Rok2id,
"Sameness" is a matter of perspective. When you live overseas what sounded all the same starts to get differentiated after a while.
It seems that you are determined to win the argument about "greatness" -- whatever it takes. But this is an argument you can never win -- no matter how many rabbits you pull out of the hat -- because what are really saying is "I am not crazy about his music so he cannot have been great", which is silly, of course. We all have our preferences but most of us will leave it at that.
As I pointed out earlier, which you have not replied to, is that while it is true that greatness is in the eye of the public, it is also true that greatness is in the eye of the beholder. It is like beauty. Saying that a work of art is not beautiful backs you into a corner because there are inevitably those who will disagree with you. Ergo, you cannot win the argument.
Now -- after two failed attempts -- you have a third argument to bolster your feelings that Brubeck was not great -- since your assertion that he did not play in clubs -- but he did -- and since your assertion that the critics did not like him -- but many did -- have fallen a bit flat. I note that you have not responded after I clearly showed that your first two assertions were false.
Your third and most recent assertion is that no one followed Brubeck so he cannot have been great. Your argument is specious. There have been many great artists and many geniuses in all walks of life throughout history who were never followed. In the world of music, my question to you is "Who followed Art Tatum?" No one that I know of. Certainly not Oscar Peterson who quit playing piano for a number of months after he first heard Art Tatum play, so overwhelmed was he by what he had heard.
Art Tatum and Dave Brubeck were originals. They both broke the mold. No one could follow them without being derivative. In that sense, if one wished to be negative about this, all followers could be branded as unoriginal, imitators and mere copyists -- which would be an equally specious assertion.
"Sameness" is a matter of perspective. When you live overseas what sounded all the same starts to get differentiated after a while.
It seems that you are determined to win the argument about "greatness" -- whatever it takes. But this is an argument you can never win -- no matter how many rabbits you pull out of the hat -- because what are really saying is "I am not crazy about his music so he cannot have been great", which is silly, of course. We all have our preferences but most of us will leave it at that.
As I pointed out earlier, which you have not replied to, is that while it is true that greatness is in the eye of the public, it is also true that greatness is in the eye of the beholder. It is like beauty. Saying that a work of art is not beautiful backs you into a corner because there are inevitably those who will disagree with you. Ergo, you cannot win the argument.
Now -- after two failed attempts -- you have a third argument to bolster your feelings that Brubeck was not great -- since your assertion that he did not play in clubs -- but he did -- and since your assertion that the critics did not like him -- but many did -- have fallen a bit flat. I note that you have not responded after I clearly showed that your first two assertions were false.
Your third and most recent assertion is that no one followed Brubeck so he cannot have been great. Your argument is specious. There have been many great artists and many geniuses in all walks of life throughout history who were never followed. In the world of music, my question to you is "Who followed Art Tatum?" No one that I know of. Certainly not Oscar Peterson who quit playing piano for a number of months after he first heard Art Tatum play, so overwhelmed was he by what he had heard.
Art Tatum and Dave Brubeck were originals. They both broke the mold. No one could follow them without being derivative. In that sense, if one wished to be negative about this, all followers could be branded as unoriginal, imitators and mere copyists -- which would be an equally specious assertion.