Allan It is not my lack of interest in jazz that leads me to dislike it. I dislike it, and that is why I am not interested.
What is my reason? I thought I had given that. Jazz is flat, tedious etc. Those are not 'objective criteria', but as I say I know of none. If you know any, perhaps you could tell me what they are? My comparison with Ockeghem was not intended to suggest that jazz was in some way similar. I was simply choosing that as an example of good music. I could have chosen lots of other things - Mozart, Purcell, Prokoviev etc. Let me repeat: I am only expressing my opinion. You are welcome to disagree. But I find that the notion that jazz is good music is becoming more and more common these days and I personally dissent most strongly. There is a difference in *kind* between jazz (rock or pop) and say Mozart, just as there is a difference in kind between the average detective story and 'Crime and Punishment', or between Cabanel and Rembrandt. One is art the other is not. DA ----- Original Message ----- From: Allan Sutherland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Music and all that jazz -correction Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:33:59 +0900 > Derek, > > Sorry, I sent this email prematurely corrected below: > > I did read your email carefully, but I think you did not > read mine sufficiently carefully past the first > sentences/paragraph. I did not base all of my reasoning on > that single listening of yours from which you commenced > the topic. > > I was essentially pointing to the heterogeneity of the > music that passes for, or could be included as jazz, in > some ways or another and asking if you were cognisant of > all it,s variety and if all that heterogeneity can be > easily dismissed as superficial and without significant > substance. In this manner we are beginning to talk past > each other. Of course jazz in all its manifestations is > not the music of the 15th century, but you choose such as > the comparison. I think that your lack of interest in the > subject is perhaps the good reason from which you conclude > all jazz can be so dismissed, but can lack of interest be > used to conclude anything of worth about jazz and its many > offspring? If it is, there must be substantial reason > underpinning that judgement which brings lack of interest, > don't you agree? Surely the problems of producing adequate > criteria can not provide such a basis of judgement, > otherwise we cannot conclude that the music of Johannes > Ockeghem is without doubts vastly superior, or am I > misreading your intentions? > > Toodle-pip, > > Allan. > > On 14/4/08 18:06, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Allan, > > > > I don't think you read my reply very carefully. As I > > said my judgements were not based on this group alone. > > Who has not heard huge dollops of jazz one way or > > another at various points in their life? On the radio, > > on film, on the telly. One would need to live in a cave > > to avoid it. > > My original email was not so much prompted by that group > > as by the fact that I had been subjected to a whole > > evening of (typical) jazz. I needed to get the > > exasperation out of my system. > > > > I don't really have any comment on your remarks about > > Parisian restaurants, food etc. I don't claim to be an > > expert on the subject and it doesn't interest me much. > > > > Just at the moment I am listening to a CD of the music > > of Johannes Ockeghem. It is to jazz as Rembrandt is to > > some amateur daubing. > > > > DA > > > > > D
