Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1884745)

jazz seems for those that experience ego death and arrive at complete freedom

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1884745)

jazz seems for those that experience ego death and arrive at complete freedom

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1884715)

I do get the feeling all roads eventually lead to jazz

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1884729)

But those who don't like free jazz (or any genre, really) mostly dismiss the genre because they are assigning inappropriate requirements that don't make sense for that genre, like expecting a jazz album to check all of the boxes of what makes a great country record. I think we've had this conversation before. Someone who listens to free jazz has a better understanding of it than someone whose knowledge of the genre is ------limited------

Originally Posted by MicShazam (Post 1884749)

the mainstream stereotype of jazz listeners is, funnily enough, that they have huge ego's

not that I mean to imply anything with that

Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1884757)

Yes you do.

Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1884757)

No I understand that: if you don't understand free jazz you don't get free jazz. But if he, or you, is or are asserting that that then makes you superior in your taste with respect to ALL OTHER genres, then no. Not liking jazz does not make you limited. It just means you don't like jazz.

Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1884704)

I think I'm reading this wrong so by all means tell me if so but: are you saying that if someone is not into free jazz you will discount their opinion on any other music, or on free jazz? Or, are you (as I think you are) saying that, whatever the genre, you'll only give credence to the opinion of someone who is familiar with it? As in, if I said punk is **** you'd say (and you'd be right) that I don't know what I'm talking about because I've listened to so little?

That's an arrogant thing to say now really. Just because someone doesn't like free jazz does not mean they're limited. Different strokes, man.

Another arrogant thing to say. I may have plenty of knowledge and understanding of, say, soul, but not like it. That doesn't mean I'm limited just cos I don't like soul. But I would agree - and I've been guilty of this in the past - that you shouldn't diss music you haven't at least listened to.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1884766)

My guess is that OH respects the taste of people who can appreciate a genre that is very inaccessible from a mainstream point of view because it suggests that they are very much their own mind when it comes to appreciating music. That, and someone who also inhabits a favourite niche of yours is likely to have similarly good taste.

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 1884771)

:yikes:u

Free jazz and some other types of atonal music are still the pinnacle. Once I discover someone knows their **** about that I assign more merit to their opinion about any genre than a music lover's opinion who isn't hip to the avant garde.

For example:

I say that my favorite Slayer record is South of Heaven. Bat says Hell Awaits is better and Frown says Reign in Blood. Until proven otherwise by my own ears I will give more merit to Frown's opinion because he knows more about free jazz than Bat. Even though Bat knows more about metal I respect Frown's opinion more because I respect the opinion of someone who likes free jazz over a metalhead's even if the topic is metal. If you understand free jazz I know for sure you get the subtleties of other genres. However, if Frown said straight out that he doesn't like metal then that voids his opinion.