From: owner-zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (Zorn List Digest) To: zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: Zorn List Digest V2 #923 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 Friday, May 5 2000 Volume 02 : Number 923 In this issue: - muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") Re: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") Re: Re: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") Re: dave douglas sextet review Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") Wayne Horvitz interview Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") NP Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") Re[4]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") Re: Charms in Belgium Re: dave douglas sextet live review Approaching Bailey ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 12:28:54 -0500 From: kurt_gottschalk@scni.com Subject: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") i remember an interview with muhal richard abrams several years ago where he was asked about wynton marsalis. i, of course, was poised for vitriol, but his response was perfect. (as i recall it), "if you don't have any ideas to push the music forward, then for heaven's sake keep the past alive." in other words, the point is not that brian setzer shouldn't be allowed to make records... - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 10:36:53 -0700 From: "Patrice L. Roussel" Subject: Re: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") On Fri, 05 May 2000 12:28:54 -0500 kurt_gottschalk@scni.com wrote: > > > i remember an interview with muhal richard abrams several years ago where he was > asked about wynton marsalis. i, of course, was poised for vitriol, but his > response was perfect. (as i recall it), "if you don't have any ideas to push the > music forward, then for heaven's sake keep the past alive." > > in other words, the point is not that brian setzer shouldn't be allowed to make > records... Although I would expect Wynton and Brian's motives to be quite different. Another reason to push the past is that it sells. Patrice. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 15:04:33 -0500 From: kurt_gottschalk@scni.com Subject: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") patrice with a lower-case r opines: Another reason to push the past is that it sells. true enough, but what i took muhal's rather elegant statement to mean is let's recognize the (albeit less valuable) position such musicians hold and not waste time or energy on them (and now i am talking to a greater degree about the likes of wynton m than dave d). but if that's what someone wants to play -- for love of the music, of money or lack of any other ideas -- they should get to play it. in a truly free society, sha na na is not against the law! kg - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:19:36 EDT From: Velaires@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") Certain past outsells others. I doubt if Don Byron and Brian Setzer have the same objectives. sh - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:40:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Whit Schonbein Subject: Re: dave douglas sextet review marcin wrote: > It's strange, when i buy a DD album, i love it at first, but then i listen > to them it rarely... i'm the opposite: it takes multiple listens for me to come to appreciate what's going on with most dd projects. interesting (don't know what to make of the difference)... - --and in another message, patRice continued the discussion: > whit wrote: > >>I saw perowsky with an incaranation of douglas' quartet (mark turner on > >>sax, ed howard on bass) in april '99, and thought his playing was great. > >>based on that experience, i have difficulty imagining a performance of his > >>being "horrible," but i suppose everyone can have an off night. and patRice responded: > well, whit, i was there. i didn't say anything about how his playing was when you saw him, only that based on my experience i would chalk it up to being a bad night rather than him being a bad drummer. > i'm a drummer myself and think i can judge performances - and "rather > horrible" was the impression i got. i didn't say you couldn't judge performances. i am prepared to grant that the perfomance was "rather horrible". but that does not imply that perowsky is a bad drummer. as a drummer yourself, you probably have experienced the remarkable effect bad acoustics can have on group dynamics; the point simply being that there are other explanations of the bad performance than perowsky's being a bad drummer (btw, i speak as a musician having experienced bad nights myself, if that makes any difference). then whit said: > >>As for the 'retro' or 'old hat' nature of douglas' sextet repertoire, one > >>could attempt to defend it through a consideration of the other sorts of > >>music constituting the remainder of douglas' output: the sextet pieces are > >>only one element of a larger project of musical synthesis (in terms of a > >>diviersity of styles) and exploration. but this is compatible with the > >>music itself still being worthless. and patRice responded: > well, one could definitely attempt that; but: > if i go to a