In article <544b2430.0403260319.171a9391@posting.google.com>,
suhm1@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:

I've not said free jazz is categorically bad. Only that I don't
happen to like it.

You've gone out of your way to belittle it on a pretty regular basis.


Do you prefer the new advanced Tide? For the me the old one works
just as fine.

Wow, you're really going all out to weasel your way out of this corner.
I'm done with you. You can go play in your flat, black-and-white world.

suhm1@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:

As I asked zoot the other day, how much knowledge is "enough"?

there's no point in being unduly sensitive - the point is fairly made.
I love jazz but I
think it's an entirely reasonable claim that jazz is a 'musos' music.
I don't know many
musicians who would argue with that.

Not sure what you mean by "musos"

here. If you mean, "people who enjoy
and understand music outside of the pop world", well, sure. What that
has to do with masturbation is beyond me.

There are a lot of people who like jazz, and even free jazz, when
they
hear it.

but...

That's only really dug by a a couple of percent of the
population - about the same as jazz.

1) A couple percent of the population *is* still a lot of people
2) By "really dug" here, I don't mean, "would really dig if only they
were exposed to it" - I mean do actually dig it. The "couple percent"
figure would indeed be higher is more people were exposed to this music.

"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<lHE8c.1808$Fo4.19201@typhoon.sonic.net>...
"Marc Sabatella" <marc@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:105ugrrbobhdbca@corp.supernews.com...
I understand why they're doing what they're doing

But you don't understand the music itself.

If it's that difficult to understand, then I'd say it's only of any value at
all to the small minority of people who purport to understand it. If there
isn't anything in it that can evoke emotions or communicate something or at
least get a foot tapping for most people, then it's probably doing a poor
job of communicating: music that is trying to be too smart for its own good,
or encrypted music, as it were. If you want to communicate effectively, then
speak plainly, not in indecipherable code. Making the message so
incomprehensible that most people can't even tell whether or not there IS a
message doesn't impress me.

I came to this thread through rec.music.classical.recordings, but I'm
a jazz pianist by trade (composition student at school).

All music is supposed to express something. Most great music expresses
something extremely and uniquely personal. Therefore, since advanced
musical expression is a personal endeavour, how can presume to demand
that they express something that is instantly palatable to you? I find
that arrogant.

These artists have developed as players, and their language has
evolved into something extremely eloquent and nuanced - their personal
voice. These are not academic trappings and overtures made to impress
you, o arrogant listener. More, their sound and the music they create
is their own self actualization on their horn, or on their page.
They're not trying to get you to tap your foot, or to make you think
about your first girlfriend, they're telling you where they are right
now, something only they can do at that moment.

Why presume that everyone makes music for your benefit? We're not
trying to impress you. We're doing what is meaningful to us, what
brings us closer to our own actualization. If you don't like it, fine
- but don't insist that we talk like you just becuase you refuse to
consider other forms of expression and expand your pallate. Not all
thoughts can be communicated by "speaking plainly."

there's no point in being unduly sensitive - the point is fairly made.
I love jazz but I
think it's an entirely reasonable claim that jazz is a 'musos' music.
I don't know many
musicians who would argue with that.

Not sure what you mean by "musos"

it's in common parlance though there may be regional /cultural/age-group
variations
but I'll put it another way. While jazz, for a mix of reasons, has
broader appeal beyond
its actual exponents, it is none-the-less, predominantly a musician's
music.



here. If you mean, "people who enjoy
and understand music outside of the pop world", well, sure. What that
has to do with masturbation is beyond me.

..masturbation is a common metaphor in the art world to underline its
often all-too
exclusive nature. You didn't know this?

I think it is total arrogance - and generally not true - to say that a
musician does "his thing" with no thought at all for the public.

Most
musicians hope that the public will appreciate what they do; some will
compromise their original ideas in order to achieve this; others won't - I
make no judgement on this - what matters to me is the end product - not the
intellectualising behind it.

Not sure what you mean by "musos"

it's in common parlance though there may be regional
/cultural/age-group variations

While jazz, for a mix of reasons, has broader appeal beyond
its actual exponents, it is none-the-less, predominantly a musician's
music.

..masturbation is a common metaphor in the art world to underline its
often all-too
exclusive nature. You didn't know this?

Why presume that everyone makes music for your benefit? We're not
trying to impress you. We're doing what is meaningful to us, what
brings us closer to our own actualization. If you don't like it, fine
- but don't insist that we talk like you just becuase you refuse to
consider other forms of expression and expand your pallate. Not all
thoughts can be communicated by "speaking plainly."

..all of which suggests there is no intention or desire to communicate

1) A couple percent of the population *is* still a lot of people
2) By "really dug" here, I don't mean, "would really dig if only they
were exposed to it" - I mean do actually dig it. The "couple
percent"
figure would indeed be higher is more people were exposed to this
music.

No, this last claim is quite unverifiable.

More interesting is why on the one hand you admit its tiny coterie of
devotees, and on the
other you claim it's broader appeal. No amount of waffle will alter
the fact that you
made this error.

In article <10la60pb38uodhv7jr0k298a100chr44eh@4ax.com>, eh? <arf@ar.f
wrote:

there's no point in being unduly sensitive - the point is fairly
made. >I love jazz but I think it's an entirely reasonable claim
that jazz is a 'musos' music.

Most musicians I know would argue that. Additionally, though at least
a few people seem hell bent on stating the universal perspective and
"common view" and other generalities of taste. I'd like to know where
they get the idea that most jazz records logically, would be purchased
by musicians. I doubt that is the case. But I don't mind admitting
that it's an opinion.

