Re: Unidentified subject!

[KB305@aol.com]

In a message dated 01/15/2001 7:46:54 PM Central Standard Time, 
kcoyle@black-hole.com writes:


> On the other hand, there might be music that _requires_ some sort of
> education to understand -- isn't the world big enough for that?


Every musical thing has (at least) two components: 
What the musician brings to the table -- all their training, their culture, 
their sensibilities, their chops, their intent,
and what the listener brings -- their taste, their experience, their wants, 
their receptiveness.

(Thanks to Dr. Martin Mailman, wherever his soul now resides, for teaching me 
that music doesn't sound good, or even exist, when you write it down and 
stick it in a drawer.)

All of those things, while not easily measured or quantifiable, are 
nevertheless relative.  We all know that it aint just chops that make good 
music.  Nor is it taste, or any of the other things I listed.  

And those things all change when you freeze time via a recording (versus a 
live performance, where energies can be mobile, performers can interact with 
the audience, etc.).  

There is music right now that requires education to understand.  
There is music that can be appreciated without understanding it.
There is music that can be understood and despised.  And not understood and 
despised.
Understanding and appreciating and liking are all different things, and not 
necessarily related.
Is the world big enough for that?  Yes, but most of us only get a small piece 
of it anyway -- our own town, or whatever it is we call our audience.  I play 
(partially free-)jazz in Iowa, which is like fishing in Manhattan.  (I'm 
looking at my life a lot these days, and thinking about moving!)

As a buyer for a large distributor, I used to freak some of the other buyers 
out with 'Trane's Live In Japan CDs.  And they would freak me (and some 
others) out with the Red Hot Chili Peppers.  And we were all people that knew 
and heard a lot of music.  

Blah blah woof woof,

k