Stephen Howard wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:02:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:18:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
snip
why make a perjorative remark?: I merely expressed a personal opinion,
and made no comment about others..
Nothing pejorative about it - it's well-known that more advanced forms
of music require a degree of, for want of a better word, education.
First time I heard Charlie Parker I thought it was nothing more than
some geezer making squeaky noises on an alto - but with a significant
number of excellent players speaking in terms of 'genius' etc. I made
the effort to find out why I couldn't appreciate the music.
I understand it now, and appreciate it for its staggering beauty - and
better still it opened the door to even more exciting artists.

Well I suppose that you could say that being fairly clued up as am
engieer,the sound of a Mclraren F1 car has a certain sort of beauty,
but frankly I wouldn't wander around with my nose in the air telling
people its high Art./

It's Engineering.

Jazz like that is technique, but its not what I call Art.

I can appreciate it, but I wouldn't want to have it playing in my room,
any more than i would a Mclaren F1 car..

All skill, no creativity.

You've already made it clear you don't understand it - not much point
your trying to critique it when you haven't got a clue what's going
on.

Regards,




Weird this jazz thing. It never actually dies, but it's been on the
verge of it for the last 50 years. Can't fill the back room of a pub for
a jazz gig these days.
I was shocked to see Tal Farlow playing in the corner of a pub in Oxford
with no one listening, and that was 20 years ago.