Curiously you did not mention who the musicians were who you listened too? Curiously too you did not say why you thought these musicians, on the performance occasion, were capable of typifying in a single instance all the possible instances of jazz performance. Nor did you provide the criteris by which you consider all jazz music inferior. Surely, it is essential that these musicians must do so represent all jazz and lack aesthetic adequacy to conclude that all jazz is aesthetically worthless. To put the point with equal brevity.
Toodle-pip, Allan. On 12/4/08 16:02, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I sat through an evening of jazz last night. Very good jazz > , I was told. > > Usually, when I hear jazz I simply flee, but since that was > not an option this time I decided to listen as attentively > as possible and try to work out if there seemed any basis at > all for the now widespread view among aestheticians that > jazz is good music. > > The experience only reinforced the view I already held. > Jazz is a desperately impoverished musical form. In essence > it is just musicalised beat. Insistent, monotonous > beat, dressed up with shreds and patches of melody and > various repetitive rills and frills. > > I sat there pining for Mozart. For real music. > > DA
