Alex, you have made some extremely thoughtful and open-minded posts recently. You addressed many of the issues which have been the source of contention on this thread, and I find it impressive that you did it while, at the same time, acknowledging your personal preferences and the possibility of new understanding. I promised you a response to a couple of your thought provoking comments:
****and why they value the idea behind the music more than its aestetchics (correct me if I am wrong)****
The overall premise of your entire comment is entirely fair and correct. However, I will correct you on this one piece of it. It is not that we value the "idea" more than the "aesthetics". This would presume that we value the aesthetics of more modern styles of jazz less than that of the more traditional styles; speaking for myself, I do not. The best explanation can be found in a recent comment by Newbee, the idea that
****musicians don’t have a chronological anchor****
What I believe Newbee means and which is entirely correct is that, as has been often said, there are only two kinds of music, good and bad. The place of any given music in the chronological landscape (style) is not important; whether it is composed/performed with integrity and at a high level of craft is. In other words, most musicians find aesthetic value in Benny Goodman’s Sextet as they do Bird, Miles or in Brad Mehldau. To dismiss one or the other as "soulless" or "too intellectual" says much more about the listener than it says about the music.
****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.****
EXACTLY! And the point that I’ve tried to make countless times and to which there has been much resistance. No one has ever suggested that there is anything wrong with having a preferred style; we all do. To not have a "chronological anchor" does not mean that the chronology should be ignored; quite the opposite. To appreciate and understand the chronology is the key to understanding the evolution of the music, the inevitability of the changing styles and why and how it got to where it’s today. As has also often been said: Art reflects the times; whether we like what it’s says or not is a separate matter.
All this leads to something that I feel needs to be cleared up re a comment made by Rok in response to my comment that "musicians are teachers by nature". I will speak for myself; but I think that I can speak for Learsfool also. We never set out to "teach" anyone. Like everyone else, from the start of my participation on this thread I wanted to share music and discuss topics that may come up. The problem always arises when disagreement that is backed by verifiable information becomes a major bone of contention and rancor ensues. There has been just as much vehement "disagreement" by those in the "subjective" camp as there has been by those in the "objective" camp. Yet, when the objectivist offers explanations backed by verifiable data all hell breaks loose. Seems to me that this is simply a way to shut up the dissenting voice. The only alternative then would become to not have dialogue at all; an unfortunate situation in my view. An exchange between Acman3 and Rok is a good example:
** Study the origins of Bebop, then come back. They were studying everyday what the classical composers of their time were doing.*****
This is what is called ’wishful thinking’ .
(1) Name me some classical music that you can point to and say, "this is the origin of be-bop". If anything, 20th century Classical Composers stole from Jazz.****
Well, what to do if there is to be dialogue about this? One could ignore the fact that there is truth to what Acman3 is saying and leave the matter in the realm of "opinion". Or, one can ask the question: Where does Rok think that the concepts of harmony in jazz came from if not from the European "Classical" tradition? (teach?😁) Of course, there has to be at least a minimal understanding of what harmony is if this is to make sene. If one ignores the facts then it becomes easy to fit all that one WANTS music to be into our own personal agenda for it.
Anyway, Alex, please continue posting thoughtful comments and I am glad you are participating. One of my very favorite lesser known tenor players, and one of those sessions that one gets the feeling that all the stars aligned. Blue Mitchell is absolutely brilliant on this record:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLB2C2CCC049C7989B&v=SRFhsMvWKmM
****and why they value the idea behind the music more than its aestetchics (correct me if I am wrong)****
The overall premise of your entire comment is entirely fair and correct. However, I will correct you on this one piece of it. It is not that we value the "idea" more than the "aesthetics". This would presume that we value the aesthetics of more modern styles of jazz less than that of the more traditional styles; speaking for myself, I do not. The best explanation can be found in a recent comment by Newbee, the idea that
****musicians don’t have a chronological anchor****
What I believe Newbee means and which is entirely correct is that, as has been often said, there are only two kinds of music, good and bad. The place of any given music in the chronological landscape (style) is not important; whether it is composed/performed with integrity and at a high level of craft is. In other words, most musicians find aesthetic value in Benny Goodman’s Sextet as they do Bird, Miles or in Brad Mehldau. To dismiss one or the other as "soulless" or "too intellectual" says much more about the listener than it says about the music.
****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.****
EXACTLY! And the point that I’ve tried to make countless times and to which there has been much resistance. No one has ever suggested that there is anything wrong with having a preferred style; we all do. To not have a "chronological anchor" does not mean that the chronology should be ignored; quite the opposite. To appreciate and understand the chronology is the key to understanding the evolution of the music, the inevitability of the changing styles and why and how it got to where it’s today. As has also often been said: Art reflects the times; whether we like what it’s says or not is a separate matter.
All this leads to something that I feel needs to be cleared up re a comment made by Rok in response to my comment that "musicians are teachers by nature". I will speak for myself; but I think that I can speak for Learsfool also. We never set out to "teach" anyone. Like everyone else, from the start of my participation on this thread I wanted to share music and discuss topics that may come up. The problem always arises when disagreement that is backed by verifiable information becomes a major bone of contention and rancor ensues. There has been just as much vehement "disagreement" by those in the "subjective" camp as there has been by those in the "objective" camp. Yet, when the objectivist offers explanations backed by verifiable data all hell breaks loose. Seems to me that this is simply a way to shut up the dissenting voice. The only alternative then would become to not have dialogue at all; an unfortunate situation in my view. An exchange between Acman3 and Rok is a good example:
** Study the origins of Bebop, then come back. They were studying everyday what the classical composers of their time were doing.*****
This is what is called ’wishful thinking’ .
(1) Name me some classical music that you can point to and say, "this is the origin of be-bop". If anything, 20th century Classical Composers stole from Jazz.****
Well, what to do if there is to be dialogue about this? One could ignore the fact that there is truth to what Acman3 is saying and leave the matter in the realm of "opinion". Or, one can ask the question: Where does Rok think that the concepts of harmony in jazz came from if not from the European "Classical" tradition? (teach?😁) Of course, there has to be at least a minimal understanding of what harmony is if this is to make sene. If one ignores the facts then it becomes easy to fit all that one WANTS music to be into our own personal agenda for it.
Anyway, Alex, please continue posting thoughtful comments and I am glad you are participating. One of my very favorite lesser known tenor players, and one of those sessions that one gets the feeling that all the stars aligned. Blue Mitchell is absolutely brilliant on this record:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLB2C2CCC049C7989B&v=SRFhsMvWKmM