Jazz for aficionados

Hi O-10 - your post today about subjectivity and objectivity was interesting.  Most of it is fine as far as it goes.  However, as Frogman has pointed out several times, there is much more about music that is indeed objective than you think.  It requires knowledge of music to be able to determine which is which.  And since you state that you have no knowledge of music and do not want any, doesn't this mean that your point of view is neither objective or subjective, but simply un-informed?  Even subjectivity assumes knowledge of the subject.  You seem to imply that your un-informed point of view has equal value to an informed one.  While this may be true for you, I don't see how it could possibly be true for anyone else, and that is the problem.  You also imply that this situation is unchangeable, which it is clearly not.  Again, that is up to you.  Please do not take this personally - I am genuinely interested in trying to bridge the disconnect here.  I am not at all implying that you are not capable of understanding - I know you are if you wanted to.  But if you really don't want to, then it seems to me that you really shouldn't complain about your "detractors" who insist on correcting false statements/perceptions.   

Learsfool, ARC has engineers to design their amps and pre-amps. After the engineers have finished, they have 'audiophiles' to fine tune them. There is nothing "objective" about what these audiophiles are doing, it is all subjective. Any thing that is objective can be measured; how would you measure the beauty of Mary Lou Williams music?

I measure it by my senses. Whether or not anyone else agrees with my measurements is totally moot. How do I measure the soul in the tune "Blue Funk" by Milt Jackson and Ray Charles; that tune has so much soul that it's incomprehensible. In order to capture the nuance completely, a 45 RPM disc and a high end analog rig with tube amplification is required. How do I know this, you might ask; I know it through my subjective senses that are in harmony with others who have the same senses.

How do I know my subjective senses are accurate? By a comparison with many others whose same subjective senses have been acknowledged. "Moanin" by Bobby Timmons is another tune with a high degree of "soul", how do I know this? Because Bobby Timmons music speaks to the soul; not just my soul, but to the soul of multitudes. His music conveys messages without words; it projects emotions that people who don't even speak the same language recieve.

In regard to those who think my perceptions are false, I don't ask them to listen to or believe my perceptions; why should it matter if my perceptions are false to them. Who is the absolute judge of perceptions, and who judges  their perceptions?


Enjoy the music.  

Acman, that trio sounded kind of like this tro;



      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0FIsFD9MXU


Enjoy the music.

Let's explore the music of Ry Cooder; he's all over the place, no matter what your groove is Ry Cooder's got it.

Imagine waking up at three in the morning to find yourself in a landscape with city streets and no houses as far as the eye could see, with nothing but the light of the silvery moon. This is the music that would fit such a setting.


        //www.youtube.com/watch?v=050TIMlpmL0


        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOkXrd6eRRw0


Like I said, no matter where you want to go, Ry Cooder can take you there.




Enjoy the music.

Orpheus, have you watched this movie? It certainly explains a lot of things behind some aspects of US economy. It is a not an action movie, in fact the trailer is not true to a real tempo of the film, which is very slow, patient, and the caracters are all in service of the story (or better understanding of it)

https://youtu.be/LWr8hbUkG9s

However, as it is a story about US economy, I am not sure am I allowed to comment on that, since I am European?

As to your perception,nobody is saying that it is 'false', when you talk about work of some late masters, its just that you are fixed on one period and couple of styles, which is perfectly all right. (like I said, that is my favourite music as well) 
But in the same time, it seems to me that you refusing to except that any other music that was made later in time has an equal right to be called 'jazz'
Now we are coming to a 'problematic' part.
When you are asked to explain which elements of music are best describing the 'jazz' that you like, or what it is the thing that it makes you like it, you simply refer to it as a 'soul'.
On the oher hand, the music that you dont like  you simply call 'intellectual' or 'soulless' without further analysis of elements of its 'lackings'
There is no need for so many harsh words, I guess Frog.or Leafr. could simply ignored some of the coments written here and continue to write about their favourite music.
I can only speak for myself, but for example, when I hear somebody praisng Keith Jarret, without knowing the work of Evans, than I am sceptical about his musical taste and his knowledge in general.
But, as we all have seen,  Frogman is quite good in recognising the good music from the past (aldo he dont like some of my 'forgotten' ones) and somehow I am more inclined to trust him or his taste about some contemporary music after that. 
The fact that I still may not like that music does not mean that that music is not good, it is quite possible that I am not 'there' yet.
I am sure that we all can agree that our music taste has changed during time.
So, whats the problem?