Chris, I think Cheerskep made the point very eloquently that it is simply
unreasonable to expect that a person should have heard every form (every
piece?) of jazz in existence before he can say whether he likes it or not.
On that logic in fact who could really say they *liked* jazz? Perhaps there
is some form (piece?) they have not heard - and might dislike...
I simply say that I have disliked every piece of jazz I have ever heard -
and like everyone I have heard heaps of it. Or put it this way, I have
sometimes heard pieces that struck me as mildly entertaining. But none of
it has impressed me as music I really want to hear again. For me, it is
music without substance - comparable to 'light' fiction (which I almost
never read these days) or 'light' derivative stuff in the visual art field
('motel' art as I sometimes call it).
As for your aristocrat, he simply sounds to me like a poseur. And if he was
'exclusively interested in genres of art that were developed throughout
history to serve his fellow aristocrats' , I assume (as you suggest) he
liked nothing created after about 1700 - nor before about 1300 one might
add. Which means his tastes in art were severely stunted. He's welcome to
his 'aristocracy'. I pity him.
DA .
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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/<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmedDaMQPdr91vGwGBbgWmz95OxmsWVqCIMSwB16HPGe9C9e/>
