and I realize they were jazz players
but that's sorta my point.

the stuff you are talking about that exists in other places
and although it is (kind of) stupid to call motown jazz,
I can't call it less sophisticated because
it delivers things that jazz (usually) doesn't.

I get that jazz players are more proficient on their instruments, generally.

I also get that jazz is (sometimes) a lot more abstract.


But I dislike the idea that certain genres or albums
are viewed as more sophisticated as a general rule.
that leads to this weird cannonist approach to music
that I hate. as if one's intelligence or value as a person is related
to which or if a particular genre of music moves you.
it turns living music into a museum of dead songs.

I dislike these types of genre battles.


it makes more sense to enjoy everything for what it is.
that's not a cop out, either.

I tried to play the sophsitication game with musical genres
and my brain broke when I started noticing that I like janet jackson's
vocal harmonies for the same reason I liked the way bill evans comped.
and if that sounds like a reach, remember that jimmy jam and terry lewis started in a funk band, and funk and jazz share similar ancestry,
and it's hard to say which one is more sophisticated, when you think about it.


I will admit you probably like jazz more than I ever will.

I will also admit that most of the music I love will never be viewed
as being just as sophisticated as jazz.

but that doesn't mean it's less nuanced.
it just won't get canonized that way by historians.

I'm fine with that.
But I think I'll always disagree with these types of posts, though.