[zeruch]

" it just means your important jazz doesn't have the value you ascribe to it" that's one hell of a stretch.

Failure by a broader audience to understand a genre (or only want to casually consume one part of it passively) doesn't invalidate it's canon. By that measure Kenny G should have usurped John Coltrane as the saxophonist of note, and by any standard except coffee shop and elevator back ground noise he's done no such thing.

[postingposts]

John Coltrane is only good on paper and there’s a cult of personality which exists around his work. I can’t really say that I think much of his improvisations and in general, what people believe is “incredible” could be cranked out by an algorithm. Miles Davis is the real deal of jazz for me. Never cared about notes, fame, or much other than being free. That’s jazz.

[zeruch]

"John Coltrane is only good on paper"

Which is still a warmer sense than the room temp take you just attempted.

Your entire comment was either trolling, or some seriously petulant, and gap-laden understanding of both Miles AND Trane. Not saying you have to like Trane, but damn if your comment was just musically and historically ignorant as all be damned.

[postingposts]

It’s even more simple: I don’t care about being appealing to you.

Edit: also you saying something like “you’re wrong” and then not giving reasons is actually what trolling is. Go look in the mirror my friend.

[jeffbee]

> John Coltrane is only good on paper

"Cancel yourself with one terrible take" is a thing that only works on Twitter, I think.

[postingposts]

Hey you seem to think that being in a cult of consensus is a good thing, but perhaps it isn’t?

[jeffbee]

I just can't figure out what it would even mean for a jazz saxophonist to be "good on paper". What does it mean? Did he hit 100 RBIs? A take such as "I don't care for Coltrane's improvisational style" would be beyond debate.

[postingposts]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltrane_changes He and The Beatles and a lot of other musicians from this era have been subjected to a form of schizophrenic post-hoc pattern matching. In English: someone doodles on the sax or does a tune a little different and suddenly there are 100 papers about the specific and intricate genius of The Rolling Stones making a love song in the Second Person!!! and it’s the same sort of crap in the end, one is doodling on the sax and the other are playing some guitar chords.

These people are also somehow ignorant and independent of Bach, Beethoven, Handel, and of all famous literary authors and poets who have done the same before.

Which isn’t to say you shouldn’t like The Rolling Stones or John Coltrane but they’re just something you like. Thats it.

[jeffbee]

I see you getting a few downvotes, but for the record I agree completely, to the extent that your complaint is about the members of the cult and not the object of their veneration.