ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v02.n366

Internet Message Format | 1998-05-11 | 20KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V2 #366
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest         Tuesday, May 12 1998         Volume 02 : Number 366



In this issue:
-
       Socio-political composition
       steve zorn
       Re: Why Zorn (or anyone else?) (long)
       ground zero/cassiber
       Burton's Ed Wood
       Re:Hendrix
       Re[2]: Why Zorn
       Re: Why we listen to music
       Re: Re[2]: Why Zorn
       Re: Magazines
       Re: Magazines
       Re: [none]
       Baseball

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 03:00:31 -0500
From: "Eric C. Honour, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Socio-political composition

>INTERLUDE
>
>- - When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it
>means just what I choose it to mean neither more or less.=20
>- - The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many
>different things.=20
>- - The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master - that=92s a=
>ll.=20
>Lewis Carroll
>

Here we have a quote from Carroll dealing with the issue of the creator's
intent (as viewed through vocabulary choice) used to illustrate the point
that we are all trapped in our own socio-political worlds when it comes to
composition -- does this make sense?  I would agree that everyone is shaped
by the world around them; I don't believe that any composer composes in a
vacuum (possible space shuttle projects notwithstanding).

I also don't believe, though, that the majority of composers out there are
intending for their music to carry political content.  Any socio-political
content derived from a piece of music is necessarily  a product of the
listener, possibly influenced by extra-musical content such as the title of
the piece, program notes, text/libretto, etc.  The sounds themselves do not
carry political content -- an individual can HEAR symphonic music as
bourgeois, but that is because of the way that individual has been shaped
by experience and education.  In truth, if a composer TRIES to communicate
a political message, you won't get it unless you've been primed for it.  If
you played a recording of "The Star-Spangled Banner" performed by the U.S.
Marine Band for someone raised in a bubble -- someone who had never heard
Western music, never heard of the United States, never heard band music,
etc., they would not be prepared to take any sort of political message from
that music.  On the other hand, when Jimi Hendrix played the Star-Spangled
Banner, it was for an audience inculcated with the necessary information to
appreciate political content.  When the Red-Hot Chili Peppers included a
snippet of it on one of their albums, the content had to ALSO include the
fact that Jimi played it.

What I'm getting at is that it's pretty silly to judge music based on its
socio-political content (except as a purely personal judgement) and even
sillier to believe that other people will automatically agree -- we've all
been shaped differently.

> I can't
>afford buying cds and it's been months that I can't even rent them anymore.
>It's not really a choice you know.
>
>Not to speak again of the limitations imposed on me by the medias for what
>I will listen, I am dependent also on what concerts are programmed in my
>country and in what city. I am very much dependent on the train schedules.
>Which means I can go to almost nothing. And also I have to screen a great
>deal of events lately because I can't pay for them anyway George... it's
>true I can take a job that pays enough for me to save up for the cost of
>performance, or put my energy into finding a source for funding, among
>other methods, or may choose music I know will be cheaper... ).
[snip]
>More power to me !
>Benjamin
>

This argument has been occurring on two levels from the beginning, which is
frustrating to watch.  George seems to have been speaking of the composer
and the process of composition while Benjamin and Joseph seem to have been
talking about the world in which the composer, performer, and listener all
live; not only the special sub-world containing the three of them in
relation to each other, but the complex meta-world that is created by the
union of all their experieces in the "real world" outside.

Yes, Benjamin, we are all trapped by the world around us.  This is true of
composers, too.  While I will agree that this shapes the music we write, I
believe the constraints and shapes a composer consciously imposes on the
work are the truly important ones, as these are the only ones over which
the composer has control.

As to the whole idea of composers manipulating the political world around
them... it happens, of course.  I don't know what to say exactly, except
that composers are all (in my experience) idealistic people.  Those ideals
are not always the same from composer to composer.  I'm sure that there are
as many musicians who do not believe in the worth of Cage's or Zorn's music
as those who dislike the music of Boulez (in MOST cases, musicians would
deny the worth of any of these composers -- especially classical and pop
musicians).  Given that there is only so much money to go around, it's a
surety that someone will be shortchanged.  Any composer who doesn't take
maximum advantage of his or her opportunities is volunteering to be the
shortchangee.

