[Dixielandjazz] Re: Dixielandjazz digest, Vol 1 #394 - 15 msgs

Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:28:05 EST

--part1_f.5ebb070.2b422275_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 12/30/2002 3:01:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
dixielandjazz-request@ml.islandnet.com writes:

> Original Message -----
> David Palmquist writes
> 
> 
> >
> >We must share our love of our music with others if there is to be a chance
> >it will continue -- but as an art form instead of popular music. Not
> >everybody has an ear for jazz, there isn't even a common understanding of
> >what it is, and even in its heyday, other than the subset called Swing, it
> >was never superpopular.
> 

Dan Spink replies:

Dave, I think, has touched on the essential problem in all the back and forth 
about Miles Davis, and on how to appreciate OKOM vs. Miles' music. I'm 
talking about the definition of jazz, and the definition of good vs. great or 
not so good jazz. Many DJMLers imply that there are clear cut definitions and 
beyond that, clear cut ways of understanding and evaluating either Miles' 
music or any other part of jazz. Simply said, there are no clear definitions 
or evaluations. In short, there is no science to it, nor will there ever be, 
nor does there ever have to be. There was one time in the history of jazz, 
according to Ted Gioia's book, The History of Jazz, when jazz was so popular 
and popular music was so jazzy and that was swing. Before or after that jazz 
has never been defined as a popular music, nor has it ever been defined as a 
purely "art form" of music. It seems to me that everybody in this group plays 
OKOM mainly for one reason: they feel it, they love it, it makes life more 
meaningful for them. That certainly is true for me. Beyond that, I believe 
trends and directions in jazz, or popular music (whatever the Hey that is 
these days), and yes, even classical music, comes down more and more to 
wherever a few giants lead us at any point in time. Miles is one of those 
giants but I just don't happen to dig his thing. The other major problem with 
the defining and evaluating debates is that "newer" always comes out sounding 
like it should be "better" for some unknown reason. Beethoven wrote after 
Bach but I still listen to Bach. Gillespie is another great leader (I'm sure) 
but I just don't care about bop as music. Sooner or later some marketing 
group will discover a way to make money on bringing back OKOM in yet another 
reincarnation and that's how the biz works. I don't think we have to worry 
about OKOM dying out. I sure hope not.

Dan (piano fingers) Spink

--part1_f.5ebb070.2b422275_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><BODY BGCOLOR="#3dffff">In a message dated 12/30/2002 3:01:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, dixielandjazz-request@ml.islandnet.com writes: 
 
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Original Message ----- 
David Palmquist writes 
 
 
&gt; 
&gt;We must share our love of our music with others if there is to be a chance 
&gt;it will continue -- but as an art form instead of popular music. Not 
&gt;everybody has an ear for jazz, there isn't even a common understanding of 
&gt;what it is, and even in its heyday, other than the subset called Swing, it 
&gt;was never superpopular. 
</BLOCKQUOTE> 
 
Dan Spink replies: 
 
Dave, I think, has touched on the essential problem in all the back and forth about Miles Davis, and on how to appreciate OKOM vs. Miles' music. I'm talking about the definition of jazz, and the definition of good vs. great or not so good jazz. Many DJMLers imply that there are clear cut definitions and beyond that, clear cut ways of understanding and evaluating either Miles' music or any other part of jazz. Simply said, there are no clear definitions or evaluations. In short, there is no science to it, nor will there ever be, nor does there ever have to be. There was one time in the history of jazz, according to Ted Gioia's book, The History of Jazz, when jazz was so popular and popular music was so jazzy and that was swing. Before or after that jazz has never been defined as a popular music, nor has it ever been defined as a purely "art form" of music. It seems to me that everybody in this group plays OKOM mainly for one reason: they feel it, they love it, it makes life more meaningful for them. That certainly is true for me. Beyond that, I believe trends and directions in jazz, or popular music (whatever the Hey that is these days), and yes, even classical music, comes down more and more to wherever a few giants lead us at any point in time. Miles is one of those giants but I just don't happen to dig his thing. The other major problem with the defining and evaluating debates is that "newer" always comes out sounding like it should be "better" for some unknown reason. Beethoven wrote after Bach but I still listen to Bach. Gillespie is another great leader (I'm sure) but I just don't care about bop as music. Sooner or later some marketing group will discover a way to make money on bringing back OKOM in yet another reincarnation and that's how the biz works. I don't think we have to worry about OKOM dying out. I sure hope not. 
 
Dan (piano fingers) Spink</HTML>

--part1_f.5ebb070.2b422275_boundary--