There is expression that says that all art was modern, in one point in time. Process of reception of a 'new art' was always hard and history of any art is full of examples when some, at first scorned, art form has become recognised and valued. There is no surprise to me that same discussion is held here, the principal question beeing to define what is 'jazz jazz' music , in opposition to music that was created couple decades later and by opinions of some, does not deserve to be called by the same name. Setting or recognising the standards who could enable us to understand music better proved to be much harder, because the discussion became somehow irrational and its emphasis was never about the principles of music, neither about social or cutural era that influenced or shaped some particular form, instead the 'arguments' were drawn on basis of personal feelings and experiences. Even if one (or many) wants to declare that 'having soul' is the most important factor which will determine which music has a right to be called 'jazz jazz', I belleive that he owes us an explanation what 'soul' is, in music anyway. So far I have not read any such attempts.
If this 'discussion' is going to continue I would certainly like that any attempt in 'proving' any point is concentrated on confronting the thoughts instead of persons.
As for my opinion,on this subject, or better, I should say taste, if anyone cares, is that I prefer music that was created up untill lets say 1965. Later, maybe only if the style hasnt changed much, usually made by same protagonists.
In the same time I am very curios to understand what someone very knowledgabe ( like Frg.and Leafr.) prefer about new expressions and why they value the idea behind the music more than its aestetchics (correct me if I am wrong)
Also, I think, by learning and later perhaps knowing or recognising 'their point' can open the whole new world in appreciating the music that now stays beyond our understanding.
https://youtu.be/Q3bbsDJWlXQ
If this 'discussion' is going to continue I would certainly like that any attempt in 'proving' any point is concentrated on confronting the thoughts instead of persons.
As for my opinion,on this subject, or better, I should say taste, if anyone cares, is that I prefer music that was created up untill lets say 1965. Later, maybe only if the style hasnt changed much, usually made by same protagonists.
In the same time I am very curios to understand what someone very knowledgabe ( like Frg.and Leafr.) prefer about new expressions and why they value the idea behind the music more than its aestetchics (correct me if I am wrong)
Also, I think, by learning and later perhaps knowing or recognising 'their point' can open the whole new world in appreciating the music that now stays beyond our understanding.
https://youtu.be/Q3bbsDJWlXQ