Rok, possibly your best written post ever. Unfortunately, with some serious issues in the area of content. First of all, Rok, you are the one who has decided to apply the term "Oracle"; and sarcastically at that. So, please feel free to demote me to whatever other designation you please. I don’t want nor like titles; especially silly ones like that.
No matter what you imagine to be or surmise are BB’s reasons for saying what he said about SRV, you have no way of knowing what is in his heart about him. I prefer to take him at his word and hence assume that this paragon of The Blues (BB) is, in fact, not a hypocrite and respects and believes enough in the art form to not be insincere with his accolades. The inconsistencies and contradictions in your stances about some of these issues are stark. You have posted those OK (and no more) clips of your idol Wynton Marsalis with Eric Clapton playing the blues more times than I can remember. Is Wynton, Oracle of all things jazz (to you), also a hypocrite? Certainly, there are in existence countless clips of Wynton’s band that don’t include Clapton. So, why?
That the "Sweethearts" overcame many odds during their time is not the issue here; the quality of their music is. It’s pretty good. Compared to the bands at the top of the big band scene at the time, bands like Duke, Basie, Goodman, Shaw and others, they are decidedly derivative and third rate. The mentioned bands had ground breaking composers and influential soloists that would do much to shape the genre and, as soloists, shape the direction of jazz as a whole. Name one player or composer associated with "The Sweethearts" that you can say that about. The novelty appeal was a huge part of their success. They were pretty good and no more. Third rate. If it makes you feel better....second rate (not!). Conservative thinker that you are would consider merit only, no? This whole issue makes my case about personal bias influencing our (your) outlook on pet issues.
Ferrell: Oh, I see, it was about PASSION. Sure thing. The ridiculous scatting didn’t count and was not part of this PASSION. Tasteless, over the top passion; I get it. And, oh yes, before I forget, very out of tune singing also, by the standards of great singers. C’mon, man, even the band in that clip is just ok. Just because a performer appears to be totally into the performace does not make it good. Facial contortions do not passion make. You like it, good for you; for me, fingernails on a chalkboard.
Now, the bigger picture (of this thread), Rok: I hope this little and latest squabble served some purpose for you; you apparently seem to need this sort of thing periodically. Personally, eventhough I will stand up to your abrasiveness and bs when directed at me, I find it all terribly wasteful. I know that you will always be right (in your mind). I don’t really mind that as I have no vested interest in "being right". What I do think is important is a modicum of respect and self control re personal issues when posting and addressing other participants; especially when disagreeing.
The issue of why there aren’t more posters on this thread has come up recently and previously. It is not that there aren’t more jazz fans out there; it is bs like this.
Cheers to you too (what did you think of Cannonball’s "Stars Fell.."?)
Edit: O-10, I just read your most recent post. As I am sure it is for you, my main interest is in the promotion and vitality of this thread about this great music. As countless times before, there are some basic flaws and inaccuracies in your statements. You insist in assuming that because someone can listen to music with the "technical" as part of the whole experience that the "emotional" is missed. That is complete and utter nonsense that serves only to buttress your choice to completely ignore technical considerations. You nor anyone else have a monopoly on appreciating the emotional aspects of music. As I wrote recently both things inform each other for an even deeper understanding. To suggest otherwise is simple defensiveness. I am not "forever" talking about the technical at all. I often do; but your aversion and close mindedness about it also shuts your mind to seeing how that is only a part of what I talk about. Moreover to suggest that you know how I "see" or hear music is simply arrogant and misguided. As I also said to Rok, as far as the bigger picture of this thread goes, I would encourage you to take a closer look at patterns over the life of this thread that point to when it is that there is more active participation from other members here in relation to the amount of silly bickering, clickishness, and judgmental comments like the ones you have just made; and, when it is that there is less participation and no new posters while the thread becomes not much more than a two way conversation between you and Rok. Just as with Rok, the inconsistencies and contradictions in your stance about some of this are stark. You rely on your "subjective" experience only, but are also quick to point out why someone else's feelings about an artist or performance may not be valid (example: "stereotypical"). So, in other words, only YOUR subjective opinion is valid, right? I see. I think we can do better than that.
