes...
"One
> man's trash is another man's treasure, and who am I to judge?" Giving
> up the ability, or the willingness, to judge between good and bad in
> art can be dangerous.
it's not dangerous, it's just being out of touch with the times ...
about a century or so LOL!
cheerio
fernando
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
ski...@geusnet.com
has its own niche in mass appeal, as evidenced by its airtime on certain radio
stations.
Skip
=============================
Quoting Ronald Murray <rmu...@snet.net>:
> Of course it is. Low art, that is. Especially pop music, which is
> mass appeal product, hardly high art.
> On May 22, 2006, at 7:33 PM, Jeff Shirkey wrote:
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Kevin Smith
> So, where does the so-called "easy jazz" fit into
> this line of thinking? It
> has its own niche in mass appeal, as evidenced by
> its airtime on certain radio
> stations.
The absolutes only hold up in theory. In reality
there is a gradual continuum with a healthy mix of
subjectivity.
Peace,
Kevin
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Kevin Smith
Coltrane sings? I wasn't aware that I criticized
Springsteen for not playing tenor. If I did, I
apologize.
> You obviously haven't looked here:
> [College courses on pop musicians.]
Interesting. But they seem to be courses for
non-music majors. I doubt that they would be accepted
as core music curriculum. Don't get me wrong, I think
that these are a great way to get people who know
nothing about the mechanics of music to understand
some of the skill that goes into writing a pop tune
(and I would agree that the Beatles did this with
considerable skill.) But to compare the musicmanship
in Sgt Peppers and The Brandenburg Concertos is
bizarre. Someone may like one over the other, but to
put their music (just the music, nothing else) on the
same plane is just incomprehensible to me.
> You diminish the importance and impact of the art
> form. If all
> Springsteen did was write catchy tunes for mass
> consumption, I (and
> scores of others) would have no interest whatsoever.
> There's a world
> of difference between artists with integrity (like
> Bruce) and someone
> like Britney Spears. ...
But you're still not getting the point that I'm
talking about the music and nothing else. I don't
care if they write catchy lyrics (of which Springsteen
is a master) or how they comb their hair or how good
of a concert they give, how good they look in a pair
of jeans or how good or a concert they give or how
good they record or how good they are at putting a
group together or how good they are at working the
music industry machine or how good they are at makeing
girls swoon or firng up boys gonads or how good they
are at speaking to the angst to a certain generation
or teenagers. I'm talking about the MUSIC. Does it
stand on it's own? That is the test of good music.
(IMHO) When you take it out of it's context, does it
stand on it's own.
Yes, I consider Greetings for Asbury Park to be one of
the greatest albums of all time. But not because it
is great music. Yes, the music is functional and well
played and - more imortantly - serves the more
significant aspect of Springsteen: his lyrics. But if
you strip everything else away and just play Mary
Queen of Arkansas as an instrumental, it looses it's
luster.
> I suppose I object to the fact that you
> lump them all together into one pot.
> [Springsteen and Spears] ...
Yes, I confess, a cheap rhetorical jab.
> Well, again, I cited artists whose lyrics do,
> in many cases, rise to the rank of poetry.
> ... I do think that people will be talking
> about and studying Dylan and Springsteen
> generations from now.
Well, we're all entitled to our opinions. But can you
name any current scholarship on the poetry of Dylan or
Springfield? I scan the the poetry section of the
bookstore from time to time and I don't recall any
scholarly works on these guys. This is quite
remarkable considering how many of the current writers
probably grew up with these guys. But they (along
with Paul Simon apparently) realize that there is a
difference. I think that the baby boomer generation
tends to elevate these guys because they spoke to
their generation. (Every generation tends to elevate
the important of their artists. But baby boomers seem
to not realize that there are generations of people
who couldn't care less about the 60's.) But I don't
meet too many guys under the age of 40 who are reading
Dylan's lyrics. I am however currently reading a
biography of Edna St. Vincent Milay and am stunned by
the beauty of her poetry. The Times Are A-changin' and
Blinded by the Light may be great songs, but will
people be analyzing them 50 years from now? Based on
the fact that they aren't being to well studied now,
so close to when their candle was burning, I highly
doubt it. Sure I've seen a few anthologies of lyrics
(usually in the bargain bin), but no scholarly work.
