Allan I don't know the name of the group I was listening to. But it was in a fairly up-market Parisian restaurant and I was assured by aficionados of the form that I was listening to very good jazz. (I should add that I have not exactly lived my life in a cupboard and I have heard various 'famous' jazz groups many times, like everyone else. It's not all that easy to avoid them in this world - regrettably. Don't ask me their names though. I do my best to forget everything anyone tells me about jazz.)
No I don't think these musicians 'were capable of typifying in a single instance all the possible instances of jazz performance' (btw you're not an analytical philosopher by any chance? I seem to recognise the idiom). But they were reasonably representative of what jazz is as a musical form. Do I need to spend interminable evenings listening to every jazz band in creation before I can comment on jazz? (God, I hope not!!) As for 'criteria', that gets us into very deep waters philosophically speaking. Do you have clear criteria to distinguish art from mediocre music (or mediocre visual art or literature.) I don't, and have never encountered any that I found convincing. (And not knowing where Frances' learned experts' live, I can't ask them.) As I said, I was simply giving you my opinion and you are quite welcome to disagree. (You obviously do anyway). For me, as I say, jazz is an impoverished musical form. It is to real music as thin gruel is to a wonderful tasty meal. It is empty, meretricious, even cynical, music (cynical because it poses as something complex but appeals to quite simple, basic instincts). It is the reverse of what music should be. It is tedious, unexpressive, flat, and wearisome. For me an evening of jazz is sheer musical torment. It is a slight step above pop or rock but that, in my book, scarcely rates as much of a compliment. Glad to have had the opportunity to say a little more on the topic. DA ----- Original Message ----- From: Allan Sutherland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Music and all that jazz Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:58:35 +0900 > Curiously you did not mention who the musicians were who > you listened too? Curiously too you did not say why you > thought these musicians, on the performance occasion, were > capable of typifying in a single instance all the possible > instances of jazz performance. Nor did you provide the > criteris by which you consider all jazz music inferior. > Surely, it is essential that these musicians must do so > represent all jazz and lack aesthetic adequacy to conclude > that all jazz is aesthetically worthless. To put the > point with equal brevity. > > Toodle-pip, > > Allan. > > On 12/4/08 16:02, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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
