Jazz for aficionados

From my book.

" I would suggest that instrumental music is the most abstract art yet conceived by humankind. some might quibble with me; but in this I know I'm right."

He goes on to say; "Drawings or paintings, representational or not, are physical objects and exist in at least two dimensions. You can see and touch them."

"Poetry and literature, while not concrete objects, are written in a language that a person would understand. Therefore we fully understand what the artist is trying to say."

"But what is instrumental music? It is music that has no words, no literary information beyond its title, to explain why it exists, and why it sounds the way it does. It's neither physically dimensional nor concrete......Music has to be played, and when instrumental music is played, it exists only in the ether as concussion waves assaulting our eardrums."

"Color me a literalist, but as far as i'm concerned, that's about as abstract an art as I can Imagine."

NOW:

AS I was reading this, the local FM station was playing 'Don't cry for me Argentina' Instrumental version. My questions are:

would a instrumental version of a song originaly written with words, be abstract? Would it be abstract, if the person had never heard the words before?

Horace Silver wrote many instrumental Jazz songs. They would be abstract. Dee Dee Bridgewater did a CD of his music, put to words. Her words. Is her CD abstract? Does it change Silver's music from being abstract?

Why are sound waves assaulting the ear drums more abstract than photons of light assaulting our eyes? Speaking of abstract paintings here.

Thanks for your brilliant insights.

You guys up to speed on "triads"?

Cheers

Enough already! It seems that Acman3 is the only person still on the music, as opposed to factors surrounding the music that none of us know for sure. Let's get back on the track that will lead to new discoveries of jazz. But before we leave, I think we should all agree to broaden the definition, or not. In order to appease Rok, I've stayed within the narrow definition of the word, while my definition is quite broad. What ever the mutual definition is, is fine with me.

Enjoy the music.

0-10:

I certainly do not wish to limit the discussion. I am ready and willing to broaden my horizons. I will also tone down my negativity concerning modern and world Jazz. Can't learn anything with a closed mind. Thanks for broaching this subject. I, for one, do tend to go off on tangents.

Cheers

Rok, thanks for your impressions of those young players. I don't know what you listened to by Ted Nash, but I would give him another listen; he really is a great player. I must say that I don't know what the hell the comment that "he talks too much" ("he's fat"?) has to do with wether the guy can play or not? Try this (and you can ignore the visual "accompaniment" by the Youtube poster):

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E-njySw6I_U

I just had a thought that relates to the "abstract" question (I will give Learsfool the first shot at that one) and visuals when listening to music. As nice as videos of live performances are, I think we have had ample proof of the problem with what we SEE during a performance coloring our reaction to the music. I think it is fair to say that the quality of the music should be judged on its own and not be influenced by wether a performer does too many facial contortions, "dresses like a buffoon", or "talks too much".

Anyway, the business of "popularity" is getting a little tiresome and the main point is being missed. Facts:

-Artists don't go into the arts for the money or popularity.

-That jazz is less popular now than it once was does not mean that there is no quality jazz now; or, even, less jazz now. I hope my recent links have demonstrated this amply.

****Name me one artist that is considered great, but not popular with his audience, intended or otherwise.****

That is a very strange and illogical question. If an artist has an audience, is he not, by definition, popular? Nonetheless, a couple of thoughts:

Why then, did so many greats (Dexter Gordon) have to move to Europe?: because his audience was shrinking; iow, jazz was becoming less popular in the USA. Did that make him less of a player? And, btw, most of these guys didn't move to Europe for the applause, they moved there to make a living because there simply wasn't enough work here.

Food for thought:

****In Europe, they like everything you do. The mistakes and everything. That’s a little bit too much.****. - Miles

The reason that I feel so strongly about the subject of "popularity", particularly as concerns the young crop of players, is that I know a lot of those guys and I know how they struggle to make ends meet while maintaining an incredible sense of dedication to their music with interest in popularity being so far behind their interest in honing their craft and making great art that it is impossible to describe. In spite of a much smaller audience base compared to the past when jazz was the popular music, jazz continues to thrive and move forward. Let's remember that jazz artists themselves were often reluctant to call the music "jazz" because they felt the name was too limiting. That Miles seems to be defending Dixieland in that quote is not the point of his comment, but that limiting ourselves to a narrow view of what jazz is is stupid.

Re triads:

Don't have any more time now, but I will quickly point out that a triad is simply a chord comprised of two thirds stacked on top of each other. Four kinds of triads: major, minor, diminished and augmented. There is much more to it, and while I think you are a great candidate for and would strongly encourage you to buy yourself a keyboard (electronic if you don't want the expense and hassle of a real piano/you would not believe what can be bought for around $250) as a learning tool, for now, a printout of a keyboard off the internet would make things much much easier to understand if you want to go further.

Cheers

O-10, I am not quite sure I understand what the problem is. I can appreciate and respect Acman3's choice to not engage in much of the debate/discussion, but, over the last three days alone, there have been close to a dozen links to new music and no reaction to them except from Rok and I who are the most "guilty" of discussing the "factors around the music". Some of us find it very interesting to discuss the factors around the music. In my opinion that is, in great part, what leads to new discoveries, because by discussing these is, in fact, one of the most important ways to "broaden the definition". The problem is that, as usual, we can't have it both ways. If we simply want to share links to music that we each like and leave it at that, that is fine; but, if one doesn't want to be subject to discussing the "factors around the music", then I think those posts should be free of proclamations about things that may need to be challenged when they have no basis in fact or reality. There have been, and continue to be, comments made about the state of jazz, what is jazz, the quality of certain artists, etc. that are simply not rooted in what is the accepted wisdom (and, in many cases, fact) on those subjects. There is a deep and pervasive romanticized and politicized (for lack of a better word) influence on many listeners' views of the sphere of the art world that is simply incorrect, and this can lead to a bias and very premature dismissal of certain music without first giving it a fair shot. As you have often pointed out, the reasons for our individual likes and dislikes is subjective, but it is important to understand that there are, in fact, certain objective standards that separate good art from bad. I commend Rok for wanting to broaden his horizons by learning more about, yes I will say it, the nuts and bolts.