And I don't like the term "high music" or "high art"
because that implies a "lowness" on the other side of
the coin. I think of "art music", i.e. music
addressed to people who know something about music,
either as a musician or an educated listener. The
opposite side of the coin is "folk music", i.e. music
addressed to the masses, to the common man. That is
not meant to be an insult. We need folk art. And
that is not to say that the categories are black and
white - there is a lot of gray area in there.
I love Duck a l'Orange, but I would hate to live in a
world where I couldn't get greasy burger when I was in
the mood. I'm sorry if the guy at Wendy's is offended
that I don't hold his skills in the same regard as the
4-star chef who has spent 30 years honing his skills.
It was not my intention to offend anyone. I just know
that a greasy burger and a Coke doesn't take much
skill as a 5-course gourmet meal and a fine bottle of
wine does. Which tastes better? That is certainly
debatable. Depending on my mood, I may go either way.
Which takes more skill and study and a more
sophisticated pallate to appreciate? I hope that that
is obvious. To anyone to whom that is not obvious, I
guess that we will never see eye to eye.
Well, I've said enough on this OT subject and am
reapeating myself so unless something shockingly new
gets raised, I'll bow out of the discussion.
I think I need a burger for lunch.
Peace,
Kevin
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Jeff Shirkey
On May 23, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Ronald Murray wrote:
> Of course it is. Low art, that is. Especially pop music, which is
> mass appeal product, hardly high art.
What a sweeping statement. You dismiss all of pop (and blues, rock,
and folk as well?) in one fell swoop as "low art"? Meanwhile, you
haven't provided any sort of criteria to distinguish "high art" from
"low", and you haven't clarified how and why "high art" has greater
value. You also appear to make another assumption. Namely, if
something has "mass appeal", it can't be "high" (is that synonymous
with good? valuable? great?) art. And, again, you fail to make
clarify why that should be the case.
Needless to say, I couldn't disagree with you more, and I've tried to
provide some compelling reasons (rather than mere assertions) for why
other forms of music besides jazz have artistic merit.
Jeff
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Ronald Murray
without the vocalist. Bears the same relationship to art as Thomas
Kincade's "paintings". Junk.
On May 23, 2006, at 11:16 AM, ski...@geusnet.com wrote:
> So, where does the so-called "easy jazz" fit into this line of
> thinking? It
> has its own niche in mass appeal, as evidenced by its airtime on
> certain radio
> stations.
>
> Skip
>
> =============================
>
>
>
> Quoting Ronald Murray <rmu...@snet.net>:
>
> > Of course it is. Low art, that is. Especially pop music, which is
> > mass appeal product, hardly high art.
> > On May 22, 2006, at 7:33 PM, Jeff Shirkey wrote:
> >
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Guitar chords Guitar music Guitar sheet music
> Jazz music Jazz guitar Jazz guitarists
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> Visit your group "jazz_guitar" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> jazz_guitar...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Ronald Murray
rather easy targets. And you have jumped in with both feet with your
assumptions that high art has higher value than low art, something I
never stated or implied. Since the discussion is about elitism, which
some consider a dirty word, it seems, let me make this observation:
high art has much less popular appeal than low art, in general. Pop
music, folk music and blues are all the lowest common denominator of
what's available in creating music. This is not to say that any or
all of those styles don't have compelling performers or tunes. It's
just a simple truth that classical and jazz music takes many times
the discipline, knowledge and talent than the others. And that the
final result is much more likely to find a place in the world of high
art, which includes architecture, sculpture, painting, poetry and
some kinds of writing. Pop music belongs with comedy, graphic novels
and bead stringing as low art. However, the value society places on
the products is very skewed because of trends, fashion and pure
numbers. the Beatles have made far more money than Beethoven; yet
none of them would have claimed to be on the same level as Beethoven.
I feel that elitism is a necessary aspect of the pursuit of moving
civilization forward, and that the high arts influence the low arts
in a positive way, except when the almighty dollar is the only
measure. As a jazz and classical musician who has done his share of
blues, rock, pop and folk gigs, live and recorded, i can tell you
that I have hung out with many superstars who are envious of my
dedication, depth of knowledge and mastery of my instrument. And, by
the way, I haven't "dismissed" anything. I'm as big a Hendrix and
Clapton and Jeff Beck fan as you'll find anywhere, because of the
emotional content of their statements, but I will not put them on the
same artistic level as Charlie Christian, Wes Montgomery or John
Williams. Ackowledging that a Chevy is not a BMW is just recognizing
reality.
On May 23, 2006, at 1:53 PM, Jeff Shirkey wrote:
>
> On May 23, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Ronald Murray wrote:
>
> > Of course it is. Low art, that is. Especially pop music, which is
> > mass appeal product, hardly high art.
>
> What a sweeping statement. You dismiss all of pop (and blues, rock,
> and folk as well?) in one fell swoop as "low art"? Meanwhile, you
> haven't provided any sort of criteria to distinguish "high art" from
> "low", and you haven't clarified how and why "high art" has greater
> value. You also appear to make another assumption. Namely, if
> something has "mass appeal", it can't be "high" (is that synonymous
> with good? valuable? great?) art. And, again, you fail to make
> clarify why that should be the case.
>
> Needless to say, I couldn't disagree with you more, and I've tried to
> provide some compelling reasons (rather than mere assertions) for why
> other forms of music besides jazz have artistic merit.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Guitar chords Guitar music Guitar sheet music
> Jazz music Jazz guitar Jazz guitarists
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> Visit your group "jazz_guitar" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> jazz_guitar...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Jeff Shirkey
> Coltrane sings? I wasn't aware that I criticized
> Springsteen for not playing tenor. If I did, I
> apologize.
You suggested that we'd both be bored stiff listening to Dylan play
instrumentals or improvise over I-IV-Vs for 2 hours--which, of
course, he doesn't do. Just as Coltrane doesn't sing. So, I just
objected to the comparison.
>
>> You obviously haven't looked here:
>> [College courses on pop musicians.]
>
> Interesting. But they seem to be courses for
> non-music majors.
Some are, but many are not.
Ok, this seems to be your point then. If we are *only* talking about
the music, then your assertion is that jazz (or classical music) has
a more a complicated musical form than blues, rock, etc. And jazz
musicians employ greater skill in navigating (or composing in) that
form. You'll certainly get no argument from me. That's a truism. And
I suppose my response is: So what? I honestly don't know what
important generalizations or conclusions you can draw from the
statement, "Jazz artists are very talented musicians." Right...and...?
Jeff
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
ski...@geusnet.com
recently with various artists held in very high esteem on this list - Martino,
Metheny, Burrell, Green, and others. So, now I'm really confused....
========================================================================
Quoting Ronald Murray <rmu...@snet.net>:
> Easy jazz, smooth jazz, however you call it, is merely pop fluff
> without the vocalist. Bears the same relationship to art as Thomas
> Kincade's "paintings". Junk.
>
> On May 23, 2006, at 11:16 AM, ski...@geusnet.com wrote:
>
> > So, where does the so-called "easy jazz" fit into this line of
> > thinking? It
> > has its own niche in mass appeal, as evidenced by its airtime on
> > certain radio
> > stations.
> >
> > Skip
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Everything you need is one click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
thegoodwizard
significance to this thread. Isn't any formula music really just a
construction, crafted to pre determined specications? Not that some
can't be very well done, mind you. There is crafted music that is
delightful. True art, on the other hand, seems to unfold from an inner
source.
