In a message dated 4/22/02 11:14:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >well i congratulate you for being smarter and more musically educated than >joni - i was definitely paraphrasing from memory - joni has also often >said she'll let others theoretically analyze her work, she is an intuitive. >IMO musicians cover her early work because it is easier.
I'm going to do my best to choose not to read your reply as snippy. (insert emoticon here) It's not a matter of being smarter or more educated, and certainly not to the imagined exclusion of intuition, an essential component of art whether schooled or not. But it should be recognized that there is nothing inherently anti-intuition about theory, analysis, or education, despite the romantic myth that there is. I don't understand your idea that jazz musicians cover her earlier work because it is "easier." Specifically, what is easier about it? In my own investigation of her songs, I find nothing easy about interpreting the early stuff, in fact, just the opposite ... there are so many oblique (albeit organic, with a natural internal logic) turns of melody and harmony, that successfully negotiating their terrain is quite difficult at best. In fact, my own feeling is that jazz musicians have chosen these earlier songs because they offer so much more (and so much more interesting) melodic/harmonic meat on the bone on which to gnaw. At least that's why I do. You might also ask David Lahm right here on the list why he does. -Fred
