I'm rather ambivalent to the majority of jazz music, but like most such categories, nothing within it is representative of the whole. In general, swing music bores me with sustained listening but it is dance music, intended to accompany dancing. Dance music is centered on repetition, so it's usually boring or uninteresting to just listen to unless as background music or accompaniment. Even Mozart wrote uninspiring and uninteresting dance pieces. In contrast, I never tire of the work of Michel Bisceglia. While I would prefer that he played without his trio (I feel like they add little to his music, especially the drums), his harmonic sense is refreshing for jazz. On Second Breath there are songs that modulate through 7 keys in less than 7 bars, his improvisations are actually dynamic and reach significantly remote distances from the original material without ever leaving it behind. Jamie Baum does this as well, but the kernel of her pieces is usually more of a "monotonous beat". And of course, for the more widely recognized example, Chick Corea's solo works and duos with Gary Burton are exceptional.
-Brian -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:03 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Music and all that jazz I sat through an evening of jazz last night. Very good jazz , I was told. Usually, when I hear jazz I simply flee, but since that was not an option this time I decided to listen as attentively as possible and try to work out if there seemed any basis at all for the now widespread view among aestheticians that jazz is good music. The experience only reinforced the view I already held. Jazz is a desperately impoverished musical form. In essence it is just musicalised beat. Insistent, monotonous beat, dressed up with shreds and patches of melody and various repetitive rills and frills. I sat there pining for Mozart. For real music. DA
