Jazz
 
syncopation, innovation, rennovation, or just plain musical desecration?
some say it is the art of making sounds completely unrelated to those made by others nearby .
is it the collection of utterences produced by a group of musicians all playing in a totally unrelated fashion to each other?
is it phonical chaos created by a group of instrumental anarchists. or are they anarchistic instrumentalists? or just inartistic fundamentalists?
jazz - some call it music for the soul. or was it sole? certainly has been much down-trodden.
but is there something in it?
there must be a draw card for all those who participate, both in the making and the taking.
so why are the floor boards shaking. and my eardrums breaking?
is god foresaking?
tired of cringing, my brain copes by abandoning its struggle against sonorous abuse of finely crafted instruments and delicate membranes.
those seemingly undecipherable bits of code precociously begin to establish an image of aural preciousness.
hyper links appear between previously unrelated and extreme points on the cacophonic sound map painted by the various participants.
a phonic picture (phonogram?) slowly takes shape, and cacophonia metamorphoses into melodia.
an audio carrot lures me spellbound, casting a new musical understanding, intonations wrestling towards a tune.
for some it's a tonic.
others see it as a torturous tunic. tedious intonality. sonorific torture.
a lot of people say they like it.
but are they just feigning intelligence as they grapple with dissonant strains, attempting to map out an accoustical understanding. is tolerance the virtue here?
do they call it jazz, because they just couldn't call it music?
i don't know the answer. i don't even know whether i like it or not.
i just know that i can't stop listening to it.
is this what made gillespie so dizzy?
 
Back