I kid but also listen to jazz every day.
Join us at !jazz@lemmy.world if you dig.
Just because you didn't understand anything that I said doesn't mean I said little.
Jazzists forgot nothing, if anything they are usually the most classically trained musicians you can find.
I never claimed otherwise. But if you don't understand what avant-garde is, just say so. Because you're honestly embarrassing yourself at this point.
It bears nothing with your asinine tangent.
- It's not a tangent, it cuts straight to the core of what this argument is about.
- Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it asinine.
Just like in art, avant garde jazz musicians and dadaist painters were usually the cream of the crop of their fields. If it is a matter of taste, leave it at that.
I'm not arguing about taste. People can like avant-garde if they wish. They can like dadaism, sure. You can go see Yoko Ono live in concert, I'm not stopping you.
But what you don't seem to understand is that there is a philosophical movement underpinning both avant-garde and dadaism. That philosophy is the deconstructionism of post-modernism. And it made the claim that because western musical notation originated in the west, that it's associated with colonialism, and therefore an anti-colonialist movement should reject western-style music.
The error in that reasoning is, as I've pointed out multiple times, that "music theory" ≠ "western musical notation". And you can continue digging in your heels while trying to conflate the two, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.
But it has nothing to do with knowing music theory and prepcistivist notions of what music is or ought to be.
Dadaism and avant-garde were specifically about rejecting systematized conventions which were common in western styles of music. In order to reject something, you need to know what you're rejecting. So no, it doesn't "have nothing to do with knowing music theory." Knowing music theory is at the core of the argument we're having.
Also, music theory isn't prescriptive. Nowhere in music theory is there a claim that "this is what 'good music' is, and this is what 'bad music' is." That's a fucking caricature detached from reality. It's closer to musical critique.
Music theory is descriptive, and the fact that you don't understand that makes it abundantly clear that you don't know anything about it. You're literally pulling a dunning-kruger.