slaytonf
-
Posts
9,210 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by slaytonf
-
-
The confusion is understandable.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, TikiSoo said:
I'm also shocked, shocked you say this. Almost everyone I know loves jazz, even know a quite few afficionados. By aficionados, I mean record collector audiophiles.
You are discerning in your choice of associates.
-
8 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
At one point, I made a song pick that the bar had clearly never heard before. What happened: the whole crowd stilled and fell silent. Soaking it up. Never seen a whole room of people go mute. Every single person let their words fall to ashes their throats.
Something I thought only happened in movies.
-
They Might Be Giants (1971), for whatever incomprehensible reason. Maybe nobody at TCM likes it.
This flawed and magnificent movie has been uploaded recently to YT. So you can feast on the fine performances of Joanne Woodward and George C. Scott. And have your emotional buttons shamelessly pushed by John Barry's score.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:
There's nothing wrong with showing them, especially Munchausen because that one is actually very enjoyable and not very political.
Welll, I dunnooo. That shot looks a little questionable. But I'll take your word for it.
-
Thanks, Gershwin fan for that tribute to Makavejev. He's a bright beacon to every filmy student. His rampant iconoclasm not only of societal norms, but the norms of filmmaking have had a formative effect on my view of the human world, culture and conventions.
Hard as that may be to be believed.
-
There you are wending too close to the metaphysical for me. Just let me defend absurd propositions with sober arguments.
-
Ok, you understand, too.
-
9 hours ago, hamradio said:
VERY few, never came across it. Had to download the Youtube with the musical intro / ending.
According to MovieCollector's invaluable list, it's been shown 5 times, the last in 2012. No great loss. Propaganda driven movies are tedious ordeals to watch.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:
Yeah and they also have shown Riefenstahl films a few times over 20 years ago and the 40s Munchausen a few times. I doubt they'll reshow them anytime soon. I also doubt they'll ever show Uncle Kruger.
You say that like there was something wrong with it.
-
2 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:
it's a silly comparison
Ah! The only one who understands!
-
5 hours ago, GGGGerald said:
( For the sake of this argument, let's say smooth jazz is jazz)
In the early 2000's, they came up with a device that can determine which station a driver is listening to simply by aiming this device at the car. And they felt this would give a more accurate reading on how popular each station is for rating purposes. For example: More men who claim to listen to hard rock, in reality listen more to soft rock.
Well, at first they found that smooth jazz scored very poorly. So these radio consultants advised eliminating smooth jazz as soon as possible. Especially as the 2008 crash hit radio hard.
Now, come to find out the readings were all wrong! It seems the fact that jazz tunes tend to use softer tones, the device wasn't able to read their signals. So even if drivers were tuned to a smooth jazz station, it wouldn't get a reading.
So, in actuality there are lots of jazz fans. Its just the conglomerates who refuse to use the jazz format for radio. And most people still listen to the radio for music. And without any exposure, its difficult to expand the base of jazz fans. They can't enjoy what they don't hear and not know about.
That sounds. . . . .creepy.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:
Jazz has the fewest number of listeners, as well as 'purchased' listening of any musical genre. E.g. a common discussion at jazz forums is 'why is jazz dead'. I believe there are far more people that like movies than who like jazz. Like a ratio of 1,000 to 1. E.g. almost everyone see movies. It is my understanding less than 2% of Americans listen to jazz willingly (i.e. make a decision to play and listen to a jazz song).
Most of the jazz musicians at these jazz forums can't get gigs here in the USA but can in the EU, Japan and Hong Kong.
Sooo, there's a well of jazz listeners around the world. This bears investigating.
-
11 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
"There's more old drunks, than there are old doctors..."
Has anyone ever counted them?
-
Ooo, good point of congruence. I suppose then, the movie would be better than itself.
-
3 hours ago, hamradio said:
Thank God for that.
-
3 hours ago, hamradio said:
TCM has shown this a few times.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, GGGGerald said:
I'm actually a jazz fan but, I have to say:
- A bad movie is much more fun than bad jazz
- Free movies are much easier to understand than free jazz
To paraphrase Duke Ellington, there are only two kinds of music, good--and the other kind. And that isn't music. As for movies, if there is any fun in it, it can't be all bad.
I'm trying to think of something pithy in response to your second statement, but it's late and my brain is tired. It is funny, though.
-
19 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:
- I've seen more movies that I enjoyed than have heard jazz that I've enjoyed.
- If you can multi-task, then it's just background noise.
- I have yet to spend $150 million watching a movie. I don't make movies or jazz music. I consume them. Therein lies the fallacy of this point as it pertains to my experience.
- I like movies more than I like jazz music.
Those are my responses to your 4 clear and simple reasons. They are in no way meant to disparage those who think or feel differently, particularly jazz aficionados.
Whether you like any piece of jazz music has no bearing on whether it is great.
Listening to jazz while performing other tasks enhances the appreciation of the music and the performance of the task. Performing a task, especially a physical one associates the music with it and embeds it in the memory better than simply sitting and listening.
I am not talking about your experience, but rather the relative value of jazz to movies. The underlying rationale is that a good created for less money is better than a good created for more.
I have admitted the possibility there are more people who like movies than who like jazz. However, I have not entirely conceded the point.
-
6 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:
The Ten Commandments (1956) and The Sound of Music (1965) are both tied up by ABC. AMC has a stranglehold over The Godfather series and Miracle on 34th Street (1947).
And, among too tough to handle films, I emphatically remark that TCM will never air Cannibal Holocaust or Salo.
Or Sweet Movie (1975).
Miracle on 34th Street (1947) has aired a number of times on TCM.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
This sounds like devil's arithmetic to me. I mean, even if just 1 or 2 of these rather strange points could be agreed with, it wouldn't even be worth drawing a distinction between the two art forms.
The chief thing to state is that they're both American contributions to world culture. U! S! A! USA, baby! Foistest and bestest wit de mostest!
The reasoning's clear and simple. Something that can be counted on to be good is better than something that can't. Something that you can multi-task with is better than something you can't. Something that can be done for less than $150 million is better than something that can't. And something that is liked more is better than something that is liked less.
-
When you get a bunch of great jazz musicians together, you know you will get great music. When you get a bunch of great moviemakers together, you don't necessarily get a great movie.
While doing something else, you can get more out of listening to jazz than by just sitting and listening. To get the most out of a movie, you need to pay attention to it.
It does not cost $150 million to make a jazz record.
More people like jazz than like movies. Ok, that may not be true, but I like the way it sounds.
-
1
-
-
I'm just gonna be holdin' my breath till then.
-
I don't know what car this is, but, YOW!:
From Love Affair (1932), with Dorothy Mackaill and Humphrey Bogart.
-
1
-
This sounds like devil's arithmetic to me. I mean, even if just 1 or 2 of these rather strange points could be agreed with, it wouldn't even be worth drawing a distinction between the two art forms.
Reasons why jazz is better than movies.
in General Discussions
Posted
First, you cite the relative sales of jazz to other forms of music. But you have not established the relation of sales to liking.
Second, the relative sales of jazz to other forms of music is irrelevant to this thread. It is whether jazz is liked by more people than movies are liked.
Third, you limit yourself to the United States. People listen to jazz all around the world. I think they count, too. There may be underreported swaths of countries where vast numbers of people prefer jazz to movies.
While I am willing to concede that jazz may not be liked more than movies, I still haven't see it demonstrated yet.