>>but it's
>>always seemed that your reasoning falls back to popular
>>acceptance and that's just not acceptable to me and my
>musings
>>(pun intended).
>
>maybe not to you, but i think popular acceptance is crucial to
>the comparison.

was classical music ever 'popular' though? it was a patron arts, where an elite funded what they wanted and put on spectacles for the populace. sure the populace responded by the purchase of tickets to see the performances (and my some accounts many of these were more diverse in audience than one might instinctually believe). But the manner of selection was so rigid in the hands of the patrons can we really say it was the popular music of its time. (of course we could replace patrons with record labels and be speaking of more recent years but ignore that part for now).

i think you glamorize jazz's overall popularity. i mean think of the so called blue collar jazz. it wasn't popular outside of soul circles. and they weren't necessarily fond of big band. big band folk didn't necessarily get with the boppers. boppers weren't seeing eye to eye with the free jazzers. free jazzers couldn't fuck with the cool. ya dig. and that's the beauty of jazz is that all those diverse interpretations were able to carve their own niches and grow without the need to become *the* popular music. now parallel that with electronic music and the thing you find is that perhaps there is even more closeness between the niches despite more divergence in sound (you'll debate that and I won't argue). that's kinda beautiful.

>>>i changed my mind.
>>
>>maybe we can change it back.
>
>who are "we"?

"we" are having a discussion right?

>>clancey
>>had books made into movies which starred the biggest actors
>of
>>our times. his name is known the world around.
>
>there's something to be said for that. it takes talent to
>capture the imaginations of millions.

but that speaks more to the culture of the people than the culture of the art. and what i'm muse-ing about is the culture of the art.

>>but in a
>>thousand years if an archeologist dug up one of his books
>and
>>one of leguins i think they'd be able to separate the wheat
>>from the chaff within a chapter. this is muse speak.
>
>it's also possible they may be riveted by the clancy novel.
>you never know the tastes of the people who matter, whether
>the historians of the future or the gate keepers of the
>present.

while I'll give a nod to this i do still think there is an objective distinction which is made in the intent to study. if you are studying the people, you study what is popular. if you are studying the art, you study its evolutions no matter how small or popular.

>>there
>>is discussion for popularity, but amongst the classicals and
>>jazz's of our times popularity really should be a
>non-factor.
>
>this seems elitist, even if we're on the same side of taste.

how about in the context i put it above and below.

>>but again you're using popular and trusted as the measuring
>>stick. who cares?
>
>i care when it has real world consequences.

it's not that i don't care for the populous. i do. but i care for the art too. and i know that the populous doesn't always care for the art, though the art, when true to the muse is almost always for the populous. as the art grows so does the populous cousciously or subconsciously. is this an elitist stance? perhaps it could be perceived this way, but only by the populous. the muse has no word for elitist.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com