I may be wrong, but if it comes from the heart instead of the head, it
seems to have a claim of being more 'artistic'. If music 'moves'
people, doesn't that seem to be a primary function of art?
Now, there are also blends of the 2. And some people consider art,
craft... and others craft, art.
Confusing, ain't it?
;0)
Doc
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, skipper@... wrote:
>
> Interesting. I saw an easy jazz cd ("relaxing guitar" I think they
called it)
> recently with various artists held in very high esteem on this list
- Martino,
> Metheny, Burrell, Green, and others. So, now I'm really confused....
>
> ========================================================================
>
Ronald Murray
with creation.Relaxing guitar is not an "easy jazz" format; it's just
a way to sell CDs. these are compendiums of ballad performances, not
smooth jazz recordings.
On May 23, 2006, at 3:50 PM, ski...@geusnet.com wrote:
> Interesting. I saw an easy jazz cd ("relaxing guitar" I think they
> called it)
> recently with various artists held in very high esteem on this list
> - Martino,
> Metheny, Burrell, Green, and others. So, now I'm really confused....
>
> ======================================================================
> ==
>
> Quoting Ronald Murray <rmu...@snet.net>:
>
> > Easy jazz, smooth jazz, however you call it, is merely pop fluff
> > without the vocalist. Bears the same relationship to art as Thomas
> > Kincade's "paintings". Junk.
> >
> > On May 23, 2006, at 11:16 AM, ski...@geusnet.com wrote:
> >
> > > So, where does the so-called "easy jazz" fit into this line of
> > > thinking? It
> > > has its own niche in mass appeal, as evidenced by its airtime on
> > > certain radio
> > > stations.
> > >
> > > Skip
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Guitar chords Guitar music Guitar sheet music
> Jazz music Jazz guitar Jazz guitarists
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> Visit your group "jazz_guitar" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> jazz_guitar...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Donnie Loeffler
I remember this argument in a philosophy class in college. I think
the answer lies in the person recieving or perceiving the art in
question. If they think it's great, it must be; if they think it's
crap, it must be...this is very subjective in nature. Also, some
great artists don't really get too involved in their process or
performance...they simply "do it" or "feel it". I mean, there are
times when a person might be playing a great solo and in the back of
their mind, they're deciding what they want to eat after the
show...how would the listner know? I think there is little
difference between art and craft...I'm sure there is a definition of
difference, but that's the job of a dictionary, not a person who
wishes to entertained, amused, intrigued , or simply curious...
Donnie Loeffler
=====================================================================
===
> >
> > Quoting Ronald Murray <rmurray@>:
> >
> > > Easy jazz, smooth jazz, however you call it, is merely pop
fluff
> > > without the vocalist. Bears the same relationship to art as
Thomas
> > > Kincade's "paintings". Junk.
> > >
> > > On May 23, 2006, at 11:16 AM, skipper@ wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, where does the so-called "easy jazz" fit into this line
of
> > > > thinking? It
> > > > has its own niche in mass appeal, as evidenced by its
airtime on
> > > > certain radio
> > > > stations.
> > > >
> > > > Skip
> >
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Fernando
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, Ronald Murray <rmurray@...> wrote:
(snip)
> Pop
> music, folk music and blues are all the lowest common denominator of
> what's available in creating music.
(snip)
> It's
> just a simple truth that classical and jazz music takes many times
> the discipline, knowledge and talent than the others.
(snip)
> And that the
> final result is much more likely to find a place in the world of high
> art, (...) Pop music belongs with comedy, graphic novels
> and bead stringing as low art.
(snip)
> I feel that elitism is a necessary aspect of the pursuit of moving
> civilization forward
(snip)
> the high arts influence the low arts
> in a positive way,
(snip)
> i can tell you
> that I have hung out with many superstars who are envious of my
> dedication, depth of knowledge and mastery of my instrument.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
JVeg...@aol.com
Hey, wait a minute! The whole reason I joined this group was for the money
and the girls, and I haven't seen either since I've been here...
