5 Jul
2002
5 Jul
'02
11:45 p.m.
on 7/5/02 2:30 PM, Remco Takken at r.takken@planet.nl wrote:
If something is not new, it can still be good, ofcourse, you are completely right. But, by its nature (of non-newness), it can NEVER be 'avantgarde'. Because that means you're setting new standards, good or bad.
Then someone kindly explain to me why a lot of 40-yr-old musical tactics (as set down by Ornette, Cecil, Ayler et al) are still being referred to as avant-garde? At this point, those guys are as fixed in the jazz firmament as Lester Young or Dicky Wells, but nobody calls those guys avant-garde. I sense a sort of double-standard. skip h