Obviously. But since they didn't start out liking it the percetage of
people liking it has not gone down. Basic, simple mathematical logic
here.

Actually, the percentage can go down (though I doubt it would). If 2
out of every 100 people liked free jazz, and then another 100 people
heard it and only 1 of them liked it, the new percentage would be 1.5%.
By your logic, no baseball player's batting average would ever go down
as long as they kept getting hits.

For what it's worth, most of the challenging music I listen to now is
music that I hated - or atleast couldn't make anything of - when I first
heard it. It's funny when I go back and listen to music that used to
drive me off the wall and I can't even relate to what turned me off
before. And most people I know who share my listening tastes were also
turned off at first.

I think what a lot of people who belittle challenging music don't get is
that most of us have been there. It's a maturation process. There's a
reason music has evolved the way it has. Notice people tend to evolve
from more traditional music to the outside stuff, rarely the other way
around.

--
Stephen Mack
Arka Music - Engraving, Copying, Transposing
www.arkamusic.com

"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber

"Smack" <smack@arkamusic.nospam.com> wrote:

Actually, the percentage can go down (though I doubt it would). If 2
out of every 100 people liked free jazz, and then another 100 people
heard it and only 1 of them liked it, the new percentage would be
1.5%.

Where would these "another 100 people" come from? Unless they were
literally born yesterday, they should have been included in the
percentage of those who don't already enjoy the music. If I say that 2%
of the people enjoy the music, I don't mean 2% of the people who have
heard the music - I mean, 2% *of the people*, period. That is, there
are 200 people in this world. In the beginning, 100 had heard the music
and 100 hadn't, but that's still 200 people. If 2 liked it initially,
that's 1%, not 2%. And then it went up to 1.5% when more people heard
it. Or, if you want the initial figure to be 2%, that must mean 4
people of those 200 already enjoyed the music, and the number went up to
5, or 2.5%.

This distinction is important is central to my point. Although jazz,
and free jazz in particular, is liked by only a small percentage of the
population - the whole population, not the subset that has heard the
music - a large part of that is precisely because so many people
*haven't* heard it. And often, even when they do hear it, it is out of
context and presented in way to deliberately ridicule it, as Ken Burns
did with most of free jazz he presented in his documentary.

Of course, the "unless they were born yesterday" part is relevant too -
the percentages can change, both upwards and downwards, as people die
and are born. And this has been a major factor in how the popularity of
jazz in general has declined - jazz fans are frankly dying off faster
than they are being created by exposing new people to the music. This
is why, when sum1 asked what I "fear", I said I feared the increased
marginalization of this music. In a world where people are not
regularly exposed to jazz, of course it isn't going to win many new
fans.

--------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@outsideshore.com

The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/

In Message-ID:<rfbq6054qkj0cji0pctsqsu2r6p1gje0ma@4ax.com> nerd wrote:

In Message-ID:<544b2430.0404011519.73e9fe27@posting.google.com> sum1 wrote:

Even NY Times jazz critic Nat Hentoff has said that smooth jazz is
part of the great jazz tradition.

Liar. Quite simply, he never said that. (Or are you just trolling?)

Willfully ignorant fool. Of course he said it.

Read the original article here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=betvj5%241tuu%242%40nwall1.odn.ne.jp

OK. I read it. Nowhere does he say what you state above. Closest he
comes is where the article writes: "Hentoff praised trombonist Wycliffe
Gordon as a modern player in the true jazz tradition."

QUOTE

"But he added that he really doesn't like to categorize jazz with "artificial
distinctions," and "that it's all part of the same continuum.""

continuum....tradition...take your pick

So, in your opinion, the section of the article which states "But he added
that he really doesn't like to categorize jazz with "artificial distinctions,"
and "that it's all part of the same continuum" is the same as "smooth jazz is
part of the great jazz tradition.

OK. So much for *your* credibility.

Outright deception? Do you have any examples, Marc?

Sure. Every time someone advertises a jazz fesatival and doesn't book
jazz.

And finally, they most certainly should not be seeking govt money
to
support their hobby.

Hobby? No reaosn to characterize it that way. But there is nothing
wrong with public support of art forms deemed to be in the public
interest to support.

Of course, but first you'd have to convince the public that it's in
their interest. If you could that, well, there wouldn't be any need
for govt support, would there?

