Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 13:47:25 GMT -5
Don't you think that pop music offers what you think you want to listen to, ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 30, 2013 15:30:45 GMT -5
Don't you think that pop music offers what you think you want to listen to, ahinton? Such as I have listened to has not offered what I might want or what I think that I might want or what I might think that I want or might want; in other words, I have not been moved by any that I have heard as much as I would like to be moved by music - and by so writing I am not necessarily referring here solely to the profoundest thoughts expressed in musical terms but those that at least engage faculties that respond willingly and readily to being so engaged. Don't you (now perhaps) wish that you hadn't asked?(!)...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 19:46:34 GMT -5
. . . faculties that respond willingly and readily to being so engaged. Too little has been said so far about what it is that this "jazz" expresses. Does it not sneer? Mr. H. does not appear to think that the tone matters. Would he invite a tramp or corner-man into his home and listen to his opinions? I do not think so. Yet he will put "jazz" onto his gramophone and delight in what it has to say in its low language! Well now, Brahms loved gypsy music, and possibly even gypsies. And one might well invite a gypsy into one's home from time to time. They are not in fact from Egypt at all, but are of Hindu origin, which is a little audible in their music. The great difference is that in gypsy music there is none of the sneering and glorification of sloth that are expressed in the music of the amercian negroes. The reason is obvious: the negroes were slaves, not permitted to marry, even. They were, and are, certainly therefore entitled to sneer and to glorify sloth! But for a clean-limbed Englishman to turn aside and take an interest in such sad degradation is simply perverted and wrong! Sit on it as I said above. Protect our youth!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 30, 2013 23:49:14 GMT -5
. . . faculties that respond willingly and readily to being so engaged. Too little has been said so far about what it is that this "jazz" expresses. On that I think most reading this thread would agree. Does it not sneer? Mr. H. does not appear to think that the tone matters. It presumably does so to your ears but neither to mine nor to many other people's ears. I am not for one moment suggesting that your ears are therefore "wrong" - merely that a "sneering" tone, intentional or otherwise, is not an impression that most listeners to jazz would glean from listening to it. he will put "jazz" onto his gramophone and delight in what it has to say in its low language! Wrong on several counts! I do not possess a gramophone, I have not (as I've already been at pains to pont out) expressed what I think of it, I do not have the same blanket opinion of all jazz as you do in any case and I do neither accept nor understand your remark about it all being in a "low language" (and had thought in any case that, according to you, its origins were in parts of Africa and not the Netherlands, Luxembourg or Belgium). Having begun here by opining that "too little has been said so far about what it is that this "jazz" expresses", you make no attempt to explain the grounds upon which you conclude that it is all conceived and expressed in a "low language"! Well now, Brahms loved gypsy music, and possibly even gypsies. And one might well invite a gypsy into one's home from time to time. They are not in fact from Egypt at all, but are of Hindu origin, which is a little audible in their music. The great difference is that in gypsy music there is none of the sneering and glorification of sloth that are expressed in the music of the amercian negroes. The reason is obvious: the negroes were slaves, not permitted to marry, even. They were, and are, certainly therefore entitled to sneer and to glorify sloth! May I respectfully suggest to you that it is actually possible to discuss jazz without references to Brahms, who never heard any? Your variously patronising and distasteful references to "even gypsies", the origins of gypsies (which no one has even mentioned here in any case) and, above all, the expression "american negroes" (as distinct, presumably, from dark skinned people from elsewhere, including Africa - you do not specify one way or the other) does neither you nor what purportedly passes for your argument any favours whatsoever. To your accusation of "sneering" in jazz you now add that of the "glorification of sloth", though quite how (and still less why) your ears contrive detect either, let alone both, of these alleged characteristics in all jazz I have no idea; on what specific grounds, for example, do you conclude that, when the Frenchmen Ravel and Milhaud, the Austrian (of Czech origin) Krenek, Gershwin (born Jakob Gershvin, of Russian Jewish heritage), the Englishman Richard Rodney Bennett, the Russian Nikolai Kapustin and many so many others wrote (or in Kapustin's case still write) jazz oriented / influenced music, their intent was/is to "sneer" and "glorify sloth" or that they nevertheless thereby did/do so unwittingly? What nonsense! There's especially little "sloth" evident in the enormous outputs of Krenek and Milhaud, for starters! No - once more, as though yet again indulging a tiresome personal habit, you merely offer unadorned and unexplained statements about "sneering" and "sloth" as commonalities to all jazz in support of your personal deprecation thereof; this will not do for the rest of us! You might as well say that all Chinese are inferior human beings merely because you happen to have decided that you dislike them! (not that you do say that, of course, but you appear to imply something not dissimilar to such a sentiment when it comes to those of African origin). But for a clean-limbed Englishman to turn aside and take an interest in such sad degradation is simply perverted and wrong! What on earth is a "clean-limbed Englishman"? and what possible relevance (if indeed any such was intended to be implied) can one such have either to the subject of jazz or to a Scotsman? Once again, your references to degradation (of what?), perversion (of what?) and incorrectness (on what grounds?) are presented without a scintilla of explanation or justification, almost as though they need none - which, for you, they may indeed not, but such a stricture does not therefore apply to the rest of us! Sit on it as I said above. How is that possible and how might it achieve anything? What are you commending - that people sit on piles of jazz records? I am neither an officer of government nor a member of the police, the armed forces or the education or medical professions, so the reason why you address such an instruction to me and by implication expect me to act upon it remains as unclear as do your unexplained reservations about jazz.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 1:12:07 GMT -5
Good morning to you all! I trust that all is well with all of you this October! If I may nevertheless address your question directly, ahinton: 'Don't you think that pop music offers what you think you want to listen to, ahinton?' "Such as I have listened to has not offered what I might want or what I think that I might want or what I might think that I want or might want; in other words, I have not been moved by any that I have heard as much as I would like to be moved by music - and by so writing I am not necessarily referring here solely to the profoundest thoughts expressed in musical terms but those that at least engage faculties that respond willingly and readily to being so engaged. Don't you (now perhaps) wish that you hadn't asked?(!)..." No, ahinton. I suppose that what I should do is to offer up a popular rather than jazz or classical song for ' The Third'! Upon reflection, I have decided not to offer one of my favourite songs, and while there is no general agreement regarding the greatest "song" and no uniform criteria for evaluating results, many publishers and organisations have produced lists of songs considered the best. "Like a Rolling Stone" is a 1965 song by the American singer-songwriter Bob Dylan. Its confrontational lyrics originate in an extended piece of verse Dylan wrote in June 1965, when he returned exhausted from a grueling tour of England. After the lyrics were heavily edited, "Like a Rolling Stone" was recorded a few weeks later as part of the sessions for the forthcoming album Highway 61 Revisited. Wikipedia - Like a Rolling StoneDuring a difficult two-day preproduction, Dylan struggled to find the essence of the song, which was demoed without success in 3/4 time. A breakthrough was made when it was tried in a rock music format, and rookie session musician Al Kooper improvised the organ riff for which the track is known. However, Columbia Records was unhappy with both the song's length at over six minutes and its heavy electric sound, and was hesitant to release it. It was only when a month later a copy was leaked to a new popular music club and heard by influential DJs that the song was put out as a single. Although radio stations were reluctant to play such a long track, "Like a Rolling Stone" reached number two in the US charts and became a worldwide hit. The track has been described as revolutionary in its combination of different musical elements, the youthful, cynical sound of Dylan's voice, and the directness of the question in the chorus: "How does it feel?". "Like a Rolling Stone" transformed Dylan's career and is today considered one of the most influential compositions in post-war popular music and has since its release been both a music industry and popular culture milestone which elevated Dylan's image to iconic. The song has been covered by numerous artists, varying from The Jimi Hendrix Experience and The Rolling Stones to Bob Marley and the Wailers and Green Day. Wikipedia - List of songs considered the bestHere are the lyrics: [/i][/quote] Lyrics Freak - Bob Dylan - Like A Rolling Stone LyricsWhy is this particular popular song considered by many to be the best? The key question, I suppose, Sydney, is how does it feel?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 2:29:15 GMT -5
. . . on what specific grounds, for example, do you conclude that, when the Frenchmen Ravel and Milhaud, the Austrian (of Czech origin) Krenek, Gherkslop (born Jakob Gershvin, of Russian Jewish heritage), the Englishman Richard Rodney Bennett, the Russian Nikolai Kapustin and many so many others wrote (or in Kapustin's case still write) jazz oriented / influenced music, their intent was/is to "sneer" and "glorify sloth" or that they nevertheless thereby did/do so unwittingly? But Mr. H. I do not! Those examples are all derivatives - imitators if you like. (Apers of apes - as if they had nothing better to do.) What I have been writing about is your actual authentic original thing as it first arose!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 1, 2013 4:46:56 GMT -5
. . . on what specific grounds, for example, do you conclude that, when the Frenchmen Ravel and Milhaud, the Austrian (of Czech origin) Krenek, Gershwin (born Jakob Gershvin, of Russian Jewish heritage), the Englishman Richard Rodney Bennett, the Russian Nikolai Kapustin and many so many others wrote (or in Kapustin's case still write) jazz oriented / influenced music, their intent was/is to "sneer" and "glorify sloth" or that they nevertheless thereby did/do so unwittingly? But Mr. H. I do not! Those examples are all derivatives - imitators if you like. (Apers of apes - as if they had nothing better to do.) What I have been writing about is your actual authentic original thing as it first arose! Before responding to this, I note that, whilst indulging in puerile deliberate mis-spellings of the names of composers of whose work you disapprove is a matter for you alone (and, to that extent, your personal if unfortunate prerogative) within your opwn posts, I take issue with your doing so by similarly altering quotations from other members; I spelt Gershwin's name Gershwin (as you will note above), which is the way that he spelt it having adapted it from Gershvin and I surely need not remind you that it was his name and his alone to use and adapt as he saw fit, just as my posts are mine, not to be altered as you see fit (unless in breach of forum rules). Returning to the subject, your argument here is once again fundamentally flawed. Responding to influences and absorbing cultural cross-currents is one thing; mere pale and slavish imitation of the kind of which you write is quite another. If you are really seeking to persuade readers of this thread that, when writing jazz-oriented music, all of these composers fell firmly and solely into the latter category by merely imitating the same sources, their music would undoubtedly all sound more or less the same, yet the most casual comparison of the operas Jonny spielt auf and Porgy and Bess, or of the jazz-influenced music of Kapustin and Bennett or of Ravel and Milhaud - or indeed any of these with the music of Weill - demonstrates beyond all question that the opposite is the case. Even your reference to "your actual authentic original thing as it first arose" does nothing even to identify, let alone support, what is supposedly your argument here, for at least two reasons. Firstly, there are other elements of the indigenous musics of parts of Africa - west Africa in particular - that have exerted some influence on certain Western composers in more recent times but which never found their way into jazz anywhere and certainly not during what one might loosely term the swing era in America. Secondly - and, I think, far more importantly - your reference to an "authentic thing" seems to suggest that jazz either did remain, or should have remained, untainted (beyond the ways in which you believe it to be inherently tainted) and intact indefinitely, as though unamenable to the possibility of developments and metamorphoses; clearly this did not happen, as a brief examination of early 1920s with early 1950s jazz will clearly reveal but, again more importantly even than that, why would anyone expect it to do this? The influences of Byrd, Palestrina and Victoria - and above all that of Bach - have continued to one degree or another in some music somewhere ever since their own times; some composers' work has been more influential than others and the influence of some has lasted longer than that of others, but nothing ever merely remains the same - why should it? The examples of Brahms and Wagner are two important influences that were once thought not only to be powerful but also to be broadly irreconcilable, yet in Schönberg they coalesce. So, in sum, then - none of the composers who responded to jazz in their works were mere imitators of anything and, in any case, most of them responded to jazz as already established in America rather than as a direct consequence of ethnomusicological researches in parts of Africa analogous to those of, say, Bartók and Kodály in their native land. I will ignore your reference to apes as yet another example from Grew's Dictionary of Gratuitous, Distasteful and Patronising Jibes (a volume that was never, incidentally, edited by Dr Percy Scholes).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 17:43:32 GMT -5
May I respectfully suggest to you that it is actually possible to discuss jazz without references to Brahms, who never heard any? We do not in fact know - he may have. But my point is of course not that but to draw attention to the partial parallel between the gypsy music fad and the negro music fad. Fads come and go but fad-mongery itself is perennial. The fact is simple: the uncultured northern amercians continue to puff up the "jazz" fad because unfortunate creatures they have little else to boast of. It is all they know!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 22:34:14 GMT -5
Good morning, Sydney! I trust that all is well with you today. If I may address your final point directly: " ... The fact is simple: the uncultured northern amercians continue to puff up the "jazz" fad because unfortunate creatures they have little else to boast of. It is all they know!" On a more profound level, it is also worth considering what do we know? René Descartes came up with the idea that I think, therefore I am. Well, what do I know? [/i][/quote] Michel de Montaigne Descartes turned Montaigne's question on its head and said I know that I think. I can doubt everything, and everyone, apart from the fact that I doubt: [/i][/quote] Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggested that I feel, therefore I am, whilst Karl Marx went for action; I act, therefore I am. Meanwhile, the great philosopher, Immanuel Kant, suggested, ethically enough, that I ought, therefore I can. Arguably the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century, Ludwig Wittgenstein, felt that previous philosophers had tied themselves in knots by asking the wrong sorts of questions. They thought that philosophical problems were to do with understanding the nature of the world, but Wittgenstein thought that they were all problems of language. Sort language out, Sydney, and you could knock philosophy itself on the head. Let us therefore knock language, philosophy, music and everything else on the head here in ' The Third' today, ahinton. Wittgenstein thus pondered how language related to the world, what the limits of language were and what this all meant for the philosopher. He came to two different conclusions; firstly, as outlined in ' The Tractatus', that language had a logical structure that accurately reflected the structure of reality; secondly, as outlined in the later ' Philosophical Investigations', that language was a game, full of tricks, jokes and subtleties, the meaning of which was derived from social context as much as logical analysis. You can certainly see this game being played here in ' The Third', for example, if not everywhere else. Ultimately, Wittgenstein was unsure that anything could be said about how language related to the world because that was necessarily beyond the scope and meaning of language itself. Thus he concluded that some things remain unsayable and declared: Of course, whereof one cannot speak, one may, perhaps, be able to sing. If one wants to play jazz, too, why ever not? I communicate, therefore I am; I do not communicate, therefore I am not. You post, Sydney, therefore you are?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 2, 2013 5:04:44 GMT -5
May I respectfully suggest to you that it is actually possible to discuss jazz without references to Brahms, who never heard any? We do not in fact know - he may have. But my point is of course not that but to draw attention to the partial parallel between the gypsy music fad and the negro music fad. Fads come and go but fad-mongery itself is perennial. The fact is simple: the uncultured northern amercians continue to puff up the "jazz" fad because unfortunate creatures they have little else to boast of. It is all they know! Since Brahms died before the turn of the last century and long before the advent of the swing era in US - and since in any case his experience of America was considerably less than that of Dvořák and his sojourns in Africa were most notable by their absence - the possibility that he ever heard any jazz per se is as remote as is Queensland from Canada's Northern Territories, unless your definition of jazz and its origins and early developments is considerably wider than that of most of the rest of us. That said, you immediately leap upon your hobby horse of gratuitous, patronising and distasteful expression in referring to the African music that you state as having given rise to jazz in America and to "gypsy" music (as though these two represent the only indigenous musics in the world, to the extent that you mention no others here) as mere "fads" that "come and go" - or at least would do so were it not for the vested interests of those who seek to promote them. If by "gypsy music" you're referring, at least in part, to the kinds of indigenous musics of eastern Europe that attracted Bartók, Kodály and others not long after earlier composers, including Brahms, had paid at least some kind of rather less scientific homage to what they thought it to be, it had been there for generations and has not even vanished entirely in the internet age, so it could hardly be described as a mere passing "fad". Do you believe that those two Hungarian composers were somehow as guilty in conducting their researches as was whoever it would have been that contrived to transport certain indigenous African musics to America and turn it into "jazz"? What distinguishes "gypsy music" or those musics of certain part of Africa that you say gave birth to jazz from all the other world's musics (including what we'll presumably have still to call "Western classical music") that invites scorn from you that you seem not to pour upon any of those others? You refer to "uncultured northern americans"; this raises several questions. Firstly, do you regard all "northern Americans" of all generations as "uncultured"? Secondly, what exactly do you mean by "uncultured" and within what specific parameters would you account for it? Thirdly, by "northern Americans" do you include the United States and Canada in their respective entireties? Fourthly, what do you see as distinguishing the cultural qualities of those territories from those of central and southern America (i.e. from Mexico through the smaller central American countries down through south America to Chile)? You claim that Americans know nothing besides jazz and this is why they continue to "puff it up". That this is one of your most absurd claims to date will be obvious to anyone who has made even the most cursory study of American musical history of the past century and a half or so. Did composers such as Beach, MacDowell and their contemporaries "know nothing else"? Did Ives "know nothing else"? Varèse? (OK, I know that he was French, but his entire known musical career was in America where he chose it to be). All those American symphonists active in the mid-20th century such as Piston, Diamond, Riegger, Harris, Mennin, Schuman and Sessions? What about Copland and Carter? Or any one of the more recent American composers? Do you genuinely believe that Americans have never "puffed up" any of their music besides jazz? I must confess that I've not heard such nonsense in quite some time, even from you! I'm sorry - that sounds very rude, which I do not intend it to do - but I'm not sure how else I could answer this without saying something along those lines. OK, once again, that's quite a lot of questions, but the all too frequent trenchant, truculent narrow-mindedness of your statements does invite them!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2013 7:20:39 GMT -5
