Jazz for aficionados

Has anyone considered how pointless this debate is? To begin with we all hear differently. If you go back to that analogy I made about the radio stations, we can only receive the music our minds are tuned to receive, at the time it's tuned to receive it. I can't hear classical music very well, the tuner in my mind is slightly off frequency.

There isn't much in regard to music that's not "subjective"; consequently there is no "objective" right or wrong. Has anyone heard of the "Tower of Babel"; that's what this debate has gotten to.

Enjoy the music.

I already answered you Map.

Well, I think it's unfortunate that you consider it pointless. If by pointless you mean that there is not going to be concensus, then you are probably correct. However, I am not debating; I, (and Learsfool) am trying offer a musician's perspective, and one that we know to be the truth. So, I would hope that, given the fact that we are talking about music, there is some value for some in, at least, learning a little bit about that perspective. Perhaps that is of no value to some.

****There isn't much in regard to music that's not "subjective";****

I am glad to see that there has been a bit of "softening" of your stance. It used to be that you used to say that music was purely subjective, or that there was nothing that was subjective; that there is no right or wrong. That is simply not true. Even in jazz, where there is much more latitude allowed for expression and individuality there is often a right and wrong:

- a wrong note in a solo is still a wrong note. How does one know it is a wrong note as opposed to the players choice? The more one understands the rudiments the more it becomes obvious.

- out of tune is wrong. How does one know it is as opposed to a players choice of "color"? Listen to the piano behind the player; it doesn't lie.

- the tenor and trumpet not being together when the "head" is wrong.

I could go on and there is just as long a list (probably longer) for classical.

IMO, knowledge is always a good thing. I believe that some listeners have a predisposition to feel that knowledge will detract from the emotional experience. I suppose we then get into the issue of personality types, but that concern clearly does not apply to all. And none of this impacts on an individual's preferences.

I still want to know about Pannonica :-)

Yes thanks Schubert.

Not sure why that posted twice. Agon glitch. I suppose.

Btw did you ever get to try the ohms in your setup? They would seem a reasonable option to try. I saw a pair of used micro washes here the other day for 900 a pair. Lots of competition at that price point. Prices have gone up a it I the last year or so.

To The Oracles:

The gurus need to get it out of their heads that "some folks" think Jazz musicians don't need to know the fundamentals of music, or don't have to practice, or that folks think knowing the technical side, (Lord, I almost said the dreaded Nuts and Bolts)of music takes away from the emotion of it all. As if "some people" are just mindless morons that operate on pure emotion. "Some people"didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday. All these assumptions(strawmen) you throw out are just plain wrong. Trust me, we get it.

All that the gurus said is true. I don't dispute any of it. I just think that what a Coltrane or Monk had to do when playing in a Jazz club, was / is harder than what the principal player in a Symphony Orchestra has to do.

Now, WE MIGHT THINK, that playing a violin is difficult, but it's not that difficult to the principal players. WE MIGHT THINK playing what Coltrane played was difficult, and IT WAS, for Coltrane. That's the difference.

It's not easy to play what's in your head. Much easier to play what's on paper. WE are speaking of top notch players, where being able to play the horn is a given

Don't believe me, read Nica's book.

O-10: Any exchange of information is worthwhile.

Cheers