4 ms·

- The problem with jazz is the people who listen to it. Yes - Music isn't art, or at least it's wrong to appreciate it as such. Music is entertainment and em

by dan_sim 17y ago

- The problem with jazz is the people who listen to it. Yes - Music isn't art, or at least it's wrong to appreciate it as such. Music is entertainment and emotions. - Jazz ought to be revivalist, not innovative. Things like free-jazz is not innovative. It is shitty musicians thinking that if they play "out" enough, they might get to the point that people feel they are geniuses. Music is meant to be good to the ears.

crux_ 17y ago
> Music is entertainment and emotions. If that's the case, then I'd say that in WWF vs music, WWF wins every time! I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you think all post-renaissance painting is shit, too.
- pguerin 17y ago
  WWF? World Wrestling Federation? haha
- habitue 17y ago
  Visual art is distinctly different from music. It's possible to be entertained and feel emotion for visual art that is not a photorealistic depiction. Music, meanwhile, has certain rules that need to be obeyed in order for people to want to experience it. I'm sorry, John Cage might have some interesting concepts, but it's completely unlistenable. There are just some things that you cannot develop a real taste for. Think about the culinary arts. It too is an art, but with even more restrictions on what can be done than music. "Experimental Chefs" can't just start dabbling in putting sawdust and latex paint in their dishes and still expect it to be eaten. That being said, experimental musicians have the right to push the envelope and discover what the boundaries of taste are. Sometimes they'll fail, and sometimes they'll discover something interesting, but experimentation alone doesn't cause it to be good or bad.
  - crux_ 17y ago
    Experimental chefs can start fooling around with liquid nitrogen and re-purposed inkjet printers and meet with wild success, however. ;) A more substantive reply: I question the entire underlying premise you have -- that entertainment or emotion are what makes art, art. Something can be entirely distasteful and still art. (Thought experiment: imagine a sonata so deeply heartbreaking that nobody can bear to listen to it more than once. One can't "develop a taste" for it, can they? But it's almost certainly art by most definitions.) In any case, I don't think John Cage is having any trouble finding listeners, despite your opinion: http://www.johncage.info/index6.html http://www.johncage.info/index6.html
    - habitue 17y ago
      Yeah it's definitely not my premise that art = emotion + entertainment, that was the GP. I would, however, divide art into "art that is/can become enjoyable" and "art that cannot be enjoyable (but may be thought provoking etc)". I'm definitely not being fair to John Cage, I am far from well versed in his music and since he's an experimental artist I know his pieces have different levels of accessibility. I would group the 4'33" piece into the "interesting but not enjoyable as music" category.
  - anonjon 17y ago
    I listen to John Cage. I don't only listen to John Cage, but it is interesting. I think the problem is that you have to have a basis in music history to be able to appreciate what the hell he is trying to do. If all you have been exposed to is 3 (four-five-one four-five-one) chord pop rock, no of course you won't appreciate Cage. In music, like cooking, you have to develop a palate for such things. If all you've had all your life is french fries and ketchup, you probably won't like a lot of food that others will appreciate...
mtalantikite 17y ago
"Things like free-jazz is not innovative. It is shitty musicians thinking that if they play "out" enough, they might get to the point that people feel they are geniuses." Coltrane played 'out' a lot, he surly wasn't a shitty musician. Cecil Taylor has more technique on the piano than most anyone. Sam Rivers harmonically is out of this world. Ornette Coleman's sense of time? Hamid Drake on drums? Pharoah Sanders? Don Cherry? Marion Brown? Eric Dolphy? Anthony Braxton? Just because you don't like how it sounds doesn't mean these are talentless fools -- they've studied their history. They surely think about their art complexly and take it extremely seriously.

by dan_sim 17y ago

crux_ 17y ago

> Music is entertainment and emotions. If that's the case, then I'd say that in WWF vs music, WWF wins every time! I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you think all post-renaissance painting is shit, too.

pguerin 17y ago
WWF? World Wrestling Federation? haha
habitue 17y ago
Visual art is distinctly different from music. It's possible to be entertained and feel emotion for visual art that is not a photorealistic depiction. Music, meanwhile, has certain rules that need to be obeyed in order for people to want to experience it. I'm sorry, John Cage might have some interesting concepts, but it's completely unlistenable. There are just some things that you cannot develop a real taste for. Think about the culinary arts. It too is an art, but with even more restrictions on what can be done than music. "Experimental Chefs" can't just start dabbling in putting sawdust and latex paint in their dishes and still expect it to be eaten. That being said, experimental musicians have the right to push the envelope and discover what the boundaries of taste are. Sometimes they'll fail, and sometimes they'll discover something interesting, but experimentation alone doesn't cause it to be good or bad.
- crux_ 17y ago
  Experimental chefs can start fooling around with liquid nitrogen and re-purposed inkjet printers and meet with wild success, however. ;) A more substantive reply: I question the entire underlying premise you have -- that entertainment or emotion are what makes art, art. Something can be entirely distasteful and still art. (Thought experiment: imagine a sonata so deeply heartbreaking that nobody can bear to listen to it more than once. One can't "develop a taste" for it, can they? But it's almost certainly art by most definitions.) In any case, I don't think John Cage is having any trouble finding listeners, despite your opinion: http://www.johncage.info/index6.html http://www.johncage.info/index6.html
  - habitue 17y ago
    Yeah it's definitely not my premise that art = emotion + entertainment, that was the GP. I would, however, divide art into "art that is/can become enjoyable" and "art that cannot be enjoyable (but may be thought provoking etc)". I'm definitely not being fair to John Cage, I am far from well versed in his music and since he's an experimental artist I know his pieces have different levels of accessibility. I would group the 4'33" piece into the "interesting but not enjoyable as music" category.
- anonjon 17y ago
  I listen to John Cage. I don't only listen to John Cage, but it is interesting. I think the problem is that you have to have a basis in music history to be able to appreciate what the hell he is trying to do. If all you have been exposed to is 3 (four-five-one four-five-one) chord pop rock, no of course you won't appreciate Cage. In music, like cooking, you have to develop a palate for such things. If all you've had all your life is french fries and ketchup, you probably won't like a lot of food that others will appreciate...

mtalantikite 17y ago

"Things like free-jazz is not innovative. It is shitty musicians thinking that if they play "out" enough, they might get to the point that people feel they are geniuses." Coltrane played 'out' a lot, he surly wasn't a shitty musician. Cecil Taylor has more technique on the piano than most anyone. Sam Rivers harmonically is out of this world. Ornette Coleman's sense of time? Hamid Drake on drums? Pharoah Sanders? Don Cherry? Marion Brown? Eric Dolphy? Anthony Braxton? Just because you don't like how it sounds doesn't mean these are talentless fools -- they've studied their history. They surely think about their art complexly and take it extremely seriously.