3 of 4

>What in the name of art convention do you grind this mouse on?


A jazz pianist, was sitting down in front of a Bach fugue. They
touched a few chords. Dropped out to keep up with the violin. No
one would say the pianist was really playing the music (at least not
as written, as the composer notated it). Likewise, the classical
musician was looking at jazz charts next, and half-heartedly playing
along. They thought they were playing the jazz tune, by executing
the notes, as written. The "head" (melody) without soloing. They
would say they were playing it, but to a jazz musician this was not
playing the music. The same word/idea "playing the music" means two
different things in two different languages (both based identically
on a common tongue: English, for example). To play the jazz tune is
to solo over the "changes". The jazz composition is just a
springboard, a point of departure. But how, how far and where one
departs are different for different schools.

(An easily arguable example. But also easily muddled with extraneous
modern concepts. Ok, Cab Calloway probably would not have the same
thoughts as Theloneous Monk. (In fact, I think Cab termed too many
accidentals, and not sticking to a swinging 4/4 beat, "China Music",
which at that time meant it made no sense but now says something
entirely different) Nor would Brahms and Steve Reich.)

But it appears they are talking about the same thing ("playing the
music"). Similarly, stupid questions like "Is it art?" have
completely different connotations, depending on who is answering.
The lay-person who responds "nope" may not have the same criteria as
a curator for a big 21st century gallery, who has grown fat on a diet
of brie, grapes, and cheap wine. But the answer will get them riled
up, nonetheless.


Judson


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003