ajejebrazorf

Anyway, it's also funny that I ask you for your absolute favorite instrumentals, and you come up with Moon in June, which isn't instrumental, and after having said dreadful things about jazz—“brainy and indulgent music”—you bring out Facelift and Ebene, which are about the most brainy and indulgent things there are. If you don't find at least a small contradiction in that...

Sure, Alfrè, jazz gives me the impression of being terribly self-satisfied music, it doesn't communicate much to me :-P Then when I find out that Bitches Brew is considered a total masterpiece, I understand it's better for me to keep my distance and I continue to listen to my good rock! And then: "All jazz" is your expression, not mine. That's it. I won't say anything; anyone reading can form their own opinion.

truly the most devastating and overwhelming thing Coltrane has ever recorded, also because unlike his other free albums, here there are African percussions that don't give a moment's respite. A hurricane of sound of almost unbearable intensity (indeed, from what I've heard, perhaps the most intense jazz album ever), Ascension or Interstellar Space by comparison feel tranquil, but here he knew he was about to die, and you can feel it. For some, his true masterpiece. It must also be said that unfortunately the audio quality of the album is appalling...

Ah, the meaning of what Alessioiride said in the last not-at-all-petty comment was that he understood I was speaking ill of Nirvana, which I absolutely did not do, of course.

<<<Oh my God, Lux, it's music, but are you even looking at the message? If you want a message, don't listen to music... the message is the music..." This is the greatest bullshit, a product of this fucking post-modern society that is unable to give any universal meaning to what it sees, lives, feels, and hears.>>> Come on. If you want, you can pretend you didn't understand: what did you tell me when I asked you what the Pixies piece communicated to you? You talked to me about moods. And I did the same when I talked about Bitches Brew. It’s all right there; if you want, I can copy and paste it for you again. >>>"but then it turned out that you simply don't like instrumentals of any kind" what the hell are you babbling about? I named the first 3 instrumental albums at random that I would prefer to listen to rather than this fucking BB (of course, they are not my all-time top three albums, but that’s not the point)<<< No, you first mentioned Third, and we both know that Moon in June is there. Then you referred to Irrlicht and Alpha Centauri, but that’s vague; let me understand what your favorite instrumental tracks are. If they are your favorites, you should be able to list them off the top of your head, right? My idea (you can correct me) is that you, like many (even like me for a long time, if that’s any consolation, and it still happens to me with certain genres I don’t consume much), prefer having the element of voice guiding and giving that "sense" you talk about when discussing expressiveness. >>>In fact, I know very well that, obviously not satisfied that the discussion has maintained a reasonably calm tone, you decided to reinvigorate it by calling my opinions bullshit, knowing very well that sooner or later I would tell you to fuck off<<< No, I was absolutely calm; if you want, I can use "incorrect concept" instead of bullshit, but the concept is the same. If I wanted to raise the tone of the discussion, I would have said that you are obtuse (for instance), but I only made references to concepts. And those concepts you expressed ("I've heard some albums, jazz (all of it!) feels like self-indulgent music lacking expressiveness)"). Very calmly, to me, that's bullshit. I respect you, for what it's worth since I don't know you, but I do not respect the concept; to me (who knows a bit more about jazz than you, theorizing and generalizing much less), it’s bullshit. Those who generalize usually always say bullshit.

<<<Can I say if at least I liked those or not?>>> Of course, you can think what you want about it. I contested phrases like "jazz gives me the idea of being terribly self-satisfied music," which might make sense referring to many records, but taken in general (and moreover referring to Bitches Brew) it's nonsense. It's like if I listened to Malmsteen's records and said the same thing about rock (obviously before you latch onto that: I'm not comparing Miles Davis to Malmsteen), and then I would also ask you to "respect my opinion." And the whole thing about expressiveness is an even bigger load of crap, but then it became clear that you just don't like instrumentals of any kind... I wonder what you think about classical music and avant-garde. <<<I've already said how I feel about Third compared to BB; for me it's like this... And you have to respect my opinion>>> Excuse me, but if you use the term "physical" in a discussion, a word that is supposed to have the same meaning for both of us, I'm telling you it's nonsense. Third has nothing physically about it, whereas Bitches Brew has plenty. It's not Ayler’s Witches and Devils, but it’s ten times more physical than Third. If words have a shareable meaning, otherwise I might as well say that Bitches Brew is more ciciclognolo than Third, and we can invent words that only make sense to ourselves and keep talking happily to each other, knowing we can't be contradicted. <<<All those people more competent than me have doubted, and I can’t doubt the record???>>> Doubt? What does that mean? Do you think the record is actually nonsense and that I'm pretending to really enjoy Sanctuary, and that I and many others do it to sound impressive? Doubt in what sense?

mmm, it could be. But do you think, for example, that an album like Black Saint (which definitely falls within jazz as considered such even by purists) is easier and more digestible? For me, that one is more complex as a listen, and the colossal Great Concert reviewed here by Dolphy is certainly no joke either, quite the opposite.

Can you tell me where I would have expressed any negative opinion about Nirvana?

"Ajeje, make an exception! 90% of people would be unimpressed, so as a general piece of advice, I think what I said is useful." Nah, I don't make exceptions, Bitches was the best-selling album in jazz history (at least until that moment, I don't know now), precisely because it attracted the rock audience. Jazz was becoming electric, incorporating funky and acid rhythms; it was the closest thing to rock (especially psychedelic rock) heard up to that point. Clearly, if someone has a preference for Nirvana and similar bands, they would be quite taken aback at first, but so would they be by almost all jazz, whether it's Miles electric, Cecil Taylor, Bill Evans, or Duke Ellington.

But I don't intend to offend; I spoke frankly: if I say that Surfer Rosa is, for me, a rather melancholy and ghostly album, while Irrlicht is the ideal album for moshing, wouldn't you think that's objectively nonsense? It's not a matter of "for me it's this way," I'm not being stubborn; unlike you, I'm talking about things I know. I think you're grasping at straws because you want to be right about something, and I don’t know what that is: I listen to rock and jazz and would never dream of saying one is better than the other. You, who listen to rock and have only heard a few jazz pieces, started by sharing an impression of an album, which is fine; but then you ventured into theories about a genre that literally has everything, using "for me it's this way" as an argument that's worthy of a "reflection in the mirror." If you said: "I hate jazz because I don't like instrumental music," that would be one thing; instead, you come out with absurd statements like "jazz is too cerebral" (huh? everything? but you've only heard a couple of things!) or that "Third" (which is much more jazz than rock, by the way) is more physical than Bitches Brew. I'm not going to call you an idiot, but you're saying nonsense based on your ignorance. Usually, before risking to theorize, one should listen; do you think I would start discussing Thai cinema?