On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:29:46 -0700 Marlene McMullen wrote:
>
> I have to wonder why free improv can't be 'beautiful' in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think people are riding their favorite horse...
i think someone is.
My question to John Shiuarba about his use of the qualifier "beautiful"
was targetting early Zorn/Parachute stuff.
the comments at hand were largely aimed at this sort of free improv.
Somebody later transformed my well-defined statement to a one emcompassing
all free improv.
somewhat in the spirit of your vituperative response to a moderate
position in an earlier post regarding einstein's role in qm.
This is not what I said.
not that anyone begrudges your hurling bolders from that pile o
shards. then again, perhaps you know something we don't (like rizzi's
on vacation or something).
- -b
Patrice.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:50:50 -0700
From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <proussel@ichips.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Beauty
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 20:23:13 +0000 Scott Russell wrote:
>
> --MimeMultipartBoundary
>
> Patrice L. Roussel wrote:
> >
> > A precision before this thread degenerates to:
> >
> > WHY CAN'T MUSIC BE BEAUTIFUL?
>
> Please, we don't want to go down this path!
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:29:46 -0700 Marlene McMullen wrote:
> > >
> > > I have to wonder why free improv can't be 'beautiful' in the
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > I think people are riding their favorite horse...
> >
> > My question to John Shiuarba about his use of the qualifier "beautiful"
> > was targetting early Zorn/Parachute stuff.
>
> This was my point, why does 'beautiful' have to be a qualifier?
I am not sure that I understand you. By qualifier I mean an adjective, a
word intended to affect the word it preceeds ("music"). Maybe I am
missing some subtleties, having still a fairly broken English...
> > Somebody later transformed my well-defined statement to a one emcompassing
> > all free improv. This is not what I said.
> >
> OK, I made a generalisation based on your comment, if I had asked why
> the 'parachute stuff' couldn't be beautiful, would that have been any
> different?
Again, I did not say that the Parachute stuff couldn't be beautiful, I was
just surprised that John used "beautiful" as a way of describing it. I
would have never thought of describing it that way, that's all. And because
I share many of John's tastes, I was a little bit puzzled.
> I have no axe to grind here and I certainly don't want to start us all
> off on a thread we'd rather avoid, after all once we've gotten to where
> the beauty is in Merzbow there ain't really any place left to go.
It is just that by stretching too much the meaning of words (assuming words
are still used for communication, and communication with a willingful person,
not a die hard specialist part of a group which can count itself on the ten
fingers of their hand :-), you might reach a point where they become
useless, and I do not see that as a good thing (always in my boring view
of seeing words as a way to communicate with a willingful, but not expert,
audience).
Personally, I still believe in the use of words and try to use them with
moderation and as close as I can to their general accepted meaning.
Patrice.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:58:03 -0700
From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <proussel@ichips.intel.com>
Subject: Re: beating (was: Beauty)
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 15:33:16 -0400 "Ockham's stubble" wrote:
>
>
> A precision before this thread degenerates to:
>
> WHY CAN'T MUSIC BE BEAUTIFUL?
>
> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:29:46 -0700 Marlene McMullen wrote:
> >
> > I have to wonder why free improv can't be 'beautiful' in the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I think people are riding their favorite horse...
>
> i think someone is.
You might be right :-).
> My question to John Shiuarba about his use of the qualifier "beautiful"
> was targetting early Zorn/Parachute stuff.
>
> the comments at hand were largely aimed at this sort of free improv.
>
> Somebody later transformed my well-defined statement to a one emcompassing
> all free improv.
>
> somewhat in the spirit of your vituperative response to a moderate
> position in an earlier post regarding einstein's role in qm.
Wow! You still remember that? Did it really traumatize you :-).
> This is not what I said.
>
> not that anyone begrudges your hurling bolders from that pile o
> shards. then again, perhaps you know something we don't (like rizzi's
> on vacation or something).
Oups! What do you mean by that ("begrudges your hurling bolders from that
pile o shards)?
Patrice.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 21:25:48 +0000
From: Scott Russell <srussell@cims.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Beauty
- --MimeMultipartBoundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Patrice L. Roussel wrote:
>
> > >
>
> Again, I did not say that the Parachute stuff couldn't be beautiful, I was
> just surprised that John used "beautiful" as a way of describing it. I
> would have never thought of describing it that way, that's all.
This is what I was getting at! You reckon using beautiful in this
context is unusual, my query was why should this be? Why would beautiful
be a puzzling word to use here?