That was the demo...
Cheers,
JV
Juan Vega
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Everything you need is one click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
John Amato
definition of "what makes art" .. immediately a faker
comes along and dupes it for for the sheer ability
that he/she can AND for the sheer "absence of a
personal vision" he/she robs "vision" and steals it
for his own ...
... there has always been real art (real artists with
a personal vision) and fakers who could imitate and
make 'perfect" forgeries and pass them off as art
(never minding or possessing a personal vision other
than $$$$$$) ... ever since the beginning of time ...
...we sometimes get so bound up in what thy so called
"experts" tell us is "art" ....
Ruudyard Kipling said it so well...(I quote only his
first stanza...) ... let me know if you want
additional stanzas ...
...excerpted from "The Conundrum of the Workshops"
" When the flush of a new-born sun fell first on
Eden's green and gold,
Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with
a stick in the mould;
And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was
joy to his mighty heart,
Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, "It's
pretty, but is it Art?""
ab
--- thegoodwizard <d...@doctoraudio.com> wrote:
John Amato
Isaiah 55:11
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
thegoodwizard
I know what I like, and I guess the labels don't mean a thing in the end.
I appreciate some great art and some great craftsmanship. Other stuff
leaves me cold or doesn't interest me. It's all subjective to me. I'll
leave it to others to label, number and catagorize...
;0)
Doc
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "Donnie Loeffler" <morebebop@...>
wrote:
Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Kevin Smith
>> Springsteen for not playing tenor. If I did, I
>> apologize.
>
> You suggested that we'd both be bored stiff
> listening to Dylan play
> instrumentals or improvise over I-IV-Vs for 2
I wasn't talking about Dylan playing instrumentally.
I'm talking about the MUSIC. I don't care about the
personalities. I'm talking about MUSIC. The MUSIC
can't stand on it's own. Just the MUSIC. That's what
a musician does, is make MUSIC. Anything else falls
into another category. Even a hybrid category is no
longer purely MUSIC.
Peace,
Kevin
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Ernesto Schnack
"low art" is awful terminology. I agre with
Kevin's use of "art music", which menas music
that requires a certain knowledge and education
to appreciate.
Also your separation of certain crafts into
"high" and "low" art...any creative venue can be
very simple or taken to great heights of
intricacy and complexity. It is just a vehicle
for the individual.
I find that the whole concept of "art" has always
been vague which is why these arguments never go
anywhere. That's not odd, since the concept of
art as we know it today hasn't been around very
long...
But if we say Beethoven's 9th is a great work of
art, is it because of the amount of craftmanship
involved? Or is it becasue it touches our heart?
(Or more cynically, because everybody tells us
it's a great work of art...).
So if Dylan touches our heart, but doesn't have
the craftmanship of Beethoven (or a Keats for
that matter) that makes it "less" art? So are we
comparing artistry or fine craftmanship? Are we
comparing how they used the tools they had to
communicate something, or comparing the amount of
tools?
I think in the end this really comes down to ones
own values as well as one's culture. It's not a
bout who's better or more important, or "higher"
or "lower". It's about what's important to YOU
and what values you seek in your environment.
That is the role of art and music in our world,
to reflect our values and beliefs. That's it.
