In Reply to: RE: Seriously? posted by Analog Scott on August 26, 2012 at 18:52:57:
I'm afraid you've lost me on the rhythm thing. While the rhythmic anomalies were obvious and had been mentioned in previous posts, I didn't myself mention them at that point. I merely wanted Chris to have a chance to hear something of Tatum's artistry. I was convinced that, with exposure, that artistry would speak for itself.
But that's all beside the point, or at least my point, which is that when you argue too aggressively, you lose touch with the truth. You end up arguing like a lawyer and by the time you're done, the poor schnook in the divorce proceeding has been transformed into a child molester. Too many political discussions follow this path.
As to the jazz pianist, well, I suppose it's interesting on some level. But it has little significance to the argument, because it's an appeal to authority, which, as of course you know having brought that up, is a logical fallacy.
Tchaikovsky didn't like Brahms. Could there be a more authoritative opinion on things musical than Tchaikovsky's? And yet, I feel quite confident in saying that Brahms was a great composer.
You don't have to be a chef to know whether a meal is good. Such judgments are made through talent, which is partly inborn, and exposure. Professional training isn't necessary. And the reason I think is that, after all, art (and cooking) appeal to the faculty of the listener, not the performer (or gourmet). Professional training teaches us to make a souffle, not to enjoy it.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 07:14:22 09/02/12 (4)
- RE: Seriously? - Analog Scott 09:31:46 09/02/12 (3)
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 11:21:59 09/02/12 (2)
- RE: Seriously? - Analog Scott 13:25:51 09/02/12 (1)
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 14:57:48 09/02/12 (0)