concert and dislike it (as was the case with the dd sextet) > - - i don't really care about what the bandleader does in his other > projects. "tonight is not interesting, but at least all his other > cds/gigs i've heard so far were pretty good"; that would not be me. > if i'm there and it sucks; it sucks. yes. which is why i rejected the argument ("but this is compatible with the music itself being worthless", implying that the argument isn't very good, if the conclusion is supposed to be that the music is not worthless). a more promising argument is to assess the degree to which DD's sextet output contributes in an original way to the tradition, as i orginally suggested. however, determining what counts as a significant contribution to the tradition is no easy feat. i for one am impressed by the way douglas integrates early modern classical innovations into his compositions (e.g., in his choice of chords and voicings), and that is something new and welcome to my ears. but, even if this were a satisfactory argument to the conclusion that douglas' sextet work contributes to the tradition in a positive way, it still does not show that one ought to find the music aesthetically pleasing. the latter point, is, as you say, a matter of taste. (in the same way one can appreciate ornette coleman's first band in terms of its piviotal role in the development of 'free jazz' while still not enjoying hearing it). so none of this should be taken to be an arguement to the conclusion that one ought to find douglas' music aesthetically rewarding. i simply object to (i) dismissing perowsky as a bad drummer as opposed to dismissing the performance as a bad performance, and (ii) dismissing douglas' sextet work as contributing nothing new to the medium. regarding the latter, in my opinion, the worst we can conclude is that the issue is open. we can leave the answer up to the next generation of musicologist graduate students ;). - -whit np - miles davis - 'miles in the sky' - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 13:24:27 -0700 From: "Patrice L. Roussel" Subject: Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") On Fri, 05 May 2000 15:04:33 -0500 kurt_gottschalk@scni.com wrote: > > true enough, but what i took muhal's rather elegant statement to mean is let's > recognize the (albeit less valuable) position such musicians hold and not waste > time or energy on them (and now i am talking to a greater degree about the likes > of wynton m than dave d). > > but if that's what someone wants to play -- for love of the music, of money or > lack of any other ideas -- they should get to play it. in a truly free society, > sha na na is not against the law! I doubt anybody would push for control on what should be done and what should not be done (at least in music, which tends to be less controversial than litte- rature or plastic arts -- who is shocked by Zorn's music these days? only the graphic design of his records seems to create some reaction out of the lethargy). I think that the issue was more about criticism of some approaches. Let's be frank, there is a reason for everything done on earth. Should it be a reason to say that everything is fine? This is the usual issue with "openess" which starts from the best intentions but can lead to the boring "everybody is pretty, smart, and has something interes- ting to say". These days, I do not read any reviews anymore because I know the conclusion just by looking at the name of the artist who is reviewed (a Derek Bailey record will always push the limits further, a William Parker one will break another record in creativity, etc). And I understand why, if a reviewer does not put himself in the cheerleader seat, he takes the risk of receiving a letter from the artist or the label owner trying to prove him that he totally missed the greatness of the record. Anyway, based on the huge volume of records produced these days, I find suspicious to see so many overwhelmingly positive reviews. Surprisingly, I find more negative reviews in the mainstream music (rock, straight jazz) than in avant/experimental music. It is as if there were less holy cows in rock than in avant/experimental music... I personally respect Wynton's approach, although I don't listen to him at all (one of his records is the only one that I gave up because I could not stand it) and have little patience for his argumenting attitude on what jazz should be (and this attitude makes me wonder about his sincerity). I am not sure that I would be as indulgent with all the recent "let's put everything in the basket and shake it" approaches to music. To conclude: yes, every artist has the right to put out as many records as they want, and we (the consummers) have the right to say what we think of them. And if the artist has something really interesting to say, I know that he will recover from a bad critic (not sure for the others). Patrice. PS: besides agreeing or not agreeing, it was almost refreshing to see nega- tive comments on DD, since 99.9% of everything written on him has been positive (and beyond), and knowing how conservative most of the media are, isn't it suspicious that an innovative artist can create such unanimity? - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:43:01 -0700 From: "Dave Egan" Subject: Wayne Horvitz interview Hi everyone, I ran across an excellent (if too short) Wayne Horvitz interview last night and I thought I ought to share it: http://www.allaboutjazz.com/iviews/WHorvitz.htm Check it out! - - Dave - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 16:46:09 -0500 From: kurt_gottschalk@scni.com Subject: Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") patrice attempts: This is the usual issue with "openess" which starts from the best intentions but can lead to the boring "everybody is pretty, smart, and has something interes- ting to say". this is about as far from my original point as the number of records wynton put out last year. if my point was that everything is smart and interesting, i don't expect i'd use sha na na in my defense. the point (mine, if not muhal's) is that talking about uninteresting music is essentially uninteresting. certainly we can wonder and shit kittens about how much attention wynton (and perhaps dave) get from the media, when people who continue to reinvent forms for decades can't even get a record contract. but as far as treating your ears properly, isn't wynton best ignored? i don't mean that discussion shouldn't happen. but what muhal's comment meant to me was why even waste energy raising your voice about nontalents when there's so much beauty out there to eat. PS: besides agreeing or not agreeing, it was almost refreshing to see nega- tive comments on DD, since 99.9% of everything written on him has been positive (and beyond), and knowing how conservative most of the media are, isn't it suspicious that an innovative artist can create such unanimity? np: ella fitzgerald sings the duke ellingon song book, because it's been done and it's been done well. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:07:57 -0400 From: Dan Hewins Subject: NP NP: Freeform GoGaGa Internet radio. http://freeform.gogaga.com/ (I don't work there) - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:31:56 -0400 From: "Peter Risser" Subject: Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") > These days, I do not read any reviews anymore because I know the conclusion > just by looking at the name of the artist who is reviewed (a Derek Bailey record > will always push the limits further, a William Parker one will break another > record in creativity, etc). And I understand why, if a reviewer does not put > himself in the cheerleader seat, he takes the risk of receiving a letter from > the artist or the label owner trying to prove him that he totally missed the > greatness of the record. Anyway, based on the huge volume of records produced > these days, I find suspicious to see so many overwhelmingly positive reviews. > Surprisingly, I find more negative reviews in the mainstream music (rock, > straight jazz) than in avant/experimental music. It is as if there were less > holy cows in rock than in avant/experimental music... I wrote reviews for a place that flat out said, we won't publish negative reviews. Their reasoning was that nobody likes people who are negative. (Huh?) And, of course, that if we diss records, labels won't send us more stuff to review. Both of which I think are false, by the way, as I worked for another group that did publish negative reviews, occasionally scathing ones, and they still got review copies by the truckload. Frankly, I don't think a single review really cuts the mustard. I'd like to see a magazine that regularly published multiple reviews of the same thing by different people, OR, assigned two people, one who likes it and one who hates it, to co-write the article. So you get a true balanced perspective. Peter - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 14:35:49 -0700 From: "Patrice L. Roussel" Subject: Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") Kurt, On Fri, 05 May 2000 16:46:09 -0500 kurt_gottschalk@scni.com wrote: > > the point (mine, if not muhal's) is that talking about uninteresting music is > essentially uninteresting. certainly we can wonder and shit kittens about how ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Which would make sense if everybody would agree on what uninteresting is. Besides the obvious targets, I am sure that there are plenty of artists on whom we disagree (and, surely, even more, on whom we agree). > much attention wynton (and perhaps dave) get from the media, when people who > continue to reinvent forms for decades can't even get a record contract. but as > far as treating your ears properly, isn't wynton best ignored? > > i don't mean that discussion shouldn't happen. but what muhal's comment meant to > me was why even waste energy raising your voice about nontalents when there's so > much beauty out there to eat. ^^^^^^^^^ Life would be so easy if everybody agreed on what beauty in art is. Since this is not the case, Muhal's point is flawed (or at least the way you present it). And let's be practical, without "uninteresting music" and "nontalents", what would beauty even mean? The reason for beauty to exist is our (supposed) capability to recognize when it is lacking. Hence, a mythical world where we (smart people) would only spend our time arguing about beauty looks to me like paradise (where everybody loves each other :-). Patrice. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 18:06:46 -0500 From: kurt_gottschalk@scni.com Subject: Re[4]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach") ah, whad i git mysself into? look, of course the point is essentially unarguable. but that's why folks like us talk, why this group exists. it's not just to announce gigs and release dates. in vague ways people stumble into other people with similar frameworks. i think i can get away with calling marsalis 'essentially uninteresting' when i write to the newsgroup (there's probably some who disagree, but at least they've heard it before). i wouldn't expect to so easily say it around my job, on whose time i type now. look, if i say 'mike patton sucks' and i say 'jeff lynne sucks,' i expect most of the people here will think that i mean different things, and that that difference is not easily defined. that's why muhal's take, to me, was so illuminated. it's as if to say, look, we all know whassup, why are we wasting our time? let's talk about schnittke instead. funny, because i got into trouble a few weeks back saying that the grateful dead suck on the j-psych newsgroup. maybe i'll keep my opinions, and whatever nietzschean defenses i can come up for them, to myself. yeah, that's likely. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 11:26:18 -0500 From: Diego Gruber Subject: Re: Charms in Belgium Could someone please post about similar events in Paris? Thanks. D Rob Allaert wrote: > Belgian citizens, > > * Anthony Coleman+Rodriguez+Street: 06 May 2000 - Beursschouwburg -Brussels > * Matt Darriau+Art Barron+Laster+frank London+Brad > Shepik+Fitzgerald+Schuller: 18,19,20 May - Beursschouwburg -Brussels > * Klezmer Madness: 25 May 2000 - Beursschouwburg -Brussels > * Bill Frisell: ? May - Brussels ? > * Marc Ribot, cubanos: 31 May 2000: AB - Brussels > * Kronos 4tet: 06 June 2000 - Paleis Schone Kunsten - Brussel > * Dave Douglas' Charms 4tet: 22 Oct 2000 - AB - Brussels > > Want more ?? > > Rob << ....... > http://www.frontstage.com/rob > icq#18906168 > > - - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 11:56:57 +1000 From: "Julian" Subject: Re: dave douglas sextet live review > well, one could definitely attempt that; but: > if i go to a concert and dislike it (as was the case with the dd sextet) > - i don't really care about what the bandleader does in his other > projects. "tonight is not interesting, but at least all his other > cds/gigs i've heard so far were pretty good"; that would not be me. > if i'm there and it sucks; it sucks. and that usually pisses me off... > (because i put time, money and energy into getting there.) I believe the point was not that if this show sucked for you just think lovingly about his other cds, but rather that you should think "maybe this show wasn't for me, dave has 5 or 6 different projects, I can't really expect to like them all"... - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 19:24:13 -0700 From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Approaching Bailey I see a lot of comments about the godliness of Derek Bailey, and having just acquired one of his albums (thanks to Bruno Bissonnette!) I'd like to know what you all think about his music, or more correctly, how you *approach* his music. Being "relatively" new to the more improvised music, this is some pretty radical stuff. I have his "Guitar, Drums & Bass" album, and previously had the Sign of the Four set he did with Pat Metheny. I bought that particular set right after it came out, thinking that maybe it was less obscure sounding that some made it out to be. (Was I wrong?! Yep!) Now, I'm into much more free-form music than I was at the time (Zorn, of course, but not all of it - I do prefer the more "composed" sounding pieces still; Ornette Coleman - just got the Beauty is a Rare Thing box and am loving it immensely; Coletrane - I'm finding that I enjoy his post-quartet recordings a great deal, even though I'm not quite grasping it all; Miles in the Bitches Brew-era (and all, actually,); and some others, of course.) The thing is, I'm still not "getting" Bailey. I know that GDB is probably not the most representative thing of his, seeing as it's just a bunch of different mixes with what sound like different random guitar parts of Bailey's on top. Not to make a judgement at all, but all I hear and have heard of Bailey at this point is a lot of random guitar noise. What am I missing? Have I picked up entirely the wrong albums? I'm certain that I'm not entirely "ready" for Bailey at this point in my musical evolution, but where's a good place to start? (I'm hoping this doesn't start a flame-fest. Nothing I said was meant to indicate any kind of disapproval of Bailey or those who like him, it was just meant to show how I'm seeing his stuff at this point. This list seems to be pretty level-headed, so hopefully nothing will be taken the wrong way. :-)) Tom - ---------------------------- "Go for super-stud! Go for super-stud!" --Bill, on Freaks & Geeks "I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that." --Lloyd, from Say Anything - - ------------------------------ End of Zorn List Digest V2 #923 ******************************* 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