Upon reflection, I do not think that we are going to convince Sydney of the merits of jazz, ahinton. Nevertheless, in my mind, it does not actually matter. We all have our own aesthetic preferences, and far be it from me to claim that one particular artform is necessarily better than any other. Of course, I can make the claim that music is the highest artform, and that classical music is the highest form of music, higher even than jazz, but if I make that assertion, it tends to create more heat, in my experience, than light. On Sunday evening, as it happens, I had a most enjoyable time at Wigmore Hall listening to Bach motets, and I have written about the concert elsewhere. Before the music began, I was sitting next to my date in the middle of the auditorium looking up at the cupola, and she was totally unfamiliar with the Western classical music tradition. So I explained to her some of the transitions between medieval, renaissance, baroque, classical, romantic and more modern classical music. We also discussed the aesthetics of the Arts and Crafts cupola over the stage, which was designed by Gerald Moira and executed by Frank Lynn Jenkins. It was restored during the Hall's refurbishment in 1991-2. The painting symbolises the striving of humanity after the elusiveness of music in its great abstraction. The central figure is the Soul of Music. He is gazing up at the Genius of Harmony - a ball of eternal fire whose rays are reflected across the world. A tangled network of thorns separates this portion of the picture from the four other figures - representing the separation of man from the perfect spiritual conception of music because he is ensnared by materialism. On the Left Hand-Side of the Cupola, a musician plays in a trance, seeking inspiration from beyond. Also there is Love, who has roses in her hand. She represents the idea that a musician's incentive is love for their art, and their reward is beauty. On the Right Hand-Side of the Cupola is Psyche - representing the human soul - inspiring a seated composer, transcribing music on a scroll. The background of the painting is a deep blue sky with clouds of Divine Mystery floating overhead. Wigmore Hall - CupolaWe discussed the Cupola's idea that music was the highest artform, and whether poetry, for example, was also a contender. I replied that it was possible to combine words and music, as in one of the Bachs' motets, and that was perhaps a good compromise, but that words did not necessarily make abstract music better. What ultimately matters is the sound? Anyway, I doubt that we shall see Sydney in London again, but if we do, let me extend an open invitation to everyone reading ' The Third' to a night out at Ronnie Scott's, so that we can at least experience some live world-class jazz together. You never know, Sydney. It might even change your mind about the genre! The choice, as ever, is yours! Ronnie Scott'sAs for ahinton, I do not feel that I can convince you of the merits of more popular music than jazz, yet why should I ultimately try? What I can offer you, however, is the 2013 BBC Proms Montage, which even includes a little pop'. Why not all dip into a short video celebrating this astonishing season? 2013 BBC Proms MontageEnjoy!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 2, 2013 9:11:07 GMT -5
Upon reflection, I do not think that we are going to convince Sydney of the merits of jazz, ahinton. Nevertheless, in my mind, it does not actually matter. I cannot and therefore will not try to speak for you but I have not tried to convince Sydney to do anything other than consider how patronising and dsitasteful some of his comments on the subject have been; what he feels about jazz is his prerogative although, if his views are based upon the ignorance of some of its distinguished practitioners over the years - as he has hiomself revealed to be the case - then it's up to the rest of us to regard and value them accordingly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2013 9:21:00 GMT -5
I suppose that it is interesting that it is surprisingly difficult to be a good critic of all genres of music. Even on BBC Radio 3, presenters tend to be specialists, and it would be surprising to listen to Rob Cowan, for example, speak with any authority about jazz or world music. Why do you think that this should be, ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 2, 2013 10:34:20 GMT -5
I suppose that it is interesting that it is surprisingly difficult to be a good critic of all genres of music. Even on BBC Radio 3, presenters tend to be specialists, and it would be surprising to listen to Rob Cowan, for example, speak with any authority about jazz or world music. Why do you think that this should be, ahinton? What particular aspects of music in which critics and presenters might choose to specialise (if and when they choose so do to) is their prerogative, but that matter is quite different from the pouring of scorn and contempt on any kind of music other than such chosen speciality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2013 11:21:58 GMT -5
For some reason, most people are unable to say "i think, to be honest, I am not qualified to offer an informed opinion on this" and instead spout crap, I have noticed the same thing in many professions, especially the arts.
|
|