In Reply to: How About Fleetwood Mac? posted by Severius! on November 18, 2002 at 22:57:42:
Apparently, no one found that boring. In fact, every thought it was the thrill of the centuries (last one and this one).Right! As I said, very PC in jazz circles to stick with that era. You're safe with that list with the huge majority of jazz fans. Most will nod in agreement like so many bobble-head dolls. That's precisely why it's a pet peeve of mine. I see this backwards-looking obsession of serious jazz fans to have nothing but a limiting effect on the future of jazz. No wonder that so few young kids are exploring jazz... it's so goddamn musty! The general perception of jazz is that it's dead and on display in a museum, and that's too bad. Call me crazy, but I say there's jazz that's every bit as good as the 60's stuff and it's being composed, arranged, and performed today. I sense a prejudice that puts a higher value on originality than on musicality. If one of today's artists haven't invented a new style of jazz, they can't be considered great? That doesn't concern me too much; we still have much to explore and refine within existing styles. The diversity of the jazz being made today is impressive, too. By comparison, I find the 60's era, the blue note sound - to be rather homogenous, all quite similar sounding.
There's a ton of great music on your list. It's a commendable list, and I'm happy for those of you who appreciate that era for the joy that it brings you. Even though the list is such a perfect example of what drives me nuts about jazz fans, I shouldn't have taken my frustration on this subject all out on you. I still find the list boring, but at least it isn't boring and crappy.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: How About Fleetwood Mac? - Mike M. 05:00:41 11/19/02 (0)