[Dixielandjazz] Re: "Jazz"

[David W. Littlefield]

I believe that Art can exist independently of audience. But once one takes
it public it enters the field of entertainment. One may be satisfied if an
occasional person likes it, and who knows, perhaps in the artist's lifetime
he may find enough fans/buyers to make a living. But if one wants to make a
living at it in a reasonable time, then one must subordinate the muse
sufficiently to grab folks by entertaining or fascinating them in some way.

--Sheik 

At 04:39 PM 11/22/2003 +0000, Bill Gunter wrote:
>Mike Durham writes:
>>whether you regard jazz as entertainment or art is another matter. I'm sure 
>>the early guys saw it primarily as entertainment (and a way to make a 
>>buck). I personally see it as a mix of the two . . .
>
>Interesting distinction (jazz: art or entertainment).
>
>I am entertaining a notion that art IS entertainment. ..
>If we allow that "art" is separate and distinct from "entertainment" then I 
>suppose one can see jazz as a "mix of the two"
>
>On the other hand, I think that places too hard an edge on it. Jazz IS art 
>and jazz IS entertainment at the same time . . . it can't be one without the 
>other. If jazz ain't entertaining it ain't art.
>
>Bill "picky-picky-picky" Gunter