>
> A moderate conservative can still be appalled by a fascist w/o any
> hypocrisy. The fact that Jarrett is a relative conservative only
> lends credence to the proposition, as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, I see, now Wynton's a fascist? A fascist of jazz? Come on now. If Wynton
is a pompous windbag, and I don't deny that many can get that impression,
the only musician who I would put in the same category with him is Jarrett.
It is almost impossible to read any of Jarrett's writings on music, or talk
to anyone who's ever come into contact with him, without coming away with
the impression that he is the most overweening, pretentious, self-important
musician since... Wynton Marsalis!
At least Wynton doesn't have public neo-orgasms when he plays a half note.
The time-axis of "Jazz" might well be criticized. But Jarrett, shutting down
his jazz "recitals" and downdressing his audiences for making too much noise
and not giving him proper respect, lambasting synthesizers and other basic
developments in electronic music, etc., is not the one to make this
critique.
Jarrett is precisely *as* arch-conservative, musically speaking, as Wynton.
Personally, thank heaven Burns got to Wynton instead of Jarrett. At least
Wynton talked about other musicians he liked. If Burns listened to Jarrett,
we probably would've gotten a 10 part series on... Jarrett.
Jarrett is Matt Glaser without the humility.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Feb 12 2001 - 15:22:00 CET