Politically shaped by Ayn Rand,
Eric

- --------------------------
Eric C. Honour, Jr.
Composer * Saxophonist * Graphic Designer
MMus (Saxophone Performance and Composition)
Northwestern University
[e-mail]
- --------------------------
Black holes are where God divided by zero.



- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 11:07:06 +0200
From: Yves Dewulf <[e-mail]>
Subject: steve zorn

The Knitting factory-page mentions an improv-night with Zorn.
(Mainspace, May 14)
It features a certain Steve Zorn on drums,
is this an KF-error or is this guy related to one of the JZ's .

YVes

- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 09:06:55 -0400
From: Marc Downing <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Zorn (or anyone else?) (long)

>>"Why is music such a pleasure?"
>>
>>Now, there's a question!
>>
>Yeah, I think that is the more appropriate question Brian; I just found
>it to be a difficult question to put into writing.  However, how music
>is enjoyed might answer the question: "why is music such a pleasure?"
>For people who say, music is personal and enjoyed on a personal level (I
>agree with this), then why are certain albums or performers enjoyed  at
>such a grand scale?  Or is that just hype?

Tough question, and disturbing.  I think of it as the "Mona Lisa" question.
"Hype" has so many component parts; you've got the piece itself, you've got
a body of critical work discussing the piece, you've got the mental image
of the piece stored in the minds of its audience either through media or
through personal experience (actually seeing the painting, hearing the
music, etc.), you've got spin-off pieces based on the original (Mona Lisa
T-shirts, "Ode to Joy" television advertisements selling dairy products,
etc.), the fame of which sometimes exceeds the original ...

"Hype", too, is different for different art forms.  Let's say that
Beethoven's Ninth is "hyped".  I can now hear it performed eighty times
more frequently than Ligeti's Requiem precisely because it's already hyped.
Hype can be self-propagating.  For me, the most extreme and horrifying
example is the Mona Lisa:

A handful of security guards wheezing "No flash!  No flash!" every twenty
seconds, all day, to prevent the painting, which is veiled by a slab of
bulletproof glass, from being damaged by flashbulbs, trying to make
themselves heard over a mob which has a complete personnel change about
every seven minutes.  Thousands of people a day, clawing at the
sweat-soaked shirt of the person in front, to see this painting.  The
painting which has, for about a decade, been a reproduction.  The real Mona
Lisa is in storage.

Now THAT's hype.

Since none of us are listening to music in a vacuum, we can't ignore the
impact hype has on what it is that we do.  In the last exchange between JZ
and GG, we've seen two approaches to it, (1) an acceptance of it as an
inextricable factor of our lives and (2) a self-conscious avoidance of it
(1000 CD's? NONE of which have been reviewed? Wow ...).

My collection of CD's is quite different from GG's.  I have plenty of hyped
pieces alongside my more obscure recordings.  I like the physical reaction
I have to music.  I like the mental landscapes that seem to conjure
themselves for me when I listen to music.  I love spending energy simply on
listening, which in iteself can be an intensely creative activity.  But I
can't ignore the fact that hype can, in itself, in some people, produce a
similar reaction.

Ever known anyone who's cried watching a television ad (ar at least anyone
who's admitted to it)?

Ever seen Cats?  The horror ...





- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 09:18:17 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Caleb Deupree)
Subject: ground zero/cassiber

The new Wayside catalog was delivered to my house yesterday, and it
lists the 2cd set of live Cassiber and Ground Zero remixes as a new
release on ReR, due in stock June 15.  It was apparently the final
Cassiber tour, so it is claimed to be the last album from both groups.
The more-or-less domestic release on ReR should make this fairly
easily available, although the catalog still refers to the label as
originating in the UK.

- ---
Caleb T. Deupree
;; Opinions...  funny thing about opinions, they can change.

Computers are useless.  They can only give you answers.
(Pablo Picasso)


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 98 10:26:39 -0300
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Burton's Ed Wood

Back to Earth!!
Last night I watched (for the sixth time) on TV the amazing,
outstanding, terrific Tim Burton's "Ed Wood".
Is there anybody out there who enjoyed anytime this film? And the Howard
Shore's soundtrack ? Reviews?

You can email me privately as it isn't (maybe) a Zorn related subject.

- -Hugo

- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:52:06 UT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re:Hendrix

<<
I was in my car and suddenly and unexpectedly Hendrix was coming out of
my speakers via an NPR station.

I felt tempted to put lighter fluid to my CD collection and never say
another word about music.

Philosophize all you like.

But, give me Jimi.

DG Sinner
>>

Every time I catch a tune on the radio or go back and listen to an album, I
can't help but think where did this guy come from and how could he be so
awesome.

And I don't even particularly like electric guitar.

What a man.

PeterR

- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:49:31 UT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re[2]: Why Zorn

<<
> actual music.  Doesn't anyone else get tired about people talking about
> what is good, instead of why something is good?
>>

I think that one of the biggest problems with that is that everyone listens to
music for different reasons, even if it's the same music.  Take the Top 20's as
examples, there's tons of stuff on there I'd never care to listen to, as it's
just not my bag.  But I can still come here and read, share and discuss with
people with similar (but not the SAME) interests.  That's important.

My favorite example is Can, who I dearly love, but nobody seems to hear the same
things in Can as I do, as evidenced by all those post-rock bands I dislike so
much who all say they were "influenced" by Can.  Clearly they're listening to a
different band than I am, or at least in a different way, even though we all
agree Can is "good."

Then there the "I love King Crimson" syndrome, where a group of people all agree
they love King Crimson, but I love the 72-74 era, someone else loves the early
orcehstral era and someone else absolutely digs the Adrian Belew early 80's era.
 It's the same band, we all agree it's good, but for completely different
reasons.

Zorn is like that, but more so, in that his brush is so broad.  We all agree
that Zorn has something going, but we'll never agree what among his canon of
work is "good", as it's all personal.

Maybe you'd like to find out "why something is good for me."  But I think we get
a lot of that in the subtext of the discussions here, if not direct ponderings.
Plus, "why something is good to me" posts sorta read like diary excerpts and can
seem fairly self-serving.  I'd much rather read an accurate description of the
music and maybe some reflection on it, as opposed to a rambling missive of what
a person likes or doesn't like.

But that's just me.
Anyway.
I guess that's my rambling missive.

PeterR

now playing: Secret Chiefs 3 - Second Grand Constitution and Bylaws

- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 14:40:24 GMT0BST
From: DR S WILKIE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why we listen to music

Leibniz said something to the effect that music is the pleasure that
the soul takes from numbers (or their relationships?) without being
conscious of that fact.  Anyone know the quote?  It's probably
limited to the extent that it doesn't say anything about certain
aspects of music (timbre); otherwise, it's the best I've heard.

On another thread:
Saying that everything is politics is totally unhelpful, for the
reasons indicated (tautology, lack of contrast, ...)  On the other
hand, it would or could be interesting to develop an argument
thatclaimed there were political aspects to the decision of someone
to eschew politics for aesthetics (in their pursuit of music): after
all, just because one says it ("it's not political") doesn't
necessarily mean it's so.  It's characteristic of truly dominant
ideas about the organisation of society and the dependence and
interdependence of its various aspects, to pass themselves off as not
political at all, but merely common sense, brute fact, the real
world, etc.  And one might say; if it's political to believe that
music can't avoid, and should face up to being tangled in the web of
money power love war profit unemployment etc.  isn't it just as
political to believe that it can and should avoid all this (in the
sense that they're equally ideas about the relationship of music to
life)?

Well, I think there've been enough long mails about this

Sean Wilkie













- -

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 00:16:05 +1000
From: "Julian" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Why Zorn

> now playing: Secret Chiefs 3 - Second Grand Constitution and Bylaws

Kind of an interesting album, isn't it? The inclusion of some real
instruments instead of keyboards this time, courtesy of Eyvind Kang on
violin and Trey Spruance on trumpet is a particularly nice touch. William
Winant does some excellent work here too. Check it out folks...


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 10:54:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brent Burton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Magazines

On Fri, 8 May 1998, Steve Smith wrote:

> but as an example of what's wrong with the magazine, try this passage
> from the March/April issue's review of Matt Shipp and Joe Morris's
> "Thesis"......
>
> "People who are really into this sort of thing might be able to tell you,
> in a blindfold test, that this was in fact not Cecil Taylor and Derek
> Bailey.  It's difficult to know how they would know that..."

i remember reading this and being completely pissed off.  it's like, "why
bother with this music because it all sounds the same"!  you would hope
for something less inane from a music magazine, which purports to
cover musical *options*.  hell, even rolling stone writers would have
the dignity to @ least pretend they knew what they were talking about
when reviewing jazz.  i know that option sends out packs of discs that
reviewers oftfew writers who knew a little bit about jazz.

b

- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 11:04:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brent Burton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Magazines

On Tue, 12 May 1998, Brent Burton wrote:

> i remember reading this and being completely pissed off.  it's like, "why
> bother with this music because it all sounds the same"!  you would hope
> for something less inane from a music magazine, which purports to
> cover musical *options*.  hell, even rolling stone writers would have
> the dignity to @ least pretend they knew what they were talking about
> when reviewing jazz.  i know that option sends out packs of discs that
> reviewers oftfew writers who knew a little bit about jazz.

sorry, that last sentence was supposed to say:
i know that option sends out packs of discs to reviewers who often don't
care for 90% of the music included therein, but you would think the
editors could @ least keep a couple writers around who knew a little bit
about jazz.

b


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 09:03:23 -0800
From: George Grella <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [none]

Someone, Benjamin I think, writes:


> I join Joseph on his comments to that. And George what you write there is=
>  a
> bit optimistic I think.=20
> But that is merely the point I defend from the beginning, we do have
> choices, we do have to make choices. And that's politics in the way that
> you finally admitted in your answer to Joseph, we all agree.=20
>

Optimistic to you, maybe, but actual experience to me.  If anyone looks
at the music they listen to, finds it wanting, and then blames the media
for that, then they've given up.  As listeners, we have a lifetime to be
curious and explore our aural desires in many, many ways.  One way I'd
like to add is find a good music library, go there and pull things off
the shelves at random to listen to.  See what you find.  Yes, blame the
media for marketing the lame and the bland, but blame yourself if you
don't bother to put in the personal energy to get beyond that.

And I want to be clear about this politics issue; what we are agreeing
on is that politics exists in all music if we accept a certain
definition of politics, i.e. the dynamics of human relationships.  I
used that as an example for argument's sake; to me personally, that is
politics only in its most trivial sense, like office politics, and don't
personally agree with that definition.  So we'll have to each have our
own, differing beliefs, which will usually be my point anyway.

gg


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 09:06:06 -0800
From: George Grella <[e-mail]>
Subject: Baseball

Brian Olewnick mentioned that he's a big baseball fan, and I'm with him
there.  And it got me to thinking something last night, after listening
to William Schuman and reading about Charles Ives.  Both composers
played baseball, Schuman professionally in the minor leagues, and I
would assume they remained fans of the game [Ives even has a piano piece
called "Some Southpaw Pitching"].  Anyone else know of any definite
baseball fan musicians?  Does the packaging and titling of "Yankees"
indicate a personal interest in the game on the part of John Zorn?

gg


- -

------------------------------

End of Zorn List Digest V2 #366
*******************************


 To unsubscribe from zorn-list-digest, send an email to
       "[e-mail]"
 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 [e-mail]