Aargh! I can try Spanish, but I don't think it would matter. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I don't understand what is unclear about what I am saying.
I did not say that we cannot judge art at a time other than the era when it was created. I said that we cannot remove the historical context or backdrop of the era during which it was created when judging it at a later time and that it is that backdrop that allows a superior example of that art. And of course the great artists represented their respective eras; that's the whole point, they always do. If we understand what was going in historically, socially and in other respects of life in a particular era, THEN we can judge wether the artist is doing a good job of reflecting that or not. That is, assuming we understand some basic things about music in general; if we are able to appreciate why Santana is nothing like Headhunters. It is a different social and political climate today, it is inspiring a different message. Anyway, look, you fight the message every step of the way, especially for someone who "considers himself the least informed on this thread". Or was that sarcasm or lip-service? if you still have to ask:
****why pick up Fusion, when Hubbard and Mingus are sitting on the same shelf. Makes sense based on my premise!****
then you really don't understand MY premise. A premise that, as much as I don't like to pull the "I am a musician" card, is shared by the vast majority of musicians; perhaps that may have some significance for you. So, I have tried every which way to explain that the point is that there are good examples of every genre; just as there are bad in every genre. If you really can't understand why I may want to, on any given day, listen to a good example of "fusion" as opposed to Mingus; or why regurgitated backwards-looking jazz may not be as appealing as Mingus on any given day then I don't think there is anywhere further to go with this discussion; for now....
I did not say that we cannot judge art at a time other than the era when it was created. I said that we cannot remove the historical context or backdrop of the era during which it was created when judging it at a later time and that it is that backdrop that allows a superior example of that art. And of course the great artists represented their respective eras; that's the whole point, they always do. If we understand what was going in historically, socially and in other respects of life in a particular era, THEN we can judge wether the artist is doing a good job of reflecting that or not. That is, assuming we understand some basic things about music in general; if we are able to appreciate why Santana is nothing like Headhunters. It is a different social and political climate today, it is inspiring a different message. Anyway, look, you fight the message every step of the way, especially for someone who "considers himself the least informed on this thread". Or was that sarcasm or lip-service? if you still have to ask:
****why pick up Fusion, when Hubbard and Mingus are sitting on the same shelf. Makes sense based on my premise!****
then you really don't understand MY premise. A premise that, as much as I don't like to pull the "I am a musician" card, is shared by the vast majority of musicians; perhaps that may have some significance for you. So, I have tried every which way to explain that the point is that there are good examples of every genre; just as there are bad in every genre. If you really can't understand why I may want to, on any given day, listen to a good example of "fusion" as opposed to Mingus; or why regurgitated backwards-looking jazz may not be as appealing as Mingus on any given day then I don't think there is anywhere further to go with this discussion; for now....