I don't know many musicians who would argue with that.

Not sure what you mean by "musos"

it's in common parlance though there may be regional
/cultural/age-group variations but I'll put it another way. While
jazz, for a mix of reasons, has broader appeal beyond its actual
exponents, it is none-the-less, predominantly a musician's music.

As musicians you'd think that Marc and I might have heard it. Perhaps
what you characterize as "common" is just a personal viewpoint.

here. If you mean, "people who enjoy and understand music outside
of the pop world", well, sure. What that has to do with
masturbation is beyond me.

..masturbation is a common metaphor in the art world to underline its
often all-too exclusive nature. You didn't know this?

Again your "common" metaphor doesn't seem very universal. I've always
understood it to generally indicate self-indulgence. I prefer
"self-indulgent" to masturbatory, and likewise avoid whore, hard-on,
and myriad metaphors which generally only expressive a desire to be
combative not communicative.

In article <hjqa6057n6htnv21177f6vi9kksvs1rtls@4ax.com>, eh? <arf@ar.f
wrote:

I think it is total arrogance - and generally not true - to say that
a musician does "his thing" with no thought at all for the public.

Exactly who you are accusing of arrogance in the above - the
self-indulgent artist or the critic who outs him?

Ah! Touche! Very clever turn-around.

Most musicians hope that the public will appreciate what they do;
some will compromise their original ideas in order to achieve this;
others won't - I make no judgement on this - what matters to me is
the end product - not the intellectualising behind it.

I think you might be missing the drift here - the stench of arrogance
is precisely what I'm complaining about in other posts in this thread
- I find exclusivity in jazz, in music and in all art in general to
be offensive.

Exclusivity. You think that jazz should discard whatever aspects limit
it's appeal to non-jazz audiences. In order for it to lose it's
arrogance it should be more accomodating. Simpler progressions, less
notes, less angularity of line. More "pretty" melodically in whatever
way most appeals to most folks. Am I getting closer to a remedy to the
stench of arrogance?

I think art is valueless when it seeks to be 'clever'.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.

It's still not clear at all. "Clever" doesn't mean anything as a
musical analysis unless you clarify it a bit.

Nevertheless, it appears you have no problem with clever, just the
appearance of clever. So it's when you sense an artist's
self-consciousness that offends? The degree to which the artist is
exposed as attempting cleverness and failing?

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:14:18 -0800, Gerry <222ggg@spam.really.sucks> wrote:

In article <10la60pb38uodhv7jr0k298a100chr44eh@4ax.com>, eh? <arf@ar.f
wrote:

there's no point in being unduly sensitive - the point is fairly
made. >I love jazz but I think it's an entirely reasonable claim
that jazz is a 'musos' music.

Most musicians I know would argue that. Additionally, though at least
a few people seem hell bent on stating the universal perspective and
"common view" and other generalities of taste. I'd like to know where
they get the idea that most jazz records logically, would be purchased
by musicians. I doubt that is the case. But I don't mind admitting
that it's an opinion.

I don't know many musicians who would argue with that.

Not sure what you mean by "musos"

it's in common parlance though there may be regional
/cultural/age-group variations but I'll put it another way. While
jazz, for a mix of reasons, has broader appeal beyond its actual
exponents, it is none-the-less, predominantly a musician's music.

As musicians you'd think that Marc and I might have heard it. Perhaps
what you characterize as "common" is just a personal viewpoint.

forget muso - read musician.

here. If you mean, "people who enjoy and understand music outside
of the pop world", well, sure. What that has to do with
masturbation is beyond me.

..masturbation is a common metaphor in the art world to underline its
often all-too exclusive nature. You didn't know this?

Again your "common" metaphor doesn't seem very universal. I've always
understood it to generally indicate self-indulgence. I prefer
"self-indulgent" to masturbatory, and likewise avoid whore, hard-on,
and myriad metaphors which generally only expressive a desire to be
combative not communicative.

masturbator is good and descriptive for me and a quick google will give you some idea of
its commonality. I know another poster caused offence by his reference to circle-jerking
(was that it?) but frankly I thought he hit the nail on the head and it made me laugh.
Life's far to short and the language far too rich to be dieting.

1) A couple percent of the population *is* still a lot of people
2) By "really dug" here, I don't mean, "would really dig if only they
were exposed to it" - I mean do actually dig it. The "couple
percent"
figure would indeed be higher is more people were exposed to this
music.

No, this last claim is quite unverifiable.

It is quite easily verified. Consider - there is no way the percetnage
could possibly go *down* by exposing more people to the music. All it
takes is one person to get turned on to the music when they first
experience it to show that the figure goes up. And I meet several such
people practically each and every night I perform.

Some may leave hating it. Some uncommitted stragglers may decide they've heard all they

More interesting is why on the one hand you admit its tiny coterie of
devotees, and on the
other you claim it's broader appeal. No amount of waffle will alter
the fact that you
made this error.

The only error is in your misrepresentation of my statements. I stand
by what I said; the two points are not mutually exclusive.

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

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

Why presume that everyone makes music for your benefit? We're not
trying to impress you. We're doing what is meaningful to us, what
brings us closer to our own actualization. If you don't like it, fine
- but don't insist that we talk like you just becuase you refuse to
consider other forms of expression and expand your pallate. Not all
thoughts can be communicated by "speaking plainly."

..all of which suggests there is no intention or desire to communicate

Not at all - we just aren't trying to communicate with *you* personally,
or anyone else predisposed to dislike jazz.

e are communicating with
those who *do* enjoy this music. And these people *do* exist. I play
for hundreds of them every week.

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

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