Jazz for aficionados

****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.

Chazro, listening to it now, it is an amazing recording.

Frpgman has made some more excellent posts - I would add only one thing in response to O-10's latest post about subjectivity and his example of 30 different people seeing 30 different things when looking at the same object. No one is denying this. However, what I said and what Frogman has been saying is also true - each of these 30 people will have different levels of knowledge about the said object, and can impart this knowledge to others, who then will have a much better frame of reference to look at the object more objectively and less subjectively, when they take a second look, and a third, and a fourth, etc. This will always be true, even if they have looked at the object 500 times. Especially if we are talking about a great work of art. You can always learn more about the object looked at, and therefore appreciate and love the it more. I truly do not understand why anyone would not want to do this about something they love as much as you love jazz. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself....