ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v02.n384

Internet Message Format | 1998-06-04 | 21KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V2 #384
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest        Thursday, June 4 1998        Volume 02 : Number 384



In this issue:
-
       Re[4]: intellectualism, doh!
       Re: Re[4]: intellectualism, doh!
       Re: Zorn List Digest V2 #383
       RE: Public Image
       Re[6]: intellectualism, doh!
       Fripp thinks he is a god
       Re: Fripp thinks he is a god
       Downtown
       Re: Fripp thinks he is a god
       Re: Fripp thinks he is a god
       Re: Fripp thinks he is a god
       Re: Fripp thinks he is a god

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

Date: Thu, 04 Jun 98 14:23:51 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re[4]: intellectualism, doh!

     Joseph wrote:

You seem to be using "mystical" as a synonym for "newagey". Or something.
Those who follow the more rigorous schools of mystical thought (have you
investigated these before condemning the "mystical") would shudder at the
thought that people think that they are opposed to the analytical.

     Correct me if I'm wrong, but ultimately one is forced to come down on
     one side or the other: either consciousness is some sort of ineffable
     essence (a "soul") or that it's the result of an underlying series of
     mechanical processes and pattern organizations (Dennett's
     'Consciousness Explained' _begins_, I think, to get at the picture,
     though the title is a stretch). No, I haven't investigated the "more
     rigorous schools of mystical thought"; I take it you're referring to
     the Kabbala and certain forms of Islam and Buddhism. Life is short
     and, being a non-soulist, I don't look forward to an infinite period
     of study after death! While I don't doubt that serious studies do
     occur, I was, in fact, referring to the more popular, newagey if you
     will, attitude of, "Don't examine a work of art too closely, or you'll
     destroy its beauty! Don't try to parse it or to understand why it's
     beautiful! No one can know!" I'm trying to make the case that it's
     not, in theory, impossible to understand; it may be hard, perhaps
     extraordinarily difficult, maybe beyond our ability to directly
     perceive--but it's there, deep down in the gears, in flesh and blood.

     Hypermaterialistically,

     Brian Olewnick




- -

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:03:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph S. Zitt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: intellectualism, doh!

On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 [e-mail] wrote:

>      Correct me if I'm wrong, but ultimately one is forced to come down on
>      one side or the other: either consciousness is some sort of ineffable
>      essence (a "soul") or that it's the result of an underlying series of
>      mechanical processes and pattern organizations (Dennett's
>      'Consciousness Explained' _begins_, I think, to get at the picture,
>      though the title is a stretch). No, I haven't investigated the "more
>      rigorous schools of mystical thought"; I take it you're referring to
>      the Kabbala and certain forms of Islam and Buddhism. Life is short
>      and, being a non-soulist, I don't look forward to an infinite period
>      of study after death!

Who is forcing one to "come down on one side or the other"? When does the
"ultimately" alarm bell ring?  Is there something wrong with admitting
that there are things that we might not yet know, without jumping to
either extreme? As you say, life is short.  Does this make it necessary to
jump to conclusions about that which one has not had the time or chance to
study? If not, a position of honest not-knowing is a valid choice.

> While I don't doubt that serious studies do
>      occur, I was, in fact, referring to the more popular, newagey if you
>      will, attitude of, "Don't examine a work of art too closely, or you'll
>      destroy its beauty! Don't try to parse it or to understand why it's
>      beautiful! No one can know!" I'm trying to make the case that it's
>      not, in theory, impossible to understand; it may be hard, perhaps
>      extraordinarily difficult, maybe beyond our ability to directly
>      perceive--but it's there, deep down in the gears, in flesh and blood.

But using the term "mystical" to refer to warm-fuzzy thinking, and
slamming all mysticism because of it is akin to using the term "jazz" to
refer to Kenny G and thereby dissing Cecil Taylor for bland tonal
melodicism.

Your belief that it's all possible to understand is, in the ansence of
position of faith (this is sounding like "Contact" :-]). Sounds like
you're in a glass house with respect to questioning belief systems.

- - ---------1---------1---------1---------1---------1---------1----------
|||/ Joseph Zitt ===== [e-mail] ===== Human Systems \|||
||/ Maryland? = <*> SILENCE: The John Cage Mailing List <*> = ecto \||
|/ http://www.realtime.net/~jzitt ====== Comma: Voices of New Music \|


- -

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:32:41 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Zorn List Digest V2 #383

In a message dated 6/4/98 3:42:47 PM EDT, owner-zorn-list-
[e-mail] writes:

> as I had no idea Bolan was Jewish.
Marc Feld!

- -

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

Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 13:53:47 -0700
From: Jeff Spirer <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Public Image

At 08:52 PM 6/4/98 +0200, Artur Nowak wrote:
>> John Lydon: Voice; Steve Vai: Guitar; Skopelitis: Guitar;
>> Bernie Worrell:
>> Organ; Bill Laswell: Bass; Tony Williams: Drums; Bernard Fowler:
>> Voice; Ryuichi Sakamoto: Fairlight CMI; L. Shankar: Violin;
>> Malachi Favors:
>> Acoustic Bass; Ginger Baker: Drums; Aiyb Dieng: Chatan; Jonas
>> Hellborg: Bass; Steve Turre: Didjeridu
>
>Is this lineup on the album cover? Or you just know?

