Hi all,

I hope I'm not beating on a dead subject. I'm certainly not interested in putting anyone's music down. Only looking at something a bit deeper.

I've found one example of collective improvisation. It goes way, way back before the appearance of American jazz. However, it could also be argued that it lacks the complexity of American jazz. If you have any interest at all go to http://www.icmcdfw.org/literature.shtml. How many improvising musicians are required before you have collective improvisation? I haven't done extensive research. Just a few searches on the net. Whether or not that means jazz is or isn't "America's only true, original art form" is (I guess) still open to debate.

To Bob:

I don't think you have to be careful with anyone. Tell them what you think. Some people are narrow minded enough to think their way is the only way. You have those types of folks representing every musical genre under the sun. Nor do I think Keyplr is one of those people. (since I'm obviously debating his statement) He just happened to write a couple of things I thought were worth debating. I can be somewhat contrary and I like a healthy debate.

Bob wrote, "Jazz is like Picasso.....some good stuff...and lots of Bull---- !"

I agree, but everything is like that. At least it seems that way to me.

Peace to all of you,
Chuck

[This message has been edited by Chuck Cheesman (edited 12-03-2002).]