O-10, I appreciate your comments. There is nothing wrong with disagreement nor even with dispute when it is handled with a modicum of respect for others and for others’ point of view.
**** I am not denigrating anyone or anything. Just stating my point of view, along with a few facts. ****
Rok, those relatively new to this thread may not be aware that this latest dispute is nothing new. As I have suggested many times previously there is a way to express one’s point of view without referring to others’ points of view as “bogus”, “noise”, etc. Why that is not obvious nor a priority when having a “discussion” is a mystery to me, but imo that is what causes problems; and this has been demonstrated time and time again. Clearly, your “facts” may not be someone else’s. Perhaps this example will cause you to reconsider your “facts” (and “sabbatical”?) and consider the possibility that there may be something else at play here:
**** Having done so, I think I will take a sabbatical along with the OP. As someone said recently, my kind of music is no longer discussed here. ****
I went back one month over this thread’s posts (to 3/7) and took a look at all the posts. I stopped at 4/6 with the first Mose Allison post. I stopped there because that seems to have been the catalyst for the recent dispute, but mostly because I couldn’t take the counting any more 🤪. I divided the posts during this period into three categories. Each submission of a music clip was counted as 1 whether it was accompanied by commentary or not. A commentary without a clip was also counted as 1. I didn’t need this exercise to know what the results would be, but since “facts” seem to matter most let’s present some facts. The three categories were:
1. Music clips that were presented without any claim of being jazz of any kind (Doo wop, Classical, Soul), and/or commentary unrelated to music.
2. Music clips of, or commentary supportive of “new jazz” (loosely speaking, post-Bitches Brew, to use your criterion).
3. Music clips of, or commentary supportive of “old jazz” (loosely speaking, pre-Bitches Brew, to use your criterion). And btw, the majority of these were submitted by those also supportive of “new jazz”.
I hope I will be forgiven for being off by 10 or so in each category; expediency demanded a bit of a rush job. I believe the results are representative of the entire history of this thread. The results:
1. 95
2. 65
3. 250 !!!!!!
Begs the question: Exactly what is the problem? I hope you reconsider.
**** I am not denigrating anyone or anything. Just stating my point of view, along with a few facts. ****
Rok, those relatively new to this thread may not be aware that this latest dispute is nothing new. As I have suggested many times previously there is a way to express one’s point of view without referring to others’ points of view as “bogus”, “noise”, etc. Why that is not obvious nor a priority when having a “discussion” is a mystery to me, but imo that is what causes problems; and this has been demonstrated time and time again. Clearly, your “facts” may not be someone else’s. Perhaps this example will cause you to reconsider your “facts” (and “sabbatical”?) and consider the possibility that there may be something else at play here:
**** Having done so, I think I will take a sabbatical along with the OP. As someone said recently, my kind of music is no longer discussed here. ****
I went back one month over this thread’s posts (to 3/7) and took a look at all the posts. I stopped at 4/6 with the first Mose Allison post. I stopped there because that seems to have been the catalyst for the recent dispute, but mostly because I couldn’t take the counting any more 🤪. I divided the posts during this period into three categories. Each submission of a music clip was counted as 1 whether it was accompanied by commentary or not. A commentary without a clip was also counted as 1. I didn’t need this exercise to know what the results would be, but since “facts” seem to matter most let’s present some facts. The three categories were:
1. Music clips that were presented without any claim of being jazz of any kind (Doo wop, Classical, Soul), and/or commentary unrelated to music.
2. Music clips of, or commentary supportive of “new jazz” (loosely speaking, post-Bitches Brew, to use your criterion).
3. Music clips of, or commentary supportive of “old jazz” (loosely speaking, pre-Bitches Brew, to use your criterion). And btw, the majority of these were submitted by those also supportive of “new jazz”.
I hope I will be forgiven for being off by 10 or so in each category; expediency demanded a bit of a rush job. I believe the results are representative of the entire history of this thread. The results:
1. 95
2. 65
3. 250 !!!!!!
Begs the question: Exactly what is the problem? I hope you reconsider.