Jazz is the new classical.
Sun, Oct 28 2012, 11:01PM
#2
RE: Jazz is the new classical.
Excellent, Craig. I can rest my case as to who might be "pretentious" (please don't bother replying. I won't read it if you do").
As for the rest of your first two paragraphs referring to me, I return every single word back to you, since I have nothing to do with the one you (always) try to portray as Parla.
Don't bother to read it. This is an open forum. It is not written (only) for you.
Parla
Sun, Nov 4 2012, 1:19PM
#3
RE: Jazz is the new classical.
To get back on track, Jazz is the new Classical. Just some of the Jazz artists I have encountered; Claire Martin, Stacey Kent, Dave Brubeck, Bix Beiderbecke and Scott Joplin; all masters in their own right.
Sun, Nov 4 2012, 6:59PM
#4
RE: Jazz is the new classical.
Ian, you pop up every now and then just to bring the forum off track. With this thread, even in an almost openly provocative way.
As for the artists you mentioned, they are all "masters in their own right", but not at all in the Classical Music right! Dave Brubeck has done some efforts to write some sort of music that may accommodate classical elements, but he has hardly managed to make it in the Classical realm as a composer. As for Joplin, a decadent sort of Satie of the US, neither a great jazz composer nor a classical one. Claire Martin and Stacey Kent are good entertaining vocalists of jazz, being all the way off the Classical track.
So, what's your point? Where is anything new or Classical or, much more, "new Classical"?
Parla
Chris
If you agree with Parla, then I am afraid we do have a disagreement after all. You seem to be alone in not spotting that he's a full time wind-up merchant whose only aim appears to be to ruin this discussion board for everyone else.
I (like other people) have stopped wasting my time in bothering to reply his pretentious and largely meaningless posts in the vain hope that one day he might just go away and pester other people. But I would like to go back to an earlier discussion we had which I have been thinking about over the weekend. If you recall, we were considering the scope of the word 'entertainment' as it applied to the experience of listening to classical music. You said this was too weak a term and responded thus:
Being troubled?
Being profoundly moved?
Thought provoking?
Disturbing?
Spiritually comforting?
The point here (as I understand it) is that 'mere' entertainment does not or cannot describe or contain this range of responses.
I am looking forward to watching the next episode of Homeland later this evening - the US drama series about a rougue marine who has been recruited by Al Qaeda whilst held as a prisoner in Iraq. If you haven't seen it, it's a popular piece of tv drama, with the usual cliffhangers and shock revelations at the end of each episode - a piece of entertainment in other words.
But I would say that all the reaction you listed below could equally well be applied to an episode of Homeland. It's certainly troubling, disturbing and thought-provoking. But the one thing it isn't is uplifting - if anything, it's profoundly depressing - for what it says about the West's inability to deal with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and international terrorism. But I don't see that that stops it being entertaining. Nor is it inappropriate to use these terms to describe your response to a piece of popular culture.
Your position appears to be (and apologies if I misunderstood you here) that we shouldn't simply describe classical music as entertainment. Nor should we describe it as simply enjoyment. But I would say that those terms are perfectly appropriate once you accept that they are far more broad in scope than might at first appear.
What I'm saying is that classical music is not special in any way. It's simply another manifestation of culture whose popularity depends upon the willingness of consumers to pay for it. And they only pay for it if they enjoy it.
PS: Note to Parla - please don't bother replying. I won't read it if you do.