Re: Audio clip: OTGDS

On 2008-03-21 18:36:53 -0700, Joey Goldstein <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:

I think your assessments of most things have value, Joey, but I'm not sure you're the one to decide who gets to diss others and who doesn't. Just for the record, who have you decided gets to diss Rodney Jones?


Precisely: so providing clips to validate a player means nothing in this situation.

I don't see how that follows. Sorry.
And what "situation" are you now talking about?

Whether you conclude that Zé can play or not, he can't diss Rodney, so his clips have no bearing.

The way a player plays is the only validation he needs in the realm of jazz guitar playing. He may be piss poor at explaining how he does what he does or how he thinks about things, but if he can play better than you, and you're a person who wants to learn how to play better, the smart thing to do is to give him a chance.

Depends on who is judging who is better than who. In this case you're the final judge. You listen to the clips and make judgements over what he can or can't say. He of course goes on and lives his life as if you weren't part of the process.

On the other hand, someone who can't play, offering advice and opinions about how to play, should be approached with suspicion or possibly even derision. Sometimes these guys have good ideas though too. If an idea makes sense, that's its own validation. But when they're just talking out of their asses they should have this pointed out to them.

Once again, whether he can't play is your PERSONAL judgement. So you decide who you judge with suspicion, and others judge differently. Again, it's all subjective. So the clips have no definitive bearing. You can listen to the clips come to all the conclusions you like about that person. But then you may well have come to the same conclusions if you simply listened to what they said. So I don't see the difference.

How many more years do we have to go on having this same argument?

As long as we're both interested in pursuing it, I assume.

And then, of course, there's a considered disregard of a particular player.


That means: After I listen to someone I conclude I don't like them.

There's all sorts of Great musicians whose music I don't like. Let's start with Wagner.

You don't have the chops to dislike Wagner. You haven't heard enough of Wagner to know what the hell you're talking about. Wagner farts better music than you'll ever produce. The whole world showers Wagner with praise and you don't get it, do you? And so forth, blah blah blah.

See how it works? If I feel strongly enough about the music, you can diss it if you like, but "considered disregard" doesn't cut it.

But then you have to get his loyalists to sign-off on whether you are dissing or criticizing.

No. All you have to do is be respectful.

Right. And YOU have to decide if my statements are disrespectful. How do you do that? By listening to my clips. Or not. Or flipping a coin. Whatever you like and your assessments are irrelevant to my viewpoint on a musician or topic whether I can play or not. Again it comes down to the "who gets to be the judge" part. Which is invariably... you.

There's two weeks of wasted "discussion"! The Pat Martino thread was the most elliptic ever in this regard: If you didn't like Martino, by definition, you were dissing him.

I missed that thread, thank God.

It was informative in this respect: Nobody got away with simply disliking Martino amont martino fans.
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.