This reply to Boris is a bit out of sequence. I sent it yesterday when I was 'spammed' and it didn't go through.
DA I knew this would come up sooner or later. But so what? If a performer of classical music chooses also to play jazz and pop, what does that prove? It reminds me of those awful concerts of the '3 tenors' who mixed up great operatic arias with some awful gooey stuff. Presumably they, or their backers, reasoned that it would help get the punters in. There is a story - perhaps apocryphal - that Melba, the famous Australian soprano, was once asked by another soprano planning to visit Australia, what sort of things she should sing there. Melba - who if this story is correct was no great admirer of her homelands musical tastes (and this was decades ago)- replied: 'Sing 'em muck!' Melba at least apparently knew the difference... DA ----- Original Message ----- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Music and all that jazz Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:46:54 GMT > Derek, I know that Yo-Yo Ma is more competent in music > then you are and most of us. This what he writes: > "As I work in music today, I try to implement this > ideathat the music I play, like me, doesnt belong to > only one culture. In recent years, I have explored many > musical traditions. Along the way, I have met musicians > who share a belief in the creative power that exists at > the intersection of cultures. These musicians have > generously become my guides to their traditions. Thanks to > them and their music I have found new meaning in my own > music making." He played pop, jazz, rock, and as all > greats including Mozart folk songs. Boris Shoshensky > > > -- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 > > __________________________________________________________ > ___ Find great deals at exclusive resorts around the > world! Click now! > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4uHIkfFdMmm7pwhxS6fsKWBb > KAWC9IN7W7XEc1pk8KM4038g/
