Frances to Chris and Allan and Brian and others...
Your recent remarks seem to imply that all jazz is music, if deemed good by at least a recognized group of normal individuals like artisans or artists or aesthetes or aestheticians; and that some such good jazz is at least low art, but that any other object given as bad jazz or even as good music need not necessarily be taken as art. This guess at your implications would seem to yield a reasonable stance on some jazz as music with some jazz and music as art. Furthermore, it hence seems to me that if some sound work is vaguely like pseudo jazz or quasi jazz but is found to be even bad jazz and is held or deemed as not music art, the work may still be found or held or deemed as sonic art like sound sculpture, albeit as low fine art or as high applied art like craft and sport. Even the rehearsed trials of practicing artists like sonicians and musicians would likely fall under the artistic umbrella as some kind of aesthetic object and therefore as a form of humanal art. The difference also between an aural synaptic object in the subjective mind that is imagined or envisioned, and an audible acoustic object in the objective ear that is heard or listened, may also be an important factor to consider by a group in their determining a work to be either sonic art or music art. This whole exercise of course comes close to suggesting a categoric classificatory system of art, which further implies that theory as well as tendency or talent and practice are all important as paradigms of art, to include sonic sound and jazz and music as aural art. Whether aural art can then be extended to include audible sonic noise and audible vocal noise as either fine art or applied art in the craft manner is yet still a further implication to consider. The formal criteria for finding or making objects that are sonic or vocic or music works of art would of course differ. The harmonic links and rhythmic beats and melodic tunes used in the making of music art of course may not apply as organizational criteria to the finding or making of sonic art. The formal structure of music art and sonic art however may indeed be similar, because they both bear audible sounds and yield aural auditions and evoke visual visions. Even the stylistic forms of the two might identify the same creator or culture or origin. The differences in any event should not be a barrier to building a system of art, assuming this is the right path to a good goal. There are a lot of routes and directions and ends at play here for me to muse over. The specific issue to address however is admittedly jazz as music and both as art. If a slight digress might be peripheral to this issue, permit me to start a new marginal thread to this topical subject dealing with the sights of sounds.
