Quote:
Originally Posted by oingo86
ok wow! To EldKatt - Ignorance isn't something I'm afraid to admit - I wouldn't post in here if I didn't know what I was talking about. But you are misinterpreting what my posts are saying. I was never saying Gershwin's music wasn't some form of 'jazz' (which depends on your PERSONAL definitions, because jazz is not a clearly labeled thing, like say common practice tonality or serialism), I was merely offering a redefinition of the kind of jazz we were talking, and asserting that a more common term (in my experience) for the type of 'jazz' Gershwin embodied was indeed NOT the Miles Davis and Coltrane jazz, but the musical theater, Jerome Kern, Americana jazz of the time. I saw people's posts as extremely general and sometimes lopsided, so I decided to offer a clarification.
|
I really ought to clarify, too, that I have very little knowledge of Gershwin's music, so I am making no assertion regarding whether or not
Gershwin's music could be called jazz. My point was more generally that I'm somewhat skeptical towards a definition of jazz that excludes much of what, historically speaking, was at its time regarded as jazz, in favor of more "alive" traditions (in other words, one that entirely excludes "the 'jazz' of Gershwin's day"). I'm not saying that this includes musical theater, nor that it includes Gershwin, so it may indeed have little to do with anything here, including, I realize, what you were saying, so yeah. Nothing to see here. Anyhow, my remark about ignorance was obviously uncalled-for and overly caustic... I apologize for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Tokke
Ah! EldKatt! He accused me of similar ignorance on the Wikipedia threads in re: orchestration (!). A fair warning to those here that he is quite accusatory.
|
Justin, I think those here who have read more than a few of my posts already have sufficient grounds to judge how I "am", without your warnings--more so than you do, if I may guess. But
since you bring it up, the issue over on Wikipedia was about you acting on a fairly large scale (a large number of edits on a large number of pages) against consensus and thus against Wikipedia guidelines, while refusing rather stubbornly to try to establish such a consensus through discussion. I was far from the only editor who tried to talk to you about this (in, I might add, a perfectly civil manner now that I glance over at your talk page). I never accused you of ignorance--I frankly don't know where you got that. Anyone interested can judge for themselves on the relevant discussion pages on Wikipedia.
Since I'm not acting in the name of Wikipedia here, I'll take the opportunity to say that while I have never had any intention of judging your character by your actions on Wikipedia (in other words, it's nothing personal from my part),
you're making quite the ass of yourself right now. Seriously, is this how you try to gain respect and acceptance in a new community? This is clearly between you and me, so if you intend to make a big deal of this, please take it with me through PM and don't litter this thread. Thanks.