RE:'You seem to be throwing jazz out of art with reluctance, or to stimulate controversy.'
Certainly not with reluctance! Nor just to stimulate controversy. I want to express my view, that's all. DA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frances Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Music and all that jazz Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:19:46 -0400 > Frances to Derek and others... > > > > My knowledge of musical and graphical history is limited, > therefore others more qualified might perhaps correct my > guesses about good artworks that could be graded as low > and high in regard to their overall worth and impact. > Since about 1900 it seems that good jazz was always > smaller and simpler than say good symphony, but held as > art nonetheless, albeit likely as low art. From about 1800 > it seems to me that the same may have occurred then with > music art, as well as other forms of art like graphic > pictorial art and plastic sculptural art. Many lofty > painters of renown for example are reported to have made > smaller and simpler paintings in a modest figurative vein > that were also held in high regard, but probably as low > art. It seems to me that there may be a correlate here > from art history that might support the contention that > good jazz today may very well be at least low art. > Furthermore, a good jazz combo mixed on stage or record > with a classical symphony orchestra has been done with > great success, and the results have easily been deemed by > experts to be high art. It somehow bothers me that all > good jazz might justly be denied the status of being an > aesthetic object, and hence be excluded from the realm of > aural art as fine art or as folk art in an applied craft, > although it might perhaps be justly excluded as any kind > of aural musical art and certainly within the domain of > fine art. (For purposes of this debate, the global class > called art might perhaps be held as either an objective > material fact or as a subjective mental notion, but a > typical class in any event.) > > PS... > > You call jazz music, but seemingly bad music, yet also say > jazz is other than music. This implies to me that for you > there is jazz that is not music, and jazz that is music > either as bad or good music. You seem to be throwing jazz > out of art with reluctance, or to stimulate controversy. > > > > Derek partly wrote... > > For me jazz is an impoverished musical form. It is empty > music. It is the reverse of what music should be. For me > an evening of jazz is musical torment. It is a slight step > above pop or rock.
