i've tried here, explizit... i've really tried.

it's funny that you're telling me that i am not making a good argument, when you have not even offerred even the *beginning* of a counter-argument. all you keep doing is telling me that i am wrong, but not ONCE have told you me *why* i am wrong.

not ONCE have you offerred a *shred* of evidence to back up your opinion (or rather, to invalidate mine).

all you say is "this opinion is laughable" "your argument is shaky" "you're still not making a good argument."

i mean, i EXPLICITLY asked you to bring forth certain evidence in order to debunk a statement that i made (about whether Black musicians considered themselves self-conscious artists prior to bebop) and you avoided doing this.

yet you tell me "you are wrong."

i'm sorry... that is not how grown folks conduct an argument, and that's how you intend to play, let me know so i can bow out gracefully and spend my time doing something much more productive... because otherwise, this is a total waste of my time.

come to think of it, this is exactly what you did in my "pro-Black hip-hop" post... you kept complaining that i didn't support my argument about fascist tendencies and when i pointed out the Ice Cube video i linked, you started saying "oh... so all you can do is say Ice Cube is fascist! you're so stupid!"

but through all that, you never ONCE even addressed the issue of whether or not the Ice Cube video contained content that could be construed as fascist. not ONCE did you actually tackle the argument based on facts rather than emotions.

all you did was tell me "you are wrong."

why am i wrong?

"because i say so."

ooooookay....

what i find MOST frustrating, though, is the fact that you seem almost DETERMINED not to get the point, regardless of how many times i explain myself. i really hate having to repeat myself endlessly, so how do i deal with something like this:

>>i just explained to you that i NEVER said that the music
>that
>>came after bebop was NOT "Black Art."
>>
>really? how so? so you define what is and isn't "black art."
>wtf? you know how many black artists would laugh at you for
>saying that? thats a hilarious opinion man.

that's a hilarious opinion?

the only hilarious thing is that i JUST SAID that i was NOT saying that bebop and the music that came after it was NOT Black art, and you're responding asking me if i'm the one who defines what is or isn't Black art.

WTF?

what language do i have to speak to understood here? obviously, English isn't working... i NEVER said that ANYTHING was or wasn't Black art. i NEVER said that i am the arbiter of what is or isn't Black art?

so, really... what the FUCK are you even talking about?

>dangerous? how so? things grow and evolve homie. you cant do
>call and response forever. theres a reason why louis armstrong
>eclipsed bix biederbeck and why miles eclipsed him etc. etc.

oh really?

and what exactly is that reason, pray tell?

>>who says that is "growth," though?
>
>uh it is.

why?

explain yourself, please.

>>or if it IS "growth" is it necessarily the BEST growth?
>>sometimes it's quite possible to grow in a "bad" direction.
>>
>huh? thats some tricky waters your treading with that
>statement.

oh really? can you provide some elaboration upon that statement or is it just something cool to say?

>>personally, i don't like the idea of thinking of it as
>>"growth"... to me, that is reflective of the idea that Black
>>music is inherently primitive, and in order for it to "grow"
>>it must be infused with theories from the more "advanced"
>>European tradition.
>>
>>i reject that idea.
>>
>Well a lot of people reject the idea that black art has to be
>defined by call and response or just merely entertaining
>people or just being functional as making quilts. its bigger
>than that.

you're free to reject whatever you want... but at least provide some SEMBLANCE of evidence to support your objection.

>it is relevant if you realize where he was coming from in
>creating the music. he lived his music.

*sigh*

STOP IT.

stop it RIGHT NOW.

i really, really hope that we're not gonna start wading into the realm of murky statements like "he lived his music." that shit is a bunch of semi-poetic abstraction that really has NO meaning when you think about it

i mean, seriously: so licking a white woman's pussy in a taxicab is what made Bird play so good?

see... it's exactly bullshit like "he lived his music" that led hundreds of college students and hipsters to start shooting dope in the 1950s because they thought that if they lived the kind of life that Charlie Parker did, that they would play with the same depth of feeling as him.

it's a bunch of nonsense.

"he lived his music"... bah! that's nothing but mythology, son. let's stick to talking about music.

you need to read up on
>some bios of jazz players. Im almost finished with this book
>on Mingus and Ive read miles autobiography and a lot on
>coltrane and parker and dizzy, etc. You would realize how
>important their personal lives were in affecting their
>creativity.

i've read them already, thanks.

can we get back to talking about actual MUSIC though?

>>actually, a lot of the beboppers considered their music much
>>MORE Black than the mainstream of Jazz at the time, because
>>bebop encompassed a semi-obscure set of expressive codes and
>a
>>degree of difficulty that was inaccessible to a lot of the
>>white post-swing bands of the day.
>>
>thats what Im saying.

no, actually that's what I'M saying. i'm still waiting for you to say something other than "you are wrong."

