Jazz is the new classical.

Ian, I asked for a "definition" not a "description" of Jazz.

The only elements of a possible definition are the "ever changing art form", the African slaves' "drumming style" (!) and the mixture of this "style" with country, rags and French piano music" (!). The rest of your post is purely descriptive, with the exception of the "complexity" of this thing called jazz. I did not care for that. I have some thousands of CDs on Jazz. So, I know...what is the "Kind of Blue".

So, to start some kind of debate: What I know is that Jazz is a musical style, originated in New Orleans (and not only)...So, first question: On which grounds do you claim that jazz is an art form and not a musical style, like any other pop or folk ones?

Second: Why did Jazz get mixed with (only or mostly) country, rags and French piano music, in particular?

Third: What is "complex" about Jazz and what particular "brain power" is required for the aspiring listener to get into it?

Fourth: Do you have any idea which is the key element of defining a music piece as jazz?

I guess these questions are enough to start with.

Parla

Ian, you don't help me or the debate. I didn't ask for a further definition of Jazz. I just ask you four specific questions, based on your previous post. If you may kindly answer them, we may go a step further. Otherwise, we throw posts at random, without caring for any discourse, let alone any possible outcome of it.

It is your call.

Parla

I see nothing changes around here. Has Vic lost the will to live? He's conspicuous by his absence.

Alright Parla, this time I've quoted your "whole post", although I assumed the quote facility was to enable you to select salient points in other members' posts that you wished to comment on. I didn't wish to comment on the rest of your previous post; I apologise for not recognising that it constituted an organic and indivisible whole.
To respond to your last sentence, no I don't get it. I don't get how you can appreciate music without liking it, which seems to constitute your "essential" listening experience, at least as regards Bruckner. What compels you to listen to Bruckner if you don't like him? Do you feel there's something there that you can't quite get at but you think you might in time? If that's the case, then I'm with you 100%. Or is it simply that you've been told, or that the consensus is, that he's a great composer that you must listen to?
Since this little dispute concerns Rossini as well, let me tell you that I consider him a greater composer than Bruckner. Not only on the "emotional relationship" level but also on the "artistic appreciation" one. And I speak as someone who does like Bruckner - his 7th Symphony is one of my all-time favourites. Your dismissal of Rossini's music as "listening fun" merely shows that you either don't know very much of it (ostensibly not very probable) or lack "artistic appreciation" of it (very probable).

Mr. Nuff got it right once more, but you may never get it, Guillaume. Let's try once more:

If we have to "appreciate" what we "like", then the only purpose and raison d'etre of Art should be the entertainment of the audiences, whichever might be and despite the precarious and inconsistent character and features of each one in different places of this world. Artists should not care about excellence in composing, brilliance in performing, attaining any sort of artistic greatness or achievement, as long as they can "please" (entertain) the audience.

At least, the artists (soloists, musicians of orchestras, conductors, etc) I know all claim that their prime (if not only) interest and goal is to master and command their Art, to pursue excellence and brilliance regardless of what kind of popularity their artistry might attract.

So, what "compels me to listen to Bruckner" is exactly to identify the features of his artistry, his musicianship, his compositional scope etc. By doing so, I cannot deny what I can find there: a huge Symphonic scope, a very consistent and strict contrapunctal and harmonic writing, a strong and quite skillful orchestration, a form of enormous proportions and some more. All these findings can attract my appreciation for his Art, but not necessarily my love for his works. However, that's my very personal reaction. My prerogative. If I cannot "like" the ruthlessly strict and relentlessly consistent character of his almost gargantuan Symphonies, it is my problem, my emotional relationship with his work. If I don't approve the fact that he deliberately avoided any reference to the various aspects of our life, sticking only to his obstinate understanding of composing, is my personal thing. Others might not bother. However, neither my reaction nor yours or anybody else's can change anything as for the artistic/musical value of his immense work.

As for Signor Rossini, he never (or almost) pursued the artistic excellence. He was good enough to make people laugh, smile, feel good. He did not even care to write great melodies; he opted for some smart tunes, a standard orchestration, overtures based on a Sonata form without development (the easy way out). Even in his supposed "Opera Seria", he resorted to sound "entertaining" (even funny: e.g. Semiramide). When he wished to achieve something...bigger in scope (William Tell), he went easily over the top! His delightful Sonate a Quattro are dexterous chamber works for pure fun (even the combination of two violins, cello and double bass shows the purpose of entertainment vis a vis the austere character of the Classic String Quartet). His Piano Music is indifferent and his own "sins", as he liked to call his late piano pieces, sound so mundane. So, what is so strange to love something that has been created for the purpose of making you feel good, without appreciating the artistic value of it?

Finally, I can inform you that, personally, I really love the first two Symphonies by Beethoven. I can listen to them anytime and they give me enormous pleasure. On the contrary, I can hardly listen to the Third or the Ninth. Is it wise, correct, right for me or anyone else, based on this statement, to claim that the Symphonies Nos 1 & 2 are greater works than the Third or the Ninth? Artistically, musically, the latter are irrefutably much greater Symphonies. If I do not "like" them as much as the First and Second Symphonies, this does not make them less important, great compositions.

In sum: What we like (in Art) represents who and what we are. What we may be able to appreciate (identify) in Art demonstrates what the work of Art is.

I sincerely hope you may start getting it by now.

Parla

[/quote]

I have enjoyed Classical Music and will continue to listen to it, there is nothing complex about Classical Music, occasionally it does not hurt to venture into new ways and new music.

Thanks

Ian.

[/quote]

There is nothing complex about classical music? uhhhh, pardon me, but I recommend you have a look at some Stravinsky scores or "Kunst der Fuge" and I am not even talking about Sorabji et consortes. Most accomplished jazzmen might have difficulties getting through highly complex Balkan rhythms of Enesco Piano and Violin Sonata. The list is endless. No doubt in my mind that jazz musician is no match to a classical one...

Guillaume, as for "Stabat Mater", Rossini did it very well. It's a a sort of masterwork and, surprisingly, one of the few which is not written for "fun". Which, however, are the other "many masterpieces", which make him worthy of his musical contribution to the Art of Classical Music?

In any case, the issue is not Rossini per se, but if you may get by now that one may appreciate the artistic value of a work, without necessarily like it (e.g. I appreciate what the second school of Vienna composers did for the development of Classical Music and I recognise the complexity and value of their works, but I don't like them), and may like some works, without appreciating them (I like listening to Satie, but I find his compositions unacceptably simple, short, almost naive and lacking basic development).

By the way, "the musicians I know they're doing it for Art's sake" in such a way that they can still make a living. As our violinst used to say: When I rehearse or play, I concentrate only on the composer's score. Nothing else matters and, for some funny reason, it pays off!

Parla