Re: 'Jazz is an adventure in music, an exploration of sound relationships and its variety, I contest cannot be reduced to homogeneity.'
I find it very repetitive. In fact I suspect one learns to play jazz partly through learning a series of rather standard routines. Re: 'Your description below fits exactly the assessment of Adorno, which was inadequate and which I pointed to in my earlier post.' So I have Adorno on my side? How unusual. Re: "and that the discussion is proving fruitless." What would be fruitful? If I agreed with you? In matters such as this there is no question of convincing the other person. Only the music can do the persuasion. Jazz has persuaded me - not to like it. 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 20:10:12 +0900 > 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