There's only one word on the album cover.  I got this from the Japanese CD
and asked Bill if it was correct.


Jeff Spirer
B&W Photos: http://www.pomegranates.com/frame/spirer/
Color and B&W Photos: http://www.hyperreal.org/~jeffs/gallery.html
Axiom/Material: http://www.hyperreal.org/axiom/

- -

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

Date: Thu, 04 Jun 98 16:41:20 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re[6]: intellectualism, doh!



     Joseph wrote:

Who is forcing one to "come down on one side or the other"? When does the
"ultimately" alarm bell ring?  Is there something wrong with admitting
that there are things that we might not yet know, without jumping to
either extreme? As you say, life is short.  Does this make it necessary to
jump to conclusions about that which one has not had the time or chance to
study? If not, a position of honest not-knowing is a valid choice.

     Of course, you're correct in the sense that neither I, nor anyone
     else, absolutely _knows_ the facts on this question (allowing that
     there are facts). But there are plenty of things that I, and you I
     would suspect, dismiss out of hand without perfect knowledge as to
     their falsity. I don't _know_ that Uri Geller didn't bend keys by
     mind-power alone, but I have no aversion to stating that he didn't!
     I don't _know_ that Christ didn't walk on water, but I betcha it
     didn't happen! I don't _know_ that I won't be reincarnated, but I'm
     not taking it into consideration as a serious possibility either. Hey,
     I may be proved wrong; it's happened before. I simply use my noggin to
     the best of its ability to separate wheat from chaff. I think Pascal
     was a coward for hedging his bets. If I'm wrong, well, does Hell have
     Internet access and a good music distributor?

But using the term "mystical" to refer to warm-fuzzy thinking, and
slamming all mysticism because of it is akin to using the term "jazz" to
refer to Kenny G and thereby dissing Cecil Taylor for bland tonal
melodicism.

     Ouch! I don't think this really applies. While most would agree that
     there is, generally speaking, good and bad music, one could argue (and
     you could disagree) that a given system of belief is flawed in its
     premises, therefore essentially false; say, astrology (please, no
     arguments here; if there are vehement supporters of astrology out
     there, substitute Santa Claus).

Your belief that it's all possible to understand is, in the ansence of
position of faith (this is sounding like "Contact" :-]). Sounds like
you're in a glass house with respect to questioning belief systems.

     I really don't think it's faith, though I've had this argument with
     others. It's simply drawing inferences from the best information
     available. As knowledge advances, those inferences may be disproven,
     unlike articles of faith. If the glass isn't strong enough, tossed
     stones are welcome.

     Brian Olewnick






- -

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

Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 15:57:25 -0700
From: "Dave" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fripp thinks he is a god

Noo real Zoen content, but I know a lot of list members like
Fripp. I saw ProjeKct Two (Fripp, Belew, Gunn) and an announcement
was made before the show that there was no smoking, recording devices,
or cameras allowed. During the second set a flash went off.
Everybody left the stage mid-song. An announcement was made
that whoever took the picture had to turn in the film to the
sound man and be escorted out of the venue in order for the show
to resume. About ten minutes later Fripp was back on stage and
unravelled the roll of film and threw it into the aduience. They
picked up right where they left off. Great show music wise, but
Fripp seems like he has a huge ego.


Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
http://www.mailexcite.com

- -

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

Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 16:10:31 -0700
From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fripp thinks he is a god

On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 15:57:25 -0700  "Dave" wrote:
>
> Noo real Zoen content, but I know a lot of list members like
> Fripp. I saw ProjeKct Two (Fripp, Belew, Gunn) and an announcement
> was made before the show that there was no smoking, recording devices,
> or cameras allowed. During the second set a flash went off.
> Everybody left the stage mid-song. An announcement was made
> that whoever took the picture had to turn in the film to the
> sound man and be escorted out of the venue in order for the show
> to resume. About ten minutes later Fripp was back on stage and
> unravelled the roll of film and threw it into the aduience. They
> picked up right where they left off. Great show music wise, but
> Fripp seems like he has a huge ego.

That's now that you realize it? I have detecting a serious infatuation with
himself ten years ago (during a show of his guitar band). The urgency of his
music might have decreased with time, but his ego has followed the opposite
track.

    Patrice.

- -

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:59:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: William York <[e-mail]>
Subject: Downtown

I've seen a few things recently that don't quite make sense from my
distant perspective re: the downtown/kf scene.  In Cadence, someone made a
comment about someone else's ignorance of the Knit Fac "meat market".
Also, on the Secret Chiefs etc. site (which I found thru a link from the
newly appeared Zorn site) there was a comment about the lack of good
recordings to come out of the downtown scene, and some comments about the
buy-anything mentality of Zorn fans (this was actually in a portion of the
site that highly praised Angelus Novus).  Could someone explain this
meat-market thing that is supposedly so obvious, and does anyone have any
comments on the recordings issue as well?  I'm having enough trouble
trying to get around to just some of the main ones, having come in a
little late.

Thanks, WY

Also for sale cheap- Fred Lonberg Holm: