Have we finally run out of jazz topics to talk about?

[porcy62]

I'm a little disheartened by some of the vitriol (that's charm school for bullshit) in some recent threads (Gram Parsons, Howard Mandel, Keith Jarrett).

Civility & collegiality do have a place.

Disagreement is fine, but some of what I've been reading is just preening & posturing.

I think our host is remarkably tolerant. We're very fortunate to be able to say pretty much anything we want here, but I think it's also important to remember that we are guests. I sometimes wonder why Jim hasn't gotten fed up with some of this BS and pulled the plug, but I'm glad he hasn't because the good stuff is pretty darn good. I've enjoyed this place for several years now, I look forward to signing on each day and reading many interesting posts- there is quite an impressive cast of characters here. It's really been a great part of my life, and I would sure miss it if it went away.

Agree. Thanks Jim.

About jhoots' remarks, it might be true, but for a different extent IME: I mean some people here are serious experts with a long experience in the field, like Chuck, Chris or Brownie, just to name a few, other memebers are real musicians, including our host. So it might be sometimes that we, "ignorant amateur" are a bit frightened to discuss specific jazz issues. I like listen to music and specifically jazz, but my skills often stop at the point: "I like it" or "I don't like it" or even "I don't know it". So when the discussion is about some "minor" player or records, what can I say about it? I read the posts, type the name or the title in Google, if it seems interesting I consider to buy it, otherwise I pass on. Wich is my favourite Bird's solo? I can't remember all Bird's solos, nor I can analize the musical structure. I greatly appreciate the expertize of the Big Guns here, even if they can be "vitriolic". For instance before I joined the Forum , I disliked organ in jazz combos, now I love it, but if you ask me wich is the most important organ's records of the History of Jazz, well, my answer could be based only on my personal taste, admittely not a solid cornerstone for "The Definitive Organissimo's Guide To The Jazz Galaxy."

Edited October 23, 2007 by porcy62

[ejp626]

These things do tend to go in cycles. On weeks when there are particularly interesting new releases or reissues, we'll discuss those. I do think the album of the week gets some deeper posts -- more than just hey a new release/reissue -- cool. Unfortunately, a lot of my analysis doesn't go a lot deeper. The other kind of post tends to be asking for information about a somewhat obscure jazz figure and that will go on for a couple of days before petering out.

Even though I played music in high school, my relationship with music is essentially that of a consumer. My insights, such as they are, are deeper in the realm of social science and literature, so that is where I would post more, as well as in current events where we are all on a more level playing field. I will say that I am a bit tired of only being a consumer of art, and am beginning to write creatively again and hopefully that will lead somewhere.

[Aggie87]

The only thing I don't really get is people who only post in the politics forum on a jazz bulletin board, and essentially/effectively nowhere else.

I can't think of anyone meeting that description.

MG

There used to be a place on the board (must have been on people's profiles) that told you which forum they posted the most in. I can't find it now, since the board software has been updated, so I don't know if that is tracked anymore.

But there are/were posters here with upwards of 80% of their posts in the political forum.

[Christiern]

It does not bother me if a member spends most of her/his time in any particular forum, even if it is a non-music soapbox. I have spent a considerable time in the political forum, but it has not diluted my interest in the music. We are not all equally into jazz--or music, for that matter--but we probably all should be, to some degree, into politics. It is, after all, something that affects everyone, and, perhaps, more so now than in any of our earlier years on this planet.

[Aggie87]

If people want to post primarily in the political forum, that's their choice. As I said, it seems odd to me to hang out at a jazz bb and not really talk jazz or music very much.

I'm sure there are probably bulletin boards out there that are dedicated to politics, just as this one is for the O-band and jazz. Doesn't it get tiring for the 2-3 most vocal liberals and the 2-3 most vocal conservatives to constantly argue with each other, knowing they're not getting anywhere?

Either way, different strokes....

[Christiern]

Bear in mind, Aggie, that many read, fewer post.

[Bright Moments]

Bear in mind, Aggie, that many read, fewer post.

reminds me of the old saying, "many men smoke, but fu manchu!"

[Rooster_Ties]

With greater and greater frequency over the past couple years, I find that I'm contributing LESS often (to jazz topics, or otherwise – including politics).

But it's NOT for lack of interest. I'll get four or five sentences typed out, and suddenly realize that what I'm saying really isn't adding all that much to the discussion, and I'll back and not post anything at all.

I know my "blind enthusiasm" for the music has gotten a little old for a few folks around here (you know who you are), and I think I'm finally just catching up with them.

But the jury's still out, and I may yet regress.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Rooster_Ties

[Hot Ptah]

I'm a little disheartened by some of the vitriol (that's charm school for bullshit) in some recent threads (Gram Parsons, Howard Mandel, Keith Jarrett).

Civility & collegiality do have a place.

Disagreement is fine, but some of what I've been reading is just preening & posturing.

I think our host is remarkably tolerant. We're very fortunate to be able to say pretty much anything we want here, but I think it's also important to remember that we are guests. I sometimes wonder why Jim hasn't gotten fed up with some of this BS and pulled the plug, but I'm glad he hasn't because the good stuff is pretty darn good. I've enjoyed this place for several years now, I look forward to signing on each day and reading many interesting posts- there is quite an impressive cast of characters here. It's really been a great part of my life, and I would sure miss it if it went away.

Agree. Thanks Jim.

About jhoots' remarks, it might be true, but for a different extent IME: I mean some people here are serious experts with a long experience in the field, like Chuck, Chris or Brownie, just to name a few, other memebers are real musicians, including our host. So it might be sometimes that we, "ignorant amateur" are a bit frightened to discuss specific jazz issues. I like listen to music and specifically jazz, but my skills often stop at the point: "I like it" or "I don't like it" or even "I don't know it". So when the discussion is about some "minor" player or records, what can I say about it? I read the posts, type the name or the title in Google, if it seems interesting I consider to buy it, otherwise I pass on. Wich is my favourite Bird's solo? I can't remember all Bird's solos, nor I can analize the musical structure. I greatly appreciate the expertize of the Big Guns here, even if they can be "vitriolic". For instance before I joined the Forum , I disliked organ in jazz combos, now I love it, but if you ask me wich is the most important organ's records of the History of Jazz, well, my answer could be based only on my personal taste, admittely not a solid cornerstone for "The Definitive Organissimo's Guide To The Jazz Galaxy."

There is something to the idea that the presence of the experts can be daunting. I know that I have sometimes private messaged other members with my thoughts about jazz because I did not want my ignorant ideas to be viewed by the experts on this board.

On the other hand, the experts' contributions are often invaluable, and make the board the great place that it is.

[BruceH]

With greater and greater frequency over the past couple years, I find that I'm contributing LESS often (to jazz topics, or otherwise – including politics).

But it's NOT for lack of interest. I'll get four or five sentences typed out, and suddenly realize that what I'm saying really isn't adding all that much to the discussion, and I'll back and not post anything at all.

I know my "blind enthusiasm" for the music has gotten a little old for a few folks around here (you know who you are), and I think I'm finally just catching up with them.

But the jury's still out, and I may yet regress.

I have always appreciated your "blind enthusiasm."

[Hot Ptah]

To respond to the original topic of the post, I wonder if there is less of a readily identifiable jazz scene today, compared to past eras. While there are many worthy albums being released, and many excellent jazz musicians currently performing, live performance opportunities have decreased, steady working groups are few, and there are no major stylistic movements being thrashed out before the audience's eyes and ears. We are often left with introducing topics about specific musicians who have caught our fancy, sometimes almost by chance.

The jazz online forums may have been around long enough now that virtually all jazz musicians of the past have already been discussed.

When new listeners come to the board and state in a wide-eyed way that they really enjoy the playing of Coleman Hawkins, the established board members tend to refer the new listener to three old threads about Hawkins, and then the discussion ends. While the three old threads may contain information and insights that a new discussion would miss, this approach does tend to cut down on the number of current jazz discussions.

[Noj]

With greater and greater frequency over the past couple years, I find that I'm contributing LESS often (to jazz topics, or otherwise – including politics).

But it's NOT for lack of interest. I'll get four or five sentences typed out, and suddenly realize that what I'm saying really isn't adding all that much to the discussion, and I'll back and not post anything at all.

I know my "blind enthusiasm" for the music has gotten a little old for a few folks around here (you know who you are), and I think I'm finally just catching up with them.

Ditto.

[Christiern]

Also, the music is not evolving in the way that it used to. There was a time when musicians--often of disparate idiomatic persuasions--jammed in informal sessions. Ideas were exchanged in a very natural way and new directions took form. Today, we have a Lincoln Center cryogenic approach that goes nowhere, slowly, and we have fusioneers flirting with European music to produce something that often is pleasant, even intellectually stimulating, but so far from the rich jazz soil that it leaves fingers unsnapped and toes untapped. Not saying that the music has to set the body in motion, but I think that was a major part of the appeal that established jazz and made it such a universal form of expression.

When it gets to the point where we begin discussing reissues of reissues, we have stepped onto the treadmill that starves discussion.

Just my 2¢

[DukeCity]

Whatever happened to the idea of talking about discussing the possibility of thinking about meeting to explore the idea of talking about considering the concept of starting a band?

Clearly, this post is from someone who is now firmly entrenched in academia!

[rockefeller center]

Today, we have a Lincoln Center cryogenic approach that goes nowhere, slowly, and we have fusioneers flirting with European music to produce something that often is pleasant, even intellectually stimulating, but so far from the rich jazz soil that it leaves fingers unsnapped and toes untapped.

Snap