Ernesto
> From: "Ronald Murray" rmu...@snet.net
> Date: Tue May 23, 2006 0:23pm(PDT)
> Subject: Re: Elitism in jazz
>
> You'll have to excuse my fun; this type of
> discussion creates some
> rather easy targets. And you have jumped in
> with both feet with your
> assumptions that high art has higher value than
> low art, something I
> never stated or implied. Since the discussion
> is about elitism, which
> some consider a dirty word, it seems, let me
> make this observation:
> high art has much less popular appeal than low
> art, in general. Pop
> music, folk music and blues are all the lowest
> common denominator of
> what's available in creating music. This is not
> to say that any or
> all of those styles don't have compelling
> performers or tunes. It's
> just a simple truth that classical and jazz
> music takes many times
> the discipline, knowledge and talent than the
> others. And that the
> final result is much more likely to find a
> place in the world of high
> art, which includes architecture, sculpture,
> painting, poetry and
> some kinds of writing. Pop music belongs with
> comedy, graphic novels
> and bead stringing as low art. However, the
> value society places on
> the products is very skewed because of trends,
> fashion and pure
> numbers. the Beatles have made far more money
> than Beethoven; yet
> none of them would have claimed to be on the
> same level as Beethoven.
> I feel that elitism is a necessary aspect of
> the pursuit of moving
> civilization forward, and that the high arts
> influence the low arts
> in a positive way, except when the almighty
> dollar is the only
> measure. As a jazz and classical musician who
> has done his share of
> blues, rock, pop and folk gigs, live and
> recorded, i can tell you
> that I have hung out with many superstars who
> are envious of my
> dedication, depth of knowledge and mastery of
> my instrument. And, by
> the way, I haven't "dismissed" anything. I'm as
> big a Hendrix and
> Clapton and Jeff Beck fan as you'll find
> anywhere, because of the
> emotional content of their statements, but I
> will not put them on the
> same artistic level as Charlie Christian, Wes
> Montgomery or John
> Williams. Ackowledging that a Chevy is not a
> BMW is just recognizing
> reality.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Fernando
sometime ago at the Tate Modern in London. It's nothing particularly
relevant but for some reason, it always makes me smile every time it
comes to mind. So I'm in this room surrounded by modern paintings
everywhere and close by there's these two sisters about 4 and 6 - not
more than that - both staring up at a painting by Ferdinand Leger. I
mean, you should have heard the dialogue between the two! It was so
funny! I can't remember the exact words but it was something like,
(the younger): "what's this painting?"
(the older): "oh it's a painting by a famous artist!"
(the younger): "hmmm (pause) 'you like it?"
(the older): "of course!"
(the younger): "why?"
(the older) : "oh because if daddy likes it then it must be good!"
Priceless! Absolutely priceless :-) The younger actually created a
critical space whereas the older that critical space seemed to have
already been unquestionably repressed by the existence/awareness of a
patriarchal entity (her father in this case)
To others, this entity may appear in the form of god, king, the
virtuoso composer, foxnews, hitler, etc ... and it is usually this
entity - an established form of power, if you will - that sets the
standards of what is 'high art' and what is not, and we are certainly
led to comply under the constant sense of fear from some form of
retaliation (culture of fear) against which we feel defenseless
(Oedipus). That's in my view one of the basic principles whereby the
so called 'civilized' western societies thrive upon...
IMHO always
Fernando
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, Ernesto Schnack <e_schnack@...> wrote:
(snip)
> But if we say Beethoven's 9th is a great work of
> art, is it because of the amount of craftmanship
> involved? Or is it becasue it touches our heart?
> (Or more cynically, because everybody tells us
> it's a great work of art...).
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
Ernesto Schnack
"low art" is awful terminology. I agre with
Kevin's use of "art music", which menas music
that requires a certain knowledge and education
to appreciate.
Also your separation of certain crafts into
"high" and "low" art...any creative venue can be
very simple or taken to great heights of
intricacy and complexity. It is just a vehicle
for the individual.
I find that the whole concept of "art" has always
been vague which is why these arguments never go
anywhere. That's not odd, since the concept of
art as we know it today hasn't been around very
long...
But if we say Beethoven's 9th is a great work of
art, is it because of the amount of craftmanship
involved? Or is it becasue it touches our heart?
(Or more cynically, because everybody tells us
it's a great work of art...).
So if Dylan touches our heart, but doesn't have
Ernesto
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM
T.Hughes
You said it well!
Amen
Tony Hughes
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/oyvqlB/TM