"William Graham" wrote in message
news:WXJeb.648801$YN5.497886@sccrnsc01...

jjs wrote in message
...
[... snip ...]
No, I would not say that. A session in it's entirety has to be
considered.
These avant-gard jazz musicians speak not only to the piece at hand, but
a
previous piece, and possibly the next - the session as a thing unto
itself
speaking about their kind of music/art. There are similar
considerations
in
art and photography. In photography, for example, a person might set out
two
or more photographs to be considered together. One standing alone is not
the
statement. Often an 'image' or 'idea' arises between the frames, so to
speak. That's a legitimate artisitic statement. Call it 'series' if you
want to research such efforts.

We must agree to disagree on this....It there is no discernable difference
in the middle 10 minutes between two pieces, then they are wasting MY
time,
at least....They can call it anything they like.....

Your particular requsites are clear and your argument is cogent and
compelling, but yes, we disagree. Now, I must admit that I refer to such
music made a long time ago; the avant gard jazz I heard in England in
through Sixties, and Chicago up to '73, John Coltrane's Assension (both
versions) and others' work. I can only 'hear' such sessions in my memory
since I've lost a great deal of my hearing. Perhaps not having to experience
some of the most painful middle ten minutes (or any part of either
Assension) today makes my argument purely intellectual.

This was a heartening exhange. Thank you.