Hi Frogman (and others following this) - wow, we are really getting down to it now! This last post of yours is very thought provoking indeed.
First, I agree that there is no substantive disagreement, and really didn't think there was in the first place. Your changing view of "substance" is something I glanced at when I mentioned aesthetics a couple of posts back. You choose an excellent example in discussing rap. What I find fascinating about rap is that what gives it substance, I think you will agree, has absolutely nothing to do with music. It is the words being spoken, and the message they contain. Rap is much closer to poetry than music. Of course the argument about whether the music or the lyrics of a song are more important is hundreds of years old now - clearly rap chooses the latter. As a performing musician (non-vocalist!), I used to be very puzzled by people who clearly only listened to certain groups/artists because they liked the lyrics of their songs, and in fact did not actually care much for the music. But they would listen over and over and over anyway because they liked "the message." I have always felt conflicted when talking with such people about music (and listening to the argument that such and such a song is good BECAUSE of the lyrics).
Speaking of the avant-garde and whether or not an artist or an institution is furthering the art form, another conflict I have that is relevant to this discussion is about the whole museum-piece thing. As in, are orchestras (this discussion can be applied to jazz equally well, of course) museum pieces (is jazz dead)? Many want orchestras to be forward thinking and come up with new ideas, etc. Same in jazz, as has been discussed in this thread. However, with the deplorable state of music education especially here in the US now, if orchestras are NOT talking about composers to young kids, if they never hear the names Mozart and Beethoven from us - who the hell are they going to hear them from? I wonder about this more and more, as orchestras move towards more multi-media presentations and play more film music, even in education concerts, where not a single composers name is mentioned....
Bear with me now as I quote one of my teachers, Greg Hustis, the former principal horn of the Dallas Symphony. Again, they would apply equally to the jazz world. These comments were made in the liner notes of one of his recordings (Lyrical Gems For The Horn, on the Crystal label): "The works on this CD were chosen simply because they are beautiful music...There is no unifying musical or stylistic "theme"...pieces were selected without regard to marketing strategies...well-intentioned promoters seem obsessed with the notion that only "new" or "different" gimmicks will aid the ailing recording industry. All too often we see the production of substandard works by obscure, untalented composers, arrangements of arrangements, bizarre orchestrations, and a rush of "crossover" recordings, usually lame attempts to give classical musicians the glitzy luster of pop stars...maybe we should work harder to present music that more listeners might enjoy. We cannot completely understand why great music stirs the soul. Nevertheless, perhaps by emphasizing the beauty, not the marketing of classical music will lead more of us to experience its mysterious and powerful force."
What does everyone think about this? Of course feel free to respond in terms of the jazz world, as this is ultimately a jazz thread. The same topics apply. Frogman is of course uniquely qualified to speak about both worlds, so? One comment I might throw out for discussion is that in the jazz world, Wynton seems to be trying BOTH approaches.
First, I agree that there is no substantive disagreement, and really didn't think there was in the first place. Your changing view of "substance" is something I glanced at when I mentioned aesthetics a couple of posts back. You choose an excellent example in discussing rap. What I find fascinating about rap is that what gives it substance, I think you will agree, has absolutely nothing to do with music. It is the words being spoken, and the message they contain. Rap is much closer to poetry than music. Of course the argument about whether the music or the lyrics of a song are more important is hundreds of years old now - clearly rap chooses the latter. As a performing musician (non-vocalist!), I used to be very puzzled by people who clearly only listened to certain groups/artists because they liked the lyrics of their songs, and in fact did not actually care much for the music. But they would listen over and over and over anyway because they liked "the message." I have always felt conflicted when talking with such people about music (and listening to the argument that such and such a song is good BECAUSE of the lyrics).
Speaking of the avant-garde and whether or not an artist or an institution is furthering the art form, another conflict I have that is relevant to this discussion is about the whole museum-piece thing. As in, are orchestras (this discussion can be applied to jazz equally well, of course) museum pieces (is jazz dead)? Many want orchestras to be forward thinking and come up with new ideas, etc. Same in jazz, as has been discussed in this thread. However, with the deplorable state of music education especially here in the US now, if orchestras are NOT talking about composers to young kids, if they never hear the names Mozart and Beethoven from us - who the hell are they going to hear them from? I wonder about this more and more, as orchestras move towards more multi-media presentations and play more film music, even in education concerts, where not a single composers name is mentioned....
Bear with me now as I quote one of my teachers, Greg Hustis, the former principal horn of the Dallas Symphony. Again, they would apply equally to the jazz world. These comments were made in the liner notes of one of his recordings (Lyrical Gems For The Horn, on the Crystal label): "The works on this CD were chosen simply because they are beautiful music...There is no unifying musical or stylistic "theme"...pieces were selected without regard to marketing strategies...well-intentioned promoters seem obsessed with the notion that only "new" or "different" gimmicks will aid the ailing recording industry. All too often we see the production of substandard works by obscure, untalented composers, arrangements of arrangements, bizarre orchestrations, and a rush of "crossover" recordings, usually lame attempts to give classical musicians the glitzy luster of pop stars...maybe we should work harder to present music that more listeners might enjoy. We cannot completely understand why great music stirs the soul. Nevertheless, perhaps by emphasizing the beauty, not the marketing of classical music will lead more of us to experience its mysterious and powerful force."
What does everyone think about this? Of course feel free to respond in terms of the jazz world, as this is ultimately a jazz thread. The same topics apply. Frogman is of course uniquely qualified to speak about both worlds, so? One comment I might throw out for discussion is that in the jazz world, Wynton seems to be trying BOTH approaches.