>So forgive my use of shorthand... I just feel I have said
>this all before. And before. And before. And I'm just not that
>interested in reiterating most of it.
>
>>stripping the social context?
>
>Striping social context.
>
>Understanding where the blues came from (geographically and
>spiritally).
>
>Appreciating the social and cultural forces that drove the
>originators of the blues to play the way they played.
>
>Et cetera.
>
>The fervent "anti-collectivists" like yourself like to focus
>on the unique genius of individual innovators and that's
>fine... but I'm sorry, it's not always possible or even
>realistic to do this.
>
>I mean, if you want to talk about something like the blues,
>how do we celebrate the innovations of individual in a style
>of music that developed out of the songs that slaves
>improvised together *as a community* as they worked the
>fields? It's ironic, innit?
>

sometimes authorship is forgotten or diluted beyond individual credit
it's a far cry from that to attributing creativity to 'the community' when the community you are talking about is a whole race/ethnic group spanning many generations


>And can we overlook the circumstances that led to the creation
>of this music?
>
>I think someone like you would try to say it's unimportant
>that they happened to be singing these songs because they were
>forced to work in the hot fields under soul-crushing
>conditions and they missed their homeland from which they had
>been snatched.
>
>You'd probably say "Well, let's just analyze the harmony and
>melody and rhythmic configuration they employed and say they
>were really smart to come up with that, but a student in the
>Vienna Music Academy probably would have come up with the
>exact same music if the slaves hadn't done it first!"

except i wouldn't say that. i'd just say something in the (specific) environment, something not found elsewhere, inspired or spurred some aspect of individual creativity


>
>That's bullshit to me. And frankly, I don't even have the
>patience to engage in that kind of argument anymore, so
>forgive me if I come off short or "vague."
>
>>i said you don't get any credit/respect for what other
>members
>>of your race have achieved as artists (or rather, you
>>shouldn't seek it)
>
>For the last g.d. time, nobody is talking about trying to reap
>credit or self-esteem from this. Well... I'm not, anyway. The
>fact that Coltrane killed on the sax don't change the fact
>that I can't play a lick on that horn.
>

yeah i believe you. although i wonder what you find when you really untangle/analyse all your concepts. but there are definitely people who build their self esteem from the achievements of people in the same race or perceived social group. the obvious example would be racists, for instance white supremicists who almost certainly have done nothing themselves to be feeling superior about. but the same root cause manifests itself in other (albeit less dangerous) ways such as getting 'territorial' about music you didn't create

>All I am saying is that "black music" is a concise and
>convenient way of me to describe certain styles that were
>developed, promoted and popularized by black people.
>
>The same way that I feel completely comfortable referring to
>the civilization you and I live in as "Western civilization"
>despite the fact that it is built on Arab innovations in
>mathematics, Chinese advances in writing and printing, and a
>whole lotta electronics and computer developments from Japan.
>

i can buy the comparison to western civilization
people don't say 'western civilization' the same way they say 'chinese food' or 'spanish guitar' though