>>but ultimately, it WAS more self-conscious. it WAS *trying*
>to
>>be Art much more than something like "Take the A Train"
>>
>>"Take the A Train" doesn't have to *try* to be Art... it
>just
>>is.
>>
>
>ugh. this is real bad analogy. I gotta flag you on this bs.

okay... WHY is it a bad analogy?

you gonna flag me and not tell me WHY?

>Ellington was an artist. miles was an artist. Coltrane never
>tried to be more white or european or distance himself from
>being black when he started doing free jazz.

Ellington was an artist... who ever said he wasn't?

my question was whether or not someone like Ellington *presented* himself as an artist in the "self-conscious" sense. which you still haven't answered, by the way.

i mean, you've read so many jazz bios, so it should be pretty easy for you to retrieve a quote or two just to provide SOME substantiation to your statements, right?

as for the other thing you're talking about... it ain't got jack shit to do with anything i said. search this entire board... go into the Archives even ad search every post going back to 1999 and tell me where i said that.

i NEVER said that Coltrane or anybody else was trying to be more white or European of distance themselves from being Black.

i never said anything even CLOSE to that, so i have NO fucking clue where you even got some bullshit like that.

what i DID say that they were drawing on traditions outside of the traditional Black experience, including the European avant-garde and (in Coltrane's case) Oriental tonalities.

are you gonna deny that's true? of course not.

so why not just accept that and stop making up shit that i didn't even say. that shit is foul, dude... it makes me not even wanna talk to a person when they pull shit like that.

You wanna define
>black art by restricting its exploration and growth. Thats not
>progressive nor accurate. Your opinion is shared by who? I
>dont know anyone except a few contrarians on message boards
>like this one.

actually, my opinion is shared by many people, including some quite reputable musicologists. but that is irrelevant either way... it is MY OPINION.

MINE.

you are quite free to disagree with it, but the fact that many people disagree with me does not automatically make me wrong either. when Columbus said the world was round and not flat, it's not as if most people agreed with him then, right?

>I think youre trying to simplify music. Sometimes being
>carefree is intelligent and anti-pop as well.

who said anything about pop or intelligence, though? or even simplification?

all i'm talking about is the attitude of the musician towards his audience and his work.

how simple or complicated the music is is quite irrelevant here... Jelly Roll Morton's music was much more complicated than Prince's is, but Jelly Roll didn't call himself an "artist" and Prince does.

so... what's your point here?

please: again, i am going to ask you to stick to things that i have actually SAID rather than fabricating views and attributing them to me.

This might be a
>frightening idea to you but it's true. Seriously read up on
>more jazz artists. I swear if you read "Myself when I am Real"
>about mingus you would change this simplistic way of thinking.

i've read it. and guess what? it actually SUPPORTS my point of view.

>If you are already a certain way that will come out when you
>are carefree. If you already are of a certain political
>thought then you can be carefree and still express these ideas
>without overthinking things.

oh... so it's about POLITICS now. i thought it was MUSIC we were discussing.

okay... so what exactly IS this political view that you are talking about?

because, you know... i'm sure that ALL Black musicians in history have shared the exact same political view, more or less.

>People like you think anything
>outside the realm of pure physical expression or surface
>emotion is overthinking. It isn't. I'm sorry to burst your
>bubble.

LOL again: stick to shit that i actually say, alright?

>>not to say that ALL Black music has to exhibit that trait...
>>but i think you'll agree that most of the BEST Black music
>>does.
>>
>eh...no.

explain. saying "no" is not enough, man.

>I would say much more than a lot of jazz. In your synopsis of
>highfalutin ideas of art I think you're overthinking these
>subjects. It's kinda ironic as well as your overthinking about
>people that you are accusing of overthinking. Sometimes art is
>just art. It's exploration and growth. Ideas upon ideas. If
>you think africa and african music existed within a bubble and
>that was completely transferred to american blacks then you
>really are mistaken.

what does that even mean?

And if you think black american art is
>only music that was made to entertain people on a surface
>level then you are really mistaken.

dog... believe me: i seriously doubt that you are in a position to school me about any aspect of Black American art. and i swear to God, i don't mean that in a disrespectful way.

i asked you before to simply cite for me some instances of self-consciousness in Black American art (specifically in popular music, anyway) and you have still failed to do this.

at some point you have to put up or shut up.

i think i'm really wasting my time. i'm gonna have to retire from further discussion of this topic with you until you demonstrate that you are willing to have an adult conversation where the participants back up their statements with soem kind of evidence.

peace.