Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!hplabs!sytek!syteka!jtm
From: jtm@syteka.UUCP (Jim T. McCrae)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Time to talk about Jazz, again...
Message-ID: <384@syteka.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Oct-83 18:04:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: syteka.384
Posted: Wed Oct 19 18:04:35 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Oct-83 21:19:03 EDT
References: drux3.829
Lines: 25


	Tom Buckley is missing the point when he says there are
	"absolutes" in music to which all executed music must
	be compared. The absolutes to be compared against are
	the absolutes defined by the particular goals of a
	musician and/or his/her particular school of music.
	There is far too much variance in interpretation of
	"what is good" in music to allow for absolutes.
	
	Ornette Coleman wanders, granted.  And I've never
	been a big fan of Miles, either. But what about
	Bird?  When he & the bebop crowd hit the airwaves,
	the sound was ridiculed as "Chinese music"(no offense
	to those of you who are Chinese or like Chinese music)
	and dismissed as garbage, yet the structures and forms
	of bebop today form one of the "absolutes" of jazz, i.e.,
	if you're going to play bebop, you're going to be
	compared to Charlie Parker et. al.
		
	Jazz in its purist form has as its goal the manifestation
	of the most private thoughts of the musician in
	the world of shared sound.  Its hard to nail down
	absolutes out there.

	There's good & bad jazz, don't get me wrong. More later.