Derek, 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 it, 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 good reason to concluded just that, but can it be used to conclude anything of worth about jazz and its offspring? If it is, there must be substantial reason underpinning that judgement, don't you agree? 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
