Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
>> It is ironic that most creative branches of jazz are not "popular
>> music" today. Creative branches of jazz (more so than classical
>> music) are _the_ music for intellectuals (like Justin!).
Hmm. Matbe. Heard Henry Threadgill's Manhattan Project over the holiday at an East Village loft, weird cool stuff with an oud player, definitely point-head material. But also caught Joe Lovano at the Jazz Showcase here in Shytown, gorgeous straight ahead sax playing, creative if anything is, but not for pointyheads.
>
>So we should avoid it, then, yes? I'd hate to think I was listening to the
>sort of music George Kennan or Dean Acheson grooved to.
>
What do you know about their musical taste? ANyway, I like Sinatra,a nd so did Nixon.
>Not interested in "music for intellectuals,"
>
Heaven forbid. Go listen to Eminem, he's talented in his way.
>Brian
I don't see anything wrong with "music for intellectuals." Shouldn't intellectuals have their own music as well? Besides, any music that Justin listens to is worth listening to. ;->
You're sweet, Yoshie.
I'm just saying that jazz is not "popular music" today. That's neither the fault of jazz nor the fault of the popular masses. We can analyze the causes of this historical change usefully.
See Eric Hobsbaem's book on Jazz, which does that. Actually jazz is popular in a way. It doesn't dominate commercial radio or MTV, but they paly standards everywhere, and watered down second raters who do that stuff like Diana Krall are big sellers.
jsk
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030111/bf7fb343/attachment.htm>