Being very familiar (unfortunately) with this kind of recent silly and pointless arguing I would like to, "for what it’s worth" (a comment that I will return to), offer some thoughts. While I realize some may question why I make an issue of this and jump into the fray, all I can say is that I honestly believe that if we could avoid that kind of silliness and instead try and understand what the other poster is saying or why he has a particular reaction to an artist we would all be better music listeners. Instead, posters argue and get indignant, throw around "opinions" with little basis in reality, puff their chests and eventually things calm down only to have the exact same thing happen again.
This thread is about music and with all the expressed feelings about the claimed sacrosanct "subjectivity" of music it seems to me that there should be some respect shown for why someone may or may not like an artist. Respect, in as much as remaining open to understanding the dissenting opinion. The catch, of course, is there has to be a willingness to, at least, try and explain that opinion; either in musical terms or in terms of personal emotional reaction. In other words, knowledge of the technical aspects of music is not absolutely necessary for this. The cynic and strict subjectivist may believe that knowledge is actually a disadvantage; nonsense, of course.
I happen to like Gene Ammons. I also can understand why some don’t like his style. A player with a tremendous amount of exuberance, huge robust sound, unique tone and hard swinging. He was actually a "gateway" player to the r&b tenor saxophone sound that was heard come out of every jukebox during the early rock and roll period. On the other hand his playing was rough around the edges, lacked refinement and he could not hold a candle to some one like Sonny Stitt in terms of command of harmony when playing harmonically complicated tunes; and his ballad playing lacked tenderness, imo. So, isn’t easy to see how someone might really like him and someone else might not?
Not meaning to "take sides", but for what it’s worth and as I see it: Schubert made a comment with the important qualifier "for what it’s worth" and expressed that he could listen to three particular artists all day. O-10, then states that Schubert’s list is incomplete and should include Ammons. So, now we have four artists that are worthy of being listened to all day.....I see. Schubert responds, acknowledges that Ammons had a lot of talent, but just doesn’t like him (much?). Oh no, we can’t have that! "I love Ammons, he is a giant, you are wrong in not liking him and, moreover, I couldn’t care less that you don’t like him.....so there!!!!" Aargh! Imo, THAT is when things took the unfortunate wrong turn and the silliness began. Personally, I saw nothing wrong with Schubert’s response.
We all purport to love music so much, but it seems to me are not always willing to pay it the respect that it deserves. It is an amazing art form and is serious business. Instead, it becomes a personal playground for patting ourselves on the back for how much we think we know or appreciate about it while only scratching the surface of its amazing depth and complexity. All this without enough sense of inquisitiveness, awe and humility about it all; it becomes about personal ego. Not digging deep enough, imo.
Not meaning to offend and, if it does, apologies to anyone concerned; but, I simply can’t let a couple of the "highlights" go by without some kind of response so as to make my above points. All, of course, imo:
**** I don’t listen to Classical music and yet.. I know when classical musician plays as it should be played. ****
Aaah, sure.....
**** Vaness Mae....she is Classical ****
Huh?!
Regards to all and here’s 🍷 to having thicker skins and digging a little deeper.
