[Harp-L] re: subjectivity

[Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

jazzmaan wrote:


"I believe that some musicians stand so far above others that they  
must be recognized as geniuses.
I know we've had the "genius" discussion here and some people don't  
want to acknowledge that Bird
and Jimi were in a class of their own.   But I'm not one of those  
people!  "

And in the above statement shows the flaw in your logic.  You may not  
be "one of those people", but the very fact that this is not obvious  
to everyone shows that it is your opinion, and not the gospel.   
That's the point I've been trying to make.  If you were saying  
something like "for me, Stevie is the best harmonica player ever", it  
would be a defensible statement, because it's your opinion.  But to  
claim that anyone is the best and should be seen as such by everyone,  
well, that's not a defensible claim--indeed, the examples you keep  
giving pretty much prove that it can't be defended.

"And for the record, I never claimed that Stevie was the best of all  
time.  I said he was the best
on earth!  (Not IN the earth) So its not fair to bring Little Walter  
into the debate!  He's dead! "

And here again my problem is as follows: it's no use even having a  
Stevie-vs-Walter discussion because it's so completely out of context  
(assuming the falsehood that musicians can be so compared as if it's  
a prize fight).  They played entirely different styles, in entirely  
different genres and for the most part on different instruments.   
It's like saying that Snuffy is the best domesticated animal ever.  I  
tend to think so, but at the same time it's hard to compare him to a  
cow or a horse because their roles are so massively different.

"And yes, of course its a subjective measure and you have every right  
to disagree with my choice.
Shall we take a vote and let majority rule?  "

NO.  That would be no less subjective.  It seems you don't really get  
the concept: there is no winner, there never can be.  Even if we took  
a poll of everyone on the list and had them write down their top  
hundred harmonica players and then went by the majority to rank them  
all, it still would prove ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  It would show a  
consensus, but that's no less subjective than the personal opinion,  
just a broader indication of the tastes of this list.

"I recently was amazed to hear a recording of a 15 year old Stevie  
guest DJ'ing on a Michigan radio
show in 1965.  <snip>He's
just having fun, a few notes here and there, but even at 15 he is  
head and shoulders above most
chromatic players three or four times his age. "

One of the highest praises I've ever heard given to Stevie was that  
few people have a fully developed sound at the age of twelve.  It's  
quite true.

"So you may call it subjective, "

No, it is subjective.  It defines the term.

"but I think its objectively undeniable that Stevie was playing
better harp at the age of 13 than 99.999% of the harp players on this  
list will EVER play in their
lifetimes."

I have no way of knowing that.  And no desire to measure that.  It's  
the same old elitist assumption that amateurs aren't as good as  
professionals.  Why is it that to build up someone you feel a need to  
put others down?  Why aren't your preferences enough and why can't  
you be comfortable with simply liking Stevie more than others?  A  
friend reminded me of a character in the 80's High School comedy  
"Square Pegs".  The character was massively offended when people  
disagreed with or ignored his list of the best bands in the world.   
The joke was that the list changed each episode.  It's a similar  
mindset here: why must someone or something be "the best", why can't  
it just be your favorite.

"Jonathan, I'm struggling to phrase this diplomatically:

I can't carry on a meaningful musical discussion with anyone who says  
that Charlie Parker "doesn't
rank high on my list of favorite alto sax players in jazz."

That's about as diplomatic as I can be.  I wish I could say what I  
REALLY feel about your musical
taste, but I would surely be reprimanded."

Which goes into my last statement.  I don't dislike Parker, and I  
certainly recognize his importance--I just don't listen to him much.   
Thus the statement about _my_ _favorites_.  Perhaps it's because I  
love a lot of music and musicians who tend to be disliked intensely  
by others (Schoenberg comes to mind) I really don't understand how  
people can judge this way.  Different music moves different people,  
there neither can nor should be a test to see whose opinions are  
worthy and whose aren't.

If not thinking Parker is "the best" ever end of discussion, no  
debate gets me kicked out of the jazzbo click, well, I don't mind.   
That's the same mentality that nearly killed jazz back in the  
mid-1980's and early '90's, IMO.  Really, other than that and my  
preference for Townsend (and to a lesser extent Beck) over Hendrix,  
you don't know much about my musical tastes.  As for Stevie--he is  
amongst my all time favorite musicians and harmonica players.  I  
probably listen to more Stevie than any other single musician.  That  
doesn't make him "the best" at anything--just one of my favorites.   
And that's more than enough for me (it's also real--"the best" is not).





 ()()    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
()  ()   & Snuffy, too:)
`----'