That doesn't follow at all. There are many things the public agrees are
in their interest but happen only or best through government support -
roads, libraries, etc. Libertarians of course disagree, but even so,
their argument is usually that just because something is believed to be
in the public interest by the majority doesn't mean the minority who
don't believe in it should be forced to pay for it. As far as I can
tell, that's a pretty all-or-nothing argument. If you want to take the
libertarian position and argue against government fuinding for anything
at all, so be it - this isn't the place for that debate. But if you
want to argue that music is somehow magically different from the other
things that government support can be good for, you'd have to show how.
Oh - also, if you want to fall back on the US-specific strict
constructionist view of the constitution to say that since music isn't
one of the things listed specifically in the US constitution, it cannot
legally be supported in this country - that's an argument for another
forum as well.

In Message-ID:<544b2430.0404022021.66307161@posting.google.com> sum1 wrote:

OK. I read it. Nowhere does he say what you state above.

You're not trying very hard. Try it again. It's there.

As I stated in my previous message (but you decided not to quote):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Mr. sum1 (aka LIAR), please *QUOTE* where Mr. Hentoff states what
you claim above.

If you can't, please shut up and go away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, put up or shut up. I repeat the request. Your designation
of group troll is well deserved.

In Message-ID:<rfbq6054qkj0cji0pctsqsu2r6p1gje0ma@4ax.com> nerd wrote:

In Message-ID:<544b2430.0404011519.73e9fe27@posting.google.com> sum1 wrote:

Even NY Times jazz critic Nat Hentoff has said that smooth jazz is
part of the great jazz tradition.

Liar. Quite simply, he never said that. (Or are you just trolling?)

Willfully ignorant fool. Of course he said it.

Read the original article here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=betvj5%241tuu%242%40nwall1.odn.ne.jp

OK. I read it. Nowhere does he say what you state above. Closest he
comes is where the article writes: "Hentoff praised trombonist Wycliffe
Gordon as a modern player in the true jazz tradition."

QUOTE

"But he added that he really doesn't like to categorize jazz with "artificial
distinctions," and "that it's all part of the same continuum.""

continuum....tradition...take your pick

So, in your opinion, the section of the article which states "But he added
that he really doesn't like to categorize jazz with "artificial distinctions,"
and "that it's all part of the same continuum" is the same as "smooth jazz is
part of the great jazz tradition.

OK. So much for *your* credibility.

eh? <arf@ar.f> wrote in message news:<l50t60dpotdqapj5l0pjq1srnj6h9mjcbj@4ax.com>...
Art-funding is a separate issue from e.g.
sewage/police/transport but does start to encroach on (possibly) health and (certainly)
education.

Because music has no place in education, you know. Your smooth crusade
is slowly coming into context...

So, in your opinion, the section of the article which states "But he added
that he really doesn't like to categorize jazz with "artificial distinctions,"
and "that it's all part of the same continuum" is the same as "smooth jazz is
part of the great jazz tradition.

OK. So much for *your* credibility.

Ah, I see you're finally staring to come to grips with the content of
the article. Good for you.

Now maybe you can please tell us exactly what Hentoff meant by smooth
jazz being part of the jazz continuum if in fact you beleive that he
did not mean that smooth jazz is part of the jazz tradition.

In other words, put up or shut up. I repeat the request. Your designation
of group troll is well deserved.

Stop harassing me and go read the article.

arobb@iwu.edu (A.J. Robb) wrote in message news:<1e8bcf2d.0404031140.5b03cfce@posting.google.com>...
eh? <arf@ar.f> wrote in message news:<l50t60dpotdqapj5l0pjq1srnj6h9mjcbj@4ax.com>...
Art-funding is a separate issue from e.g.
sewage/police/transport but does start to encroach on (possibly) health and (certainly)
education.

Because music has no place in education, you know. Your smooth crusade
is slowly coming into context...


How did you come to the conclusion that eh? is on a smooth crusade?

First of all, he didn't even say "smooth jazz" was part of the jazz continuum.
What the article's author quoted him as saying was "that it's all part
of the same continuum."

Very good. Now, what do you suppose "it" refers to in the quoted
text, the bit attributed to Mr Hentoff?

I *have* read it, and quoted from it.

But you obviously yet haven't grasped the meaning. I'm sure you will
soon. Just keep at it.

In Message-ID:<544b2430.0404042138.753cdf77@posting.google.com> sum1 wrote:

Irrelevant. You stated that Mr. Hentoff *SAID*, not Mr. Hentoff *MEANT*.

I begin to understand why you have trouble. You're a literalist.

No. There is a BIG difference in stating (as you did) that Hentoff *SAID*
something, when it is actually *YOUR OPINION* of what he meant. Big
difference.

In Message-ID:<544b2430.0404042140.69ece76f@posting.google.com> sum1 wrote:

As I wrote in my unedited response:

I *have* read it, and quoted from it. [remainder edited by sum1]

Gee, any bozo who knows how to use a computer can do that. The tricky
part is understanding what you've read.

You have changed what I wrote now twice.