From: owner-zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (Zorn List Digest) To: zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: Zorn List Digest V3 #324 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, March 9 2001 Volume 03 : Number 324 In this issue: - Re: Zorn List Digest V3 #322 RE: religious/political (?) RE: The hole in the 70s/ religious blowing Re: The hole in the 70s/ religious blowing Re: The hole in the 70s/ religious blowing Re: evan parker with strings Re: evan parker with strings Re: political & religious wholes music is my rabbi strings with evan parker & 3cd sets Religion/Music Re: Religion/Music Re: Religion/Music ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:38:11 -0500 From: "jeton ademaj" Subject: Re: Zorn List Digest V3 #322 Hi All, Re: Charles Gayle, I've seen him do abortion-shtick in his "Streets" performances (u know, the chopped-up doll-parts coated in red nail polish?) but I've never caught one of his rants. I'm especially interested in hearing his *EXACT* comments regarding homosexuality, and I would hope that you all would be willing to share any you've heard (as opposed to sweeping them under the rug bcuz they're "too divisive") Re: religion in music generally, most religions emphasize daily practice and integration of one's religious understanding into day-to-day activities. That means that every moment, thought and action is a religiously significant one. One can formulate this a number of ways based on one's own perspective. Thus u can say any of the following: A) All music is religious because all thought and action is religious (whether one knows it or not) B) All music performed by religious people is religious because they imbue/perceive that significance upon/within it C) No music is religious because religion is a false proposition whose entire credibility is viral in nature (meaning that validation is always derived from reference to other matters purported to have religious significance when in fact there is no such significance at any point, and the whole web of referential dependancies collapses) D) The "religious significance" of music (in general or in particular) will be a scalar quantity known only to those considering (or in mutual debate over) same *in a given moment in time/space*. ...these are just suggested propositions and not definitions, of course. ...still hopin' fer some Charles Gayle anti-homo quotes! peace ja Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:16:30 EST From: Acousticlv@aol.com Subject: burning Q indeed/gayle crouch braxton In a message dated 3/8/01 10:08:32 PM, you wrote: <> although im a devout atheist, was always able to enjoy gayle's playing qua playing. at the moment, find it hard to listen to gayle's music thanks to his his emINem-like rantings about how us homos will go to hell... (you understand, i can appreciate, but can no longer dance to, the rollingstones 'brown sugar' cuzza its racism) - - ---no, im faaar from politically correct, nonetheless, won't support abuse of humans---- and wouldnt ask of others to feel how i feel---- mister-sister crouch's two-facedness is quite a diff problem, but his drumming isnt bad. brax's piano i enjoy cuz i dont expect it to sound like his sax. on an other hand, why does such an intellectual creator have such embarrassingly jr high school level stories for his mini and grand operas? steve koenig (of clay feet, for those inclined to foot fetishes) n.p. bob ostertag: verbatim _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:42:40 -0700 From: "Matthew W Wirzbicki (S)" Subject: RE: religious/political (?) >For example, gospel, >but is gospel music "religious" when it is presented outside the context >of a church? For the performers, it probably is, but for the audience, >that is more an individual matter. so it depends on the context in which the music is presented and the values which one (an individual) associates with that music? I guess I'm tempted to agree with the statement that any music _itself_ is not religious or political but once something is known of the personality or motivations of the artist we begin to tack on a certain idiological significance. I do think, however, that when a number of people believe in the transformative strength of a certain method of sound organization that such an effect can be felt. I don't doubt that people are able to reach other planes through music but perhaps it is not the music _itself_ which facilitates this but rather the collective power of the idiological structure? or maybe is all just ju ju. Matt Wirzbicki - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:46:55 -0700 From: "Matthew W Wirzbicki (S)" Subject: RE: The hole in the 70s/ religious blowing > Music can also be political in the way that it models different > types of interpersonal interaction.The music of John Cage, Christian > Wolff, Pauline Oliveros, and the Scratch Orchestra come most readily > to mind. absolutely. i've come across a few writings which criticize the social/political structure of the symphony as I'm sure many of you have...it's funny to see the symphony as the ultimate representation of the marxist capitalist system. Matt Wirzbicki - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:53:01 -0600 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: The hole in the 70s/ religious blowing On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 12:46:55PM -0700, Matthew W Wirzbicki (S) wrote: > i've come across a few writings which criticize the social/political > structure of the symphony as I'm sure many of you have...it's funny to see > the symphony as the ultimate representation of the marxist capitalist > system. The Marxist Capitalist system? Is that something like green violets or vertebrate plants? - -- |> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | | Latest CD: Jerusaklyn http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 11:55:18 -0800 From: "Patrice L. Roussel" Subject: Re: The hole in the 70s/ religious blowing On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:46:55 -0700 "Matthew W Wirzbicki (S)" wrote: > > > Music can also be political in the way that it models different > > types of interpersonal interaction.The music of John Cage, Christian > > Wolff, Pauline Oliveros, and the Scratch Orchestra come most readily > > to mind. > > absolutely. > > i've come across a few writings which criticize the social/political > structure of the symphony as I'm sure many of you have...it's funny to see > the symphony as the ultimate representation of the marxist capitalist > system. Yes, we should never underestimate the capability of a dogmatic to reduce everything to his dogma (and rate as negligeable quantity everything that does not agree to his splendid intellectual construction). Patrice. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 15:01:03 -0500 From: Brian Olewnick Subject: Re: evan parker with strings Scott Handley wrote: > Some lister---was it > Brian?---was commenting on the Guy/Crispell/etc. show, > remarking on disappointment or annoyance at facile > interaction (not facile for mere mortals, but...), and > saying "AMM would never do _that_". Yeah, it's an interesting problem. While I might be somewhat more charitable toward Zorn's improv skills than Jon (though not always), lord knows we've all seen shows/heard discs over the past 15 or so years where the once-exciting pastures of free improv have become laced with well-trodden paths. The soft-loud-soft arc (or even the loud-soft-loud one!) is one of the more obvious examples and (if that's all there is) becomes as boring as theme-solos-theme done by neo-bop bands. Both are apparently ruts it's all too easy to fall into. AMM's one group that, by and large (imho) manages to avoid such pitfalls. In part, my guess is it has to do with not falling for easy "communication" between members as often practiced: ie, you did something quiet in this rhythm, so now I'll do something similar. Rowe's talked about not really being able to communicate as a more valuable spur than thinking one _can_ communicate and that recognizing this fact, one can paradoxically create great ensemble improv. He also seemed not very concerned with a given show's "success", arguing that failures are also a good source of material that one would otherwise miss if every concert worked. I'd also guess this is an attitude not shared by most musicians. As an audience member, on the one hand (short-sighted view) I can appreciate a band wanting to put on a "successful" show. On the other, with longer range vision, I don't mind at all seeing some "failures" if I'm secure in the knowledge this will lead to more beautiful things down the road. But that's just me. Brian Olewnick - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 15:21:06 EST From: JonAbbey2@aol.com Subject: Re: evan parker with strings In a message dated 3/9/01 3:12:25 PM, olewnick@gis.net writes: << While I might be somewhat more charitable toward Zorn's improv skills than Jon (though not always) >> OK, since you guys seem to think I was being a little harsh, let me clarify. I'm not talking about Zorn's improv skills within a structured or partly structured context, like Masada. I'm talking about his choices when he plays entirely freely, usually with Europeans, which almost always seems to end up in the duck call/soft breathy sounds/duck call scenario that Alistair was complaining about. he's playing in Company NYC in a month or so, which I'll attend, and hopefully I'll be proved wrong. Jon www.erstwhilerecords.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 16:03:56 EST From: DvdBelkin@aol.com Subject: Re: political & religious wholes > In a message dated Fri, 9 Mar 2001 > 1:01:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, > "thomas chatterton" writes: > > By the very nature of the social and cultural > milieu in which it was created, Afro-American > improvised music IS political if only by > association & inference (since obviously before > the '60s, the politics could not be voiced!). But insofar as music-_making_ has political implications in a given context, this does not mean that the music itself has political content. In Eastern Europe, for example, the Communist authorities had all sorts of do's and don'ts about what politically correct "people's" art should be like: in the case of music, it should incorporate folk material, it should be tonal, it shouldn't go over the heads of the proletariate, it should be "uplifting," it shouldn't be "hot" - i.e., it should make the masses want to work, not fuck. In that context, it was the very _refusal_ of political programming or inspiration that made jazz (swing, bop, and later the free stuff), 12 tone classical, and rock'n'roll so deeply subversive behind the Iron Curtain - the musics of rebellion and freedom. (There is a great account of this in the fiction and essays of Josef Skvorecki: "The Bass Saxophone," "Talkin' Moscow Blues," "The Cowards," etc.) > The 'New Thing' was very much a voicing > of what was happening at the time in the > black community, and although you might > perceive it as a purely instrumental > sound, the sound of the horns was able > to communicate emotional and even > political (anger!) feelings to those > with the ears to hear. Well, there's an old saying: military intelligence is to intelligence as military music is to music... Which is to say that what the "New Thing" produced of enduring musical value communicates much more than the rage and militance of the '60s. Archie Shepp's "Attica Blues," for example. It's way more than "message music." Kind of like Beethoven's 3rd Symphony... > In my opinion, it was John Coltrane who > took the music to the edge of the abyss > (and beyond!), and played an incredibly > deep spiritual sound that embraced all > cultural and religious traditions. And I think that what makes his sound so spiritual is that there's nothing in it that "shows off" Trane's spirituality. There's no "Look at me! I've transcended my ego!" coming out of that man's horn. Ever. In contrast, when I listen to someone like Tisziji Munoz belaboring his "spirit" thing on electric guitar, it just feels like a complete hustle. Sonic Elmer Gantry. It's just too blatant, and I'm at a loss at how other people take his healing-the-universe stuff seriously. (I'll admit, though, that the self-congratulatory titles and holier-than-thou liner notes don't help.) Go figure. David np: Schulhoff, Concerto for Piano & Orchestra, Op 11. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:06:24 -0800 From: "Martin Wisckol" Subject: music is my rabbi the religious argument seems a bit mucky to me but any halfway decent music is by its nature spiritual. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 16:20:38 -0500 From: "Alan Kayser" Subject: strings with evan parker & 3cd sets Jon wrote >a couple of quick responses to different e-mails on this topic: << so what is "insect music" anyway? >> >I can't recall where the term originated (anyone know?), but it refers >to >the >buzzing and chirping school of UK free improv, as exemplified by the >SME. What is it about the UK that brings out the insect in certain musicians? Also of note is how many of the SME/ISKRA guys later migrated to ECM; ie Holland, Wheeler, Bailey, Parker, Guy. Is this significant? <> >can't help you much here, as I've never released or even priced a 3 CD > >set. >my guess would be that it costs roughly double that of a single disc. >but >my >point was that this material didn't justify a 3 CD set, as opposed to >something like the Iskra set, which does (in my never especially humble >opinion.) I was curious about this because Davidson seems to like multiple sets. It can't be a money thing, since I would assume that sales fall in direct proportion to cost. The project itself must have been a costly one, what with Parker "inviting" 24 musicians into the studio to improvise. I'm just happy that he's putting so much worthy music out there, and spending $35 for a triple set creates it's own justification (though I certainly have no problem with it's length). I'd really like to know what the sales figures are for sets like these. Alan E Kayser _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:38:49 -0500 From: "Steve Spangler" Subject: Religion/Music Hans Georg-Gadamer, a French Hermeneutic philosopher, has quite an extensive dialogue on the subject of art and religion. In a way, he kind of goes back to Heidegger, and refines Martin's ideas of "ways of knowing the world." To make a long story short, Gadamer suggests that art discloses the world to mankind in a similar fashion as religion. i.e. the two things are almost the same. If your interested, read Truth And Method. They also kind of argue that science and rationality are forces of precluding sacred ways of knowing the world. That is to say that rationality has created a system where the sacred way of knowing the world is discounted as ridiculous whereas science seems to get the final say on everything. I highly recommend it Steve Spangler - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 15:39:31 -0600 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: Religion/Music On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 04:38:49PM -0500, Steve Spangler wrote: > They also kind of argue that science and rationality are forces of precluding sacred ways of knowing the world. That is to say that rationality has created a system where the sacred way of knowing the world is discounted as ridiculous whereas science seems to get the final say on everything. Somewhere in Samuel R. Delany's novel Dhalgren, a character talks convincingly about how art, religion, and science each see the others as mistaken of their own all-encompassing truth. - -- |> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | | Latest CD: Jerusaklyn http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:07:33 -0800 From: "Patrice L. Roussel" Subject: Re: Religion/Music On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:38:49 -0500 "Steve Spangler" wrote: > > Hans Georg-Gadamer, a French Hermeneutic philosopher, has quite an extensive > dialogue on the subject of art and religion. In a way, he kind of goes back > to Heidegger, and refines Martin's ideas of "ways of knowing the world." To > make a long story short, Gadamer suggests that art discloses the world to > mankind in a similar fashion as religion. i.e. the two things are almost the > same. If your interested, read Truth And Method. > > They also kind of argue that science and rationality are forces of > precluding sacred ways of knowing the world. That is to say that rationality ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ We had to wait the XX century for discovering that? Rationality is about reason against superstition. > has created a system where the sacred way of knowing the world is discounted > as ridiculous whereas science seems to get the final say on everything. You know, science, the most accomplished product of rational thinking, allows people (even the one doubting the value of rational thinking) to take a plane or communicate through Internet. I am sure that when you are in a plane, you feel secure to know that it was designed by people with a rational approach to things. I also expect you to feel the same the day you will have a surgical operation, or your wife will give birth to a baby (since we do not ask anymore to a husband to choose between the mother and the baby, thanks to modern medecine based on science and rational thinking). Please enlight me: what has religion (or "the sacred way of knowing the world") brought us in the near past? I don't keep up to date with these topics. I have sometimes the feeling that since modern physics came up in the early century, philosophers (and most intellectuals) gave up trying to understand it and switched instead (at least for the ones dealing with the role of science) to questionning its value (which requires much less talent or capabilities). Wittgenstein wrote the following: "The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language." at a time when modern science exploded. Hard to write a clearer state of total failure (for philosophy)... Patrice. - - ------------------------------ End of Zorn List Digest V3 #324 ******************************* 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