Derek, We are speaking past each other and it is going nowhwere.
> 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. > I think I said this in more words than above. > 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? > I think I implied, but not stated, that some jazz is, but not all jazz is, as you describe it; jazz stretches from early jazz, through bebop, modal jazz, and into free jazz and could included much of free improvisation. Jazz is an adventure in music, an exploration of sound relationships and its variety, I contest cannot be reduced to homogeneity. Your description below fits exactly the assessment of Adorno, which was inadequate and which I pointed to in my earlier post. Arguing for a more subtle assessment of jazz and its many offspring and associated relations than you are able or willing to consider. I asked if you were aware of anything of this variety, not the every musician or the every performance, are you? But I now conclude this possibly does not matter, and that the discussion is proving fruitless. Toodle-pip. Allan. > 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
