Jazz for aficionados

Frogman, on the issue of "Subjective Reality" I insist that we not agree to disagree, but come to a definitive conclusion.

Subjective reality and how is it different from objective reality? Objective reality refers to the reality outside your mind (in the physical world) – the objects and events that make up the “raw data.” Subjective reality refers to the reality inside your mind. It is the meaning you assign to things and events.

People see different things even if they are looking at the same object.All objects, dreams ideas and “truths” are different for each person. I’ve put “truths” in quotes because as you’ll see, “truth” is subjective! Essentially we all live in different worlds; we may have things in common with other people, but because of our background and our subjective interpretation of the world – our unique perspective – our world can be polar opposite from the person sitting next to us.

The Perception Game

Where you

Imagine yourself and thirty of your friends and neighbors standing in a row, each person an arm’s length from the next and facing in the same direction. In front of everyone is an object, say a huge marble rectangle – a modern sculpture rising thirty feet into the sky. Everybody sees the rectangle. But they see it from a different perspective. One person may see a monolith because they are facing the broad side of the rectangle; to them, the sculpture is imposing and intimidating. The person next to them sees the same monolith but it is exciting because he is a mountain climber. Another, down the line, will see the corner between the broad side and the narrow side; to them, the sculpture may appear very interesting since the quality of light is different on each side of the sculpture. Another person sees only the narrow side of the rectangle and sees something absurdly tall, something that looks like it will topple easily. Tall people see the rectangle from a different angle than short people.

Subjective reality: beauty or danger?Each person is 100% correct in what they perceive. But they don’t necessarily understand the points of view of anyone else in the line of people because NO ONE CAN SEE PRECISELY WHAT OTHERS SEE.

Can you see how mind-blowing this is?

The gray area between objective and subjective realities occurs when you assign a meaning to something that exists in your mind – such labeling your house as “beautiful.” When you start talking to other people about it you bring your subjective reality into the realm of the objective.

If you believe something is beautiful, you will experience it as something beautiful. If someone believes your house is the ugliest thing ever built, their experience when seeing your home will not be pleasant. Each person’s experience depends on the meaning they assign to objective reality.

This is how misunderstandings and differences of opinion occur. You may think “this house is beautiful” while another believes it’s the ugliest. In each person’s reality, the house is perceived differently. Some people will agree with you. In their experience, the house is beautiful. Other people won’t care one way or the other – in their subjective world, your house isn’t important enough to label.

This is what’s meant by “beauty is in the eye of the beholder!” Beauty is a purely subjective concept.

Enjoy the music.

Frogman, reasonable man can add very little to your and Learsf.last post. But, let me try, even if that may say more about me, making declarations, aldo I think it is just an clarification. IMHO, if you look at the history of any art, in each and every era you will find that art has some caracheristics which can be considered as strong points of that author, that style and finally that time.
Due to different reasons, there is always a different accent on what is considered as 'value or virtue' in some style and in certain time. So, I have taken the liberty to say that I certainly consider some era's superior than others,but I must add,in those aspects that I
value as important. Further more, if we would really want to establish what is 'good' or 'better' and why is it so, we should start a philosophical discussion on aesthetics and its ethics. I could not agree more with Learsfool who says that education is way to better understanding, but let me point to one other contradiction. When I say 'simple' that has different meaning to us. Yes, composition or melody may be simple, but if its executed right, you would like it. But, what if the composition is basic, playing of the key, and ability of musicians very limited, to say at least, and you still like it? Do you think that only an ignorant could like such 'music' or perhaps there is something in 'music' beyond craftmanship that can touch us in a 'mysterious ways' that cant be always just explained ? In this sense, I would not be so keen in dismissing O-10's perception of music as limited one, before we are sure that we covered all bases of the subject, and not only regarding jazz.

****Frogman, our problem in regard to the way we perceive "jazz" is becoming clear; to me, composition is every thing, to you it's how well the musician blows his horn. For example, Michael Brecker blows a beautiful horn, but I didn't care for the composition. In the case of Wayne Shorter, I don't like short clipped phrases ****

No, no, no! O-10, with all due respect, either you don't read my posts in their entirety or the chasm between our realities is even greater than thought. No one has commented more on the compositional aspects of the music, and their importance, than I have. I think that at the root of the disagreement is the tendency to be absolutist about these issues. Iow, because I mention that "how well the musician blows the horn" is important, then that is perceived as the only consideration if it fits the agenda. That is a very simplistic, not to mention inaccurate stance.

****Frogman, on the issue of "Subjective Reality" I insist that we not agree to disagree, but come to a definitive conclusion****

I must say that I find a conspicuous irony in all of this; and which, a cynic might say, is nothing more than disingenuousness. What I mean is this:

The adherent to the subjective reality idea claims to want an all-inclusive view of reality; iow, everyone's reality is equally valid. Putting aside the folly of the insistence on the dismissal of long-held standards by which performance quality is judged, a person would think that this more "liberal" stance would be tolerant of other viewpoints (realities). Moreover, the subjectivist puts up far more rigid preconditions for liking or not liking something; for instance, "composition is everything", "I don't like short clipped phrases", etc. By contrast, the advocate of the more "conservative" objective reality idea is not only willing to "agree to disagree", and has acknowledged that the subjectivist finds value in his chosen approach, he encourages the appreciation of ALL styles of music and playing. However, the subjectivist cannot allow room for the other reality and insists on "coming to a definitive conclusion". For me, the contradiction is obvious.

O-10, I am not quite sure how you propose we come to "a definitive conclusion". It may come as a surprise to you, but I have little interest in coming to a definitive conclusion; and, not because it is obvious that it won't be possible. More importantly, I acknowledge your reality and my only interest is in pointing out that there is a different reality that some may or may not find is the path to deeper appreciation of the music. I will say it again, with respect, we will have to agree to disagree. Well, I will.

Regards.

Alex, that was a fantastic post and very well stated; I agree with every word of it. I won't repeat some of what I posted in response to O-10, but it addresses some of your points. I think the main obstacle here is the defensiveness that, while being a very natural human reaction (especially when it concerns something we love), can blind us to the entirety of what the other person is saying. With respect, it is the defensive person who would use labels like "ignorant" in the context of a discussion such as this. When have I said anything of the sort to O-10? As I said to O-10, there is a contradiction in the idea that one camp can be at liberty to be critical ("that is not jazz", "I didn't like this or that", "this is the best era" etc.) in a way that goes counter to another's viewpoint, but when it is pointed out that a performance is subpar and, importantly, precise reasons why are given, all hell breaks loose.

**** what if the composition is basic, playing of the key, and ability of musicians very limited, to say at least, and you still like it? Do you think that only an ignorant could like such 'music' or perhaps there is something in 'music' beyond craftmanship that can touch us in a 'mysterious ways' that cant be always just explained ?

As concerns my comments about O-10's recent post "Chan Chan", which I found fault with, please note that I said "there is obviously something that resonates with you in that performance". It seems you are suggesting that there is no room for criticism of music that someone likes; a silly idea imo. Most importantly, what then is the point of a discussion and, as O-10 himself proposed in his original post, "review" of the music? If someone likes a performance that is off-key and shows a low level of craft, that's fine with me; but, am I not at liberty to state why I don't like it? I think we all need to be comfortable in our own skins and be willing to accept different viewpoints.

Chazro, killer band and killer record! Adventurous and intensely creative record from one of the greatest minds (and heart; just in case :-) in jazz. Love it.