>Saying that something is the classical or jazz of its era is
>mainly a way to give it some high-brow cred which isn't
>necessary in the slightest.

Unfortunately classical carries the connotations of high-brow. I don't see it that way. I think of it more like colonization. You can't just erase it from history. There's a lot that can be learned from it. But at the same time there's no need to praise it unwarantedly. If you read what I write carefully I take more than my fair share of cheap shots at it. This post included. But at the same time I will give it respect where waranted.

>Also, what type of dumb genre-name is 'electronic music'?

Post # whatever where I said did anyone notice music isn't capitalized. As in I wasn't making a genre declaration. More paradigm declarations. The classical paradigm. The jazz paradigm. And the electronic paradigm.

>Defining a genre *strictly* by the means/tools used to make it
>rather than that *and* chord-progressions/tonal
>language/"vibe"/tempos/numerous other things seems pretty
>silly to me.

But for arguments sake how would you define jazz inclusive of the tools chord progressions, language vibe tempos etc. that truly covered all of the various aspects of jazz.

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

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