>
> It is just that by stretching too much the meaning of words (assuming words are still used for communication, and communication with a willingful person,not a die hard specialist part of a group which can count itself on the ten fingers of their hand :-),
not sure what you are trying to tell me here...
> you might reach a point where they become useless, and I do not see
>that as a good thing (always in my boring view of seeing words as a way >to communicate with a willingful, but not expert, audience).
My point was just that in singling out beautiful as an unusual word to
describe something like free improv, you are implying that conventional
adjectives do not apply, that perhaps another set of words may be more
appropriate. I was just suggesting that this need not be the case.
>
> Personally, I still believe in the use of words and try to use them with
> moderation and as close as I can to their general accepted meaning.
>
As do we all.
Scott Russell.
- --
Without theory all we have is opinion and shopping. Chris Cutler
- --MimeMultipartBoundary--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:34:17 -0700
From: john shiurba <shiurba@sfo.com>
Subject: Re: Beauty
patrice:
> Again, I did not say that the Parachute stuff couldn't be beautiful, I was
> just surprised that John used "beautiful" as a way of describing it. I
> would have never thought of describing it that way, that's all. And because
> I share many of John's tastes, I was a little bit puzzled.
...
> It is just that by stretching too much the meaning of words (assuming words
> are still used for communication, and communication with a willingful person,
> not a die hard specialist part of a group which can count itself on the ten
> fingers of their hand :-), you might reach a point where they become
> useless, and I do not see that as a good thing
words are certainly important, but i do not think that i chose the wrong
one. the word beautiful to me, means something quite different than
pretty. i would never describe the Parachute material as pretty. beautiful
means 'having beauty' and beauty is defined in my websters dictionary as:
that quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or
deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations
(as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or
something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are
manifest).
that seems to me to be exactly what this music is (to me).
- --
shiurba@sfo.com
http://www.sfo.com/~shiurba
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 16:35:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juno-Temp1 <Juno-Temp1@deshaw.com>
Subject: Dave Douglas/Chris Speed
Any one heard the new CD's by these guys? Each of them have a new CD out
and I've heard that their great. Particularly Chris's.
John Waters
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 21:39:55 +0000
From: Scott Russell <srussell@cims.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Beauty
- --MimeMultipartBoundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
john shiurba wrote:
>
>
> words are certainly important, but i do not think that i chose the wrong
> one. the word beautiful to me, means something quite different than
> pretty. i would never describe the Parachute material as pretty. beautiful
> means 'having beauty' and beauty is defined in my websters dictionary as:
>
> that quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or
> deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations
> (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or
> something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are
> manifest).
>
> that seems to me to be exactly what this music is (to me).
> --
John
I think you've
Scott Russell
- --
Without theory all we have is opinion and shopping. Chris Cutler
- --MimeMultipartBoundary--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:01:58 +0100
From: stevenj@aumfidelity.com
Subject: DAVID S. WARE Quartet
The DAVID S. WARE Quartet featuring David's tenor, Matthew Shipp/piano,
William Parker/bass, and Susie Ibarra/drums will be performing two rare
(at this point...) shows outside of NYC.
THU SEPT 4 CHAPEL HILL, NC Cat's Cradle (club is in Carrboro actually)
FRI SEPT 5 WASHINGTON, DC Washington Ethical Society (7750 16 St NW)
This performance is the group's debut in our Capitol (will be version of
earth atone shake down).
Both showtimes are at 9pm. This is one of the most powerful musical outfits
in the world, and you would be remiss to miss either of these if you are
within
200 miles - no joke.
Regards,
Steven J
oh, any questions, feel free to E. direct...
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:01:53 -0700
From: Schwitterz <mcmullenm@vcss.k12.ca.us>
Subject: Re: DAVID S. WARE Quartet
stevenj@aumfidelity.com wrote:
> The DAVID S. WARE Quartet featuring David's tenor, Matthew
> Shipp/piano,
> William Parker/bass, and Susie Ibarra/drums will be performing two
> rare
> (at this point...) shows outside of NYC.
>
> They are also at the Knitting Factory tonight along with Wm Hooker and
> Joe Morris 4tet...live on the internet...
Sz
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:22:54 -0700
From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <proussel@ichips.intel.com>
Subject: Zorn's 7" LIVE AT PECCI MUSEUM
Joshua Herrin mailed me that the following rare 7" was alos available
from Relapse Records (and that they still have copies of it).
