|
Disclaimer: I am not a jazz musician.
You say that even if someone can provide you with examples of immensely complex theories in jazz, that doesn't validate jazz as a complex artform because many people--you would argue--don't utilize those theories. You also say that it can't be all that complex if performers can perform it while intoxicated. Are we to use the lowest common denominator as the deciding factor in the potential complexity of the music? All one person has to do is utilize the complex theories while sober to prove that jazz has the capacity for that kind of complexity. It doesn't matter if there are performers and composers who don't do it that way. That's their choice, or possibly their ability.
Perhaps your beef is with people who cite the complexities of jazz without making use of them. I understand that. But that doesn't change the complexity that still exists.
I'd also go so far as to say that it's easier to make something sound good using all those nuances (motif, counterpart, fugue, etc.) when you have the time to think it all out. It's got to be harder to try something for the first time in front of an audience, hoping it will work, and creating a sound that they like. In those instances you have all of the theory, and you've got to choose--on the spot--which would be most effective in the moment and then make it work, without any time to test it first. You'd also generally be playing with at least two other people (figuring on a piano/bass/drums trio) and hoping all three minds come together to make up something that will work.
I also want to point out that William Shakespeare was not a wealthy man, nor was he an educated man, and he is the only playwright of his time to influence not only the theatre, but literature and the English language, the way he did. He's also the only playwright of his time who carries that kind of name recognition over four-hundred years later.
__________________
~David
|'|'|'| |'|'| |'|'|'|
|