I've objected to the dismissal of Jazz -- not because I like it -- but because it's such a large category - with many sub-genres appealing to audiences that are distinct and often mutually exclusive.
But I just remembered one fellow who appeared on A-L a few years ago -- and he dismissed it all without exception for one very good, clear reason: it was socially beneath him. He considered himself an aristocrat --- i.e. a member of an elite community defined by taste as well as heredity -- and he was exclusively interested in genres of art that were developed throughout history to serve his fellow aristocrats. By that standard -- Jazz -- all of Jazz -- does not qualify. (and neither, BTW , would the styles of European painting developed after 1790.) It's what Jacques Barzun would call a "demotic" art form. _____________________________________________________________ Click to create your dream holiday trip now. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmedDaMQPdr91vGwGBbgWmz9 5OxmsWVqCIMSwB16HPGe9C9e/
