Contemplazione

Jake, I actually always feel comfortable with any music; I'm just particular about the content. I want there to be substance, something interesting, something "beautiful." However, too much content and too many quotes can also come off as off contest, but reading you in this case seems to hold everything together! As for "what is jazz?", I would suggest everyone to let that go, or you'll get caught up in deep karstic waters...

Hi Jake, great recommendation! The amazing Terje has only the WONDERFUL "Lux Aeterna," a symphonic concert for electric guitar, trumpet, and organ, always with Palle Mikkelborg, do you know him? A great composer and "emotional creator," at least on that record. I can’t express myself here, even though the "copying" of Bitches Brew makes me want to say: heresy! ;-) I’m also a bit skeptical about the success of the hip-hop and synthesizers blend, won’t there be too much going on in this album? Five stars? Maybe, eh... but the chef of this stew should be better than Heinz Beck!

On the name of Joy Division, could it not have been a desire for denunciation, rather than a wish to shock? For instance, I was not aware of the existence of specific places for the regular practice of sexual violence in concentration camps, and I only came to know this after reading something about the meaning of the band’s name, which had piqued my curiosity. This allowed me to become even more indignant about another aspect of the monstrosity of war that I had previously considered little... maybe they wanted to draw attention to that, or maybe they just liked the sound of the name, who knows! But after all, as you say, who cares about the name, they are valid artists regardless! Regarding the discussion of art and morality, I believe there can be, and can also not be, a moral message depending on the choices of the artists! I wouldn't say that morality is fundamental in art, but it can exist and can even be a value addition, especially if the moral message is multilayered and subject to multiple interpretations, rather than a product of bigotry! In certain literary or cinematic works, the moral meaning is indispensable... I utilize the "analyses" of intellectuals after having personally experienced a work of art and formed my own opinion. In fact, one can later adopt valid perspectives or technical analyses or information, anecdotes that we hadn't previously considered, and this enhances our understanding and enjoyment of that particular work of art; conversely, we can come across blatant nonsense, like that philosopher, Emanuele Severino, who dared to say that "The Seventh Seal" represents the triumph of Death (he really didn’t understand a damn thing about the film, for crying out loud!). I wouldn’t trust certain "intellectuals" too much, anyway ;-)

Well, Alessio, it is precisely when the will to enrich oneself internally is lacking that the tricksters can become economically rich! Perhaps my subjective way of evaluating whether something is art is just this; I start with the greatest possible open-mindedness, with the desire to enrich myself, but neutral in my attitude. After having duly experienced the artistic substrate (for example, watching a film without haste, with attention, and more than once if necessary), I analyze my feelings, my thoughts, my being; well, if I feel more aware, more complete, "better" (or "worse," anyway modified, perhaps matured), or particularly hedonistically satisfied, I am led to think that it is a work of art. Bergman’s films, for example, great works of art, have always given me these emotions, something that a pimple like "L'ultimo bacio" could never do, which arrogantly pretends to be an artistic film. Or, in the case of an abstract sculpture, for example, I might find it particularly well carved, pleasantly sharp and aerodynamic, deliberately rough and thin, imaginative, anthropomorphic or schematically geometric, with a rocky or "liquid" and smooth appearance, resembling something else of which it evokes embryonically the shapes. I could enjoy the color of the chosen material, and notice how it "matches" the form, and how a particular light can highlight its materiality! The important thing with abstract art, beyond personal taste, is to be able to glimpse the existence of a "project" behind the work, an idea, the pursuit of a graphic (or sound!) goal desired and sought by the artist, for a REASON of any nature, aesthetic, ideological, metaphysical, sociological or otherwise. If one does not glimpse all this, but on the contrary everything appears random and devoid of character, of FORM (in the broadest sense of the term), then it is likely that one is facing a trickster. If I were to start banging on a piano with no sense at all, I couldn't claim that I'm playing free jazz! Or I could, if my attitude were solemn enough and my audience were discerning enough. And that’s what the tricksters do ;-)

Dalì also provoked, and he rode the wave of the melting clocks for quite some time, but he was an artist with huge balls! An artist is someone capable of ENRICHING humanity, of broadening everyone’s expressive possibilities, as well as expanding the very perception of beauty. They can also be the creator of products, Uxo, design objects, furniture, where functionality can be considered in varying degrees. As long as they’re not just a con artist, a bluff.

Alessio and Uxo, I probably expressed myself poorly. So, forget the term BEAUTY and insert the term CONTENT. That said, the term BEAUTY, if interpreted in depth and not superficially, does not only signify "classical" beauty. Alessio, you’re talking to someone who finds "For Alto" by Anthony Braxton absolutely beautiful, just to give an example—an album that a normal person (forgive the term, because if we get too caught up in nuances, we’ll never finish) would find not just UGLY, but horrifying, annoying. In this sense, Uxo, I belong to that category you rightly want to defend of lovers of the ugly. But I also love beauty in the classical sense (Caravaggio is wonderful), as well as the "less" beautiful but interesting (Van Gogh?), and the "ugly" but moving (Munch?), which is always "beautiful." In short, I love content, depth, substance, creative commitment—in one word: VALUE. I love Mozart and I love Schoenberg, I love the Beatles and I love Joy Division, I love Michelangelo and I love Gaudí. I love TRUE artists, honest, sincere, talented, creative, who do NOT take you for a ride, who do NOT play dirty, who do NOT cheat by exploiting people's ignorance and the "unfamiliarity" with true art, who do NOT abuse the nonsense that "everything is art," even bottled shit or a torn canvas! I hope I’ve clarified my point of view better. Bye

Ah, I almost forgot to tell you that the three musicians you mentioned are among my favorites, so far be it from me to belittle their essential contribution! However, perhaps Christian was a glimpse into the future...

I agree! Of course, making history with ifs and buts is difficult and can be misleading; there's always the risk of overestimating or underestimating the contribution of a musician or a group of musicians to a musical genre. However, there is no doubt that Charlie Christian was VERY important, not just for guitarists but also for many saxophonists and soloists in general. The statement "No Charlie Christian, no bebop" was intentionally hyperbolic, and perhaps "false." But maybe not! We would need a time machine to take him out to know for sure...;-)

Muffin, but it is undeniable that Christian was one of the pioneers of bop! If it hadn't been for him introducing certain phrases and harmonic progressions, it's uncertain that bebop would be what we know it as today (or maybe it wouldn't even exist, who knows). Dizzy and Bird, by the way, acknowledged their admiration and their debt to Christian...

Why on earth did they make these changes? What was the need? It seems that the Led are trying everything to infuriate their supporters... well, let's hope they don't completely lose their sense of decorum!