From: owner-zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (Zorn List Digest) To: zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: Zorn List Digest V2 #679 Reply-To: zorn-list Sender: owner-zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Zorn List Digest Wednesday, June 16 1999 Volume 02 : Number 679 In this issue: - Re: Waits 'n Stuff Re: Dead weight - was record collections dialectical materialism vs record collections Re: Dead weight - was record collections Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections Re: Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections Kletka Red Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:33:26 -0700 From: s~Z Subject: Re: Waits 'n Stuff > I really like the way he > moves around when he sings - it reminds me of a skeleton dancing around. > He's truly quirky... > Turkish Queen and the way he SINGS when he moves around....I've seen him twice before, and was still amazed at what he does with his voice.....much more expressive than on recordings....much more extreme.....and the dirt spread all over the platform he stands and stomps on.....for a while i thought people were smoking.....it was a cloud of dust into which he occasionally tossed handfuls of tinfoil confetti.....that visual image alone captures the duplicity (multi-plicity) that is Tom Waits.....scruffy lounge act performed to high prices in luxurious halls.....get thee behind me mule..... - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:41:17 -0700 From: "toddlike" Subject: Re: Dead weight - was record collections > >Anyone care to indulge a thread about records/discs they own that get played >the least? > >Dale. > Why not? Hermann Nitch's "Island" I have only ever listened to all the way through once (thought it is 4CD's long, contrast this with Zorn's "Parachute Years" 8CD set which I have listened to many times...) it contains more use of a whistle (the track and field type) than should be allowed in any one recording. It's probably the most expensive recording I don't listen to but won't sell. Stockhausen's "Micheal's Reise" I have only ever given one spin as well; I don't know why I keep the thing, I disliked it so strongly on the first listen I have never gone back to it. >- > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:30:21 -0400 From: "David J. Keffer" Subject: dialectical materialism vs record collections >From: Lang Thompson >Subject: collections > >Umberto Eco had some kind of wiseguy answer to people who ask if he's read >all the books he has but of course I've forgotten it since it wasn't that >funny. His point, however, was that these books are his tools and that >nobody would ask a mechanic if he uses all those various sockets or >wrenches. Use the word "library" instead of "collection" and see if people >catch the difference in intention. (Personally I prefer "my stuff.") I think these two comparisons between record collections and libraries or tools are flawed arguments made in an effort to justify compulsive materialism. An attempt is made to transfer the value of libraries or tools to record collections, but the transfer is erroneous. Clearly a personal collection is not a library. If we look up the definition of the word library, we find that an intrinsic element of a library is the fact that material can be accessed or borrowed by some body of people. The public-service purpose of a library is lacking in a personal collection of books or music. Just as clearly, the tools of a mechanic are not a "collection"; tools are not a luxury item, the way a record collection most certainly is. The comparison would be legitimate if the record collector relied upon the listening of any element of his/her collection to maintain their livelihood, which I doubt anyone on this list would claim. Now for Eco, his books may be his tools. Very well. See the paragraph above on tools. But they are useless tools unless read. I maintain my original position that the acquisition of 4 or 5 cds per day for years and years necessarily results in an unlistenable amount of music, which is useless. My advice is to abandon all pretense of disguising the motivation for a record collection and embrace it for what it is: an unquestioning susceptibility to the brainwashing inherent in having been raised in a society of consumers for the dual purposes of comsumption and propagation of future generations of consumers. Yes! How about that for an alternative perspective to record collecting! :) David "Drone of a Materialistic Society" K. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 03:00:24 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: Dead weight - was record collections On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 06:41:17PM -0700, toddlike wrote: > Stockhausen's "Micheal's Reise" I have only ever given one spin as well; I > don't know why I keep the thing, I disliked it so strongly on the first > listen I have never gone back to it. I'm pretty much the same way with Tony Conrad's "Slapping Pythagoras". I poke at the boxed set on occasion, mostly for the CD-ROM material, but the single disc just drives me away, from the illegible packaging on in. - -- | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/~jzitt | | Latest Solo CD: Gentle Entropy http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | | Next Comma Performance: June 19, 6 PM, Art-O-Matic, Washington, DC | - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 03:32:26 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 10:30:21PM -0400, David J. Keffer wrote: > Clearly a personal collection is not a library. If we look up the definition > of the word library, we find that an intrinsic element of a library is the > fact that material can be accessed or borrowed by some body of people. > The public-service purpose of a library is lacking in a personal collection > of books or music. That is, of course, a single highly constricted use of the term. You might expand your vocabulary by looking up others. Webster's 1913 is especially illuminating in its choice of examples for its very first listing " as, a private library; a public library". The aspect of your argument that suggests that by leaving a record in a record store it is somehow more beneficial to the public is also shaky. It supposes (by some act of telepathy, I suppose) a more noble intent on the part of whoever sees it next. I, for one, have no way of seeing into the mind of people not yet in the room. How would you do that? > Just as clearly, the tools of a mechanic are not a "collection"; tools > are not a luxury item, the way a record collection most certainly is. > The comparison would be legitimate if the record collector relied > upon the listening of any element of his/her collection to maintain > their livelihood, which I doubt anyone on this list would claim. The many composers, DJs, critics, etc on the list can easily and truthfully claim that. And by livelihood do you mean strictly financial gain? (Such a statement might reflect a pitiable state of mind on the part of its writer.) > Now for Eco, his books may be his tools. Very well. See the paragraph > above on tools. But they are useless tools unless read. I maintain my > original position that the acquisition of 4 or 5 cds per day for years > and years necessarily results in an unlistenable amount of music, which > is useless. A few years back I pulled out of my collection the recordings to which I had never referred in the previous two years, and it came to less than 5% of the whole. And most of those I had gotten with the intent of repeated listening and reference, > My advice is to abandon all pretense of disguising the motivation for > a record collection and embrace it for what it is: an unquestioning > susceptibility to the brainwashing inherent in having been raised in a > society of consumers for the dual purposes of comsumption and > propagation of future generations of consumers. (The ghost of Cornelius Cardew is setting that paragraph for mixed chorus even as we speak.) (And if I want to revel in conspicuous consumption, I'll check out La Boheme.) My advice is to abandon tunnel visioned tirades and go listen to some music. - -- | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/~jzitt | | Latest Solo CD: Gentle Entropy http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | | Next Comma Performance: June 19, 6 PM, Art-O-Matic, Washington, DC | - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 21:22:38 -0700 From: s~Z Subject: Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. When this happens, use the kitchen, or the apartment overhead if necessary. (Malachi 3:10) So a minimum of one tenth of one's gross income should be spent on supporting musicians. And if you give more, well that is all the more to God's glory. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:45:44 EDT From: OnionPalac@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections <<> The comparison would be legitimate if the record collector relied > upon the listening of any element of his/her collection to maintain > their livelihood, which I doubt anyone on this list would claim. >> I'm a claimer. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:05:10 +0200 From: "Francesco Martinelli" Subject: Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections > Clearly a personal collection is not a library. If we look up the definition > of the word library, we find that an intrinsic element of a library is the > fact that material can be accessed or borrowed by some body of people. > The public-service purpose of a library is lacking in a personal collection > of books or music. > first, i admit that i collect records for the pleasure of the compulsive materialist anal retenitve whatever you want. second, your argument is rough and historically flawed: libraries WERE personal collection: of kings or intellectuals. That is how we are able to read Platon's Timaeus. Closer in time. all the 78 collectors, anal retentive materialists etc, gave a great gift to all of us saving precious music that now we can enjoy because of that.... when blues or gospel records were not saved by any library. They showed each other their personal copies of Robert Johnson's records? so what? an innocent pastime that let us hear today his recorded works! And this goes for people who taped concerts or took pictures of them..... Many private collection gets donated to libraries; other are bought by institution. This is how the major jazz archives in the world begun. Go to Hogan's Jazz Archive and have a look at Russell's collection... third, i write about msuic. i often buy records because i know the artist or for any other reason, and think that they will come useful in time. If I see a record with, say, Henry Grimes, I buy it and maybe in 10 years not listen to it, but a commission comes and i take it off the shelf and listen to it when needed.... fourth I have collections of specific artists. I collect data, compare recordings, just enjoy the music, but it has to be as complete as possible to be useful. i have to keep records by Chick Corea because of Braxton, by Charlie Watts or Scott Walker because of Evan Parker, of Artie Shaw because of Dodo Marmarosa. This is one of the tool-like uses. fifth, my collection (books, cassettes, vinyl, cds....) has been already used by four or five undergraduates in jazz courses that needed material about european improvisation, free jazz, jewish musics - do you know that people today are able to go in a shop and buy masada (which I dearly love) and not Don Cherry's Blue Notes? my point it: i do it because i like it, as everybody does, but not only i dont do any harm, i'm sure i'm rendering a service to the community of music lovers at large, because of the stuff i keep and of the things i do with it. back to lurking mode.... Francesco - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:07:49 +0200 From: "johnrust" Subject: Kletka Red No, I haven't recorded the concert, but I've got a lot of stuff by Leonid Soybel'man and his Estonian band Ne Zhdali (they were on RecRec) and his solo album Juliki which I consider extremely interesting. More than that, I am also a Russian/Jewish musician in exile (= in Berlin), so we are connected in some way, and after tryin' to reach each other per E-mail unsuccessfully we finally met on the weekend and I hope to meet Leo in next weeks - if he won't go to Estonia to do smth with Ne Zhdali - and get some other stuff from him. By the way, how did you like the Hijacking on Tzadik?.. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:06:14 -0400 From: "David J. Keffer" Subject: Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections At 03:32 AM 6/16/99 -0400, jzitt@metatronpress.com wrote: >On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 10:30:21PM -0400, David J. Keffer wrote: > >> Clearly a personal collection is not a library. If we look up the definition >> of the word library, we find that an intrinsic element of a library is the >> fact that material can be accessed or borrowed by some body of people. >> The public-service purpose of a library is lacking in a personal collection >> of books or music. > >That is, of course, a single highly constricted use of the term. >You might expand your vocabulary by looking up others. Webster's 1913 is >especially illuminating in its choice of examples for its very >first listing " as, a private library; a public library". However highly constricted you may think my use of the word library is, it is generally accepted meaning. Don't you think that it is odd for you to look back to 1913 to find some reference which might put your position in a better light. From my point of view, you are reaching where ever you can to justify an untenable position. Furthermore, once you begin to use personal attacks against the writer on the opposite side of the argument, namely myself, by criticizing my vocabulary, your arguments lose merit. You are no longer relying upon the strength of reason. Instead, you have resorted to mud-slinging, which, among many other things, is not a virtue and only serves to undermine your overall position. I would like to point out, although I feel it is redundant, that my original arguments were not directed as a personal attack toward anyone. They were posed as a philosophical argument. You may also note that at the end of my post, I include myself as a record collector, although one who listens to every record he gets.) I do not exempt myself from my comments. >The aspect of your argument that suggests that by leaving a record >in a record store it is somehow more beneficial to the public is >also shaky. It supposes (by some act of telepathy, I suppose) a >more noble intent on the part of whoever sees it next. I, for one, >have no way of seeing into the mind of people not yet in the >room. How would you do that? I see. So what you are saying is that since the next person who enters the record store is going to stash the record away unlistened-to into a locked, private collection, you should do it first. Your telepathy is no different than mine; yours is just more pessimistic. >> Just as clearly, the tools of a mechanic are not a "collection"; tools >> are not a luxury item, the way a record collection most certainly is. >> The comparison would be legitimate if the record collector relied >> upon the listening of any element of his/her collection to maintain >> their livelihood, which I doubt anyone on this list would claim. > >The many composers, DJs, critics, etc on the list can easily and >truthfully claim that. And by livelihood do you mean strictly >financial gain? (Such a statement might reflect a pitiable state >of mind on the part of its writer.) Fair enough, composers, DJs, critics can claim records as tools. I already agreed to precisely the same thing about Eco. But you have flown off the handle and missed the point. The point was that, if the records are not listened to, they are wasted. And, I do mean livelihood as financial subsistence. Read the paragraph again. I am talking about the difference between a mechanic's tools and a private record collection. Substitute the words "financial subsistence" in for livelihood and see if the sentence makes any more sense to you. The point of my post was this guy was trying to make more noble record collecting by comparing it to other things, like tools. I was simply pointing out the flaw in the comparison. The vast majority of record collectors do not rely on their record collection for financial subsistence, especially since a record collection is the product of discretionary income, which rules out the possibility that the collector is living on a subsistence level anyway. Again, your suggestion of a pitiable state of mind on my part does not further the strength of your argument. You again resort to character attacks. Maybe you have mud-slinging on the mind because you have been living in Washington D.C. too long. Yes! Personal attack of my own! Ding ding ding! Points for me! You see? My personal attack has failed to convince you to any greater extent that my point of view on the argument is legitimate. >> My advice is to abandon all pretense of disguising the motivation for >> a record collection and embrace it for what it is: an unquestioning >> susceptibility to the brainwashing inherent in having been raised in a >> society of consumers for the dual purposes of comsumption and >> propagation of future generations of consumers. > >My advice is to abandon tunnel visioned tirades and go listen to >some music. But tunnel-visioned tirades are fun. I don't want to listen to music all the time, like these collectors who must slavishly listen to 4 to 5 hours of music every day of their lives. I like to get some variety: a little music on Monday and a little tunnel-visioned tirade on Tuesday. David K. p.s. "Francesco Martinelli" wrote >first, i admit that i collect records for the pleasure of the compulsive >materialist anal retenitve whatever you want. More power to you. To thine own self be true. >second, your argument is rough and historically flawed: My argument is rough because I am not making it for a Ph.D. thesis, I am making it for the freaking Zorn list. My definition of the word library is historically flawed because I am not using it in a historical sense. I am using it in today's vernacular, as people typically do. - - ------------------------------ End of Zorn List Digest V2 #679 ******************************* To unsubscribe from zorn-list-digest, send an email to "majordomo@lists.xmission.com" with "unsubscribe zorn-list-digest" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "zorn-list-digest" in the commands above with "zorn-list". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.xmission.com, in pub/lists/zorn-list/archive. These are organized by date. Problems? Email the list owner at zorn-list-owner@lists.xmission.com