ajejebrazorf

Ah, do you find the Dhamm expressive? But enough with "expressiveness," I fully understand what you mean by "expressiveness" (and that's why I told you to listen to Barbieri), but that’s not expressiveness, it’s just the part of expressiveness that you understand because you've decided that jazz as a whole annoys you "because it's inexpressive."

Alright, wherever you might have read the proportion. It was just an example, you know.

"You should be the ones who have 'understood' jazz to explain its message to me." Sorry, but don't you realize the absurdity of such a request? What is the message of rock, that summarizes everything together: Rolling Stones, Genesis, Sex Pistols, Vampire rodents, and the Dhamm? Could you tell me?

Larrok, this is becoming delirious, because to say that you heard Ayler who alone, in terms of expressiveness, sweeps away half of rock, in order to look for expressive stuff makes no sense. By expressive, it seems to me that you mean not expressive, but "direct" and in a certain sense easy, captivating as you are used to hearing in rock. What I said about Barbieri, Latino America (which would actually be a compilation with the first two of the four "latin america" albums by Barbieri), goes precisely in that direction; many pieces are based on two chords but it is still a great album. Sahara, however, is more cerebral; it's something like a more furious Area.

"I understand, but allow me to say that if the Coltrane, Mingus, Davis triptych (not exactly a walk in the park) has left me somewhat perplexed, can I start to form a small vague idea? No, because as important as they are, they are only three; they do not represent jazz. Do the Rolling Stones, Genesis, and Sex Pistols perhaps provide a complete idea of what rock is? And by the way, to represent Davis, two albums are certainly not enough, since he created vastly different things, from cool to drum'n'bass, from funk to ambient, from bop to hip hop. Regarding the idea of "aesthetic entertainment" - a lack of message: you might be missing the whole role that jazz played as political music, from Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit" to the Freedom Suite, just to name a few. Things I don’t agree with, because for me, music has value as music. Lux, I say this without malice: you are saying some hefty nonsense, compounded by ignorance."

Special effects? What does that have to do with anything? Now jazz is all about a demonstration of technique, come on.

Yes, but Lux, there are tons of examples of this in jazz too (including Bitches Brew). There are jazz records of stratospheric expressiveness; you keep theorizing about something you know very marginally, come on.

The strength of Spiderland? But Slint are like walking dead! I mean, great album but it’s not exactly a celebration of energy, it’s a concentrate of depression. Mayden Voyage is a nice album but it’s not the right example, it’s a type of refined jazz but also a bit pretentious, if you will. Take Sahara by McCoy Tyner, to mention something not too abstract, and see if it doesn’t blow Slint away 43 times in terms of energy.

Lux, can I recommend a title that won't be representative of the paradigm of what jazz should be (a rather absurd concept, anyway) that you might like? Try "Latino America" by Gato Barbieri, there's even a review on Debaser.

larrok, but yours is not an opinion, it's a prejudice, a stance that amounts to thinking that rock is just Deep Purple and that's it.