In a message dated 12/6/01 8:06:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >This is the whole scientific approach, isn't it? > ... I think it is extremely difficult to be totally >objective about anything
Not so scientific, because, as you say and as I said, humans cannot be completely objective. But what I'm talking about are standards of excellence. Why, for instance, almost 200 years after his death, do most of us still agree that Beethoven was a great composer? It can't only be because a lot of people simply dig his music ... there are nuts and bolts reasons why his music has so much depth and weight, and those reasons can be examined and explicated by those who speak and/or understand the language, and can also be compared to the choices other composers have made. In the same sense, there are specific reasons why Joni's music is so great ... spend a few hours with me at a piano and I can show you exactly why. >But I think it's wrong before you even get to the conclusion. What is >wrong, in my view, is comparing them at all. It's like apples and oranges. Comparing Kenny G and Wayne Shorter is not at all like comparing apples and oranges, it's more like comparing Andre "Cold Duck" to vintage Veuve Cliquot. Or, more to the point, like comparing an old, mealy, dry, tasteless oranges to the freshest, sweetest (yet slightly tart), juiciest (yet crisp) apples. Ask yourself this: why does Joni call Wayne Shorter and not Kenny G? I can assure you, it's not only because Wayne floats her boat and Kenny doesn't ... she absolutely makes a crucial, perhaps to some even ruthless, comparison based on her intuitive and experiential (if not formally educated) knowledge of excellence in music. >Maybe to someone, KennyG's saxophone >playing transports them to another level of consciousness where they feel >at one with the universe I'm certain that I said exactly this in so many words. If someone prefers Cold Duck to vintage Veuve Cliquot, that's their taste (and, as I said, their problem ... hey, I never said I wasn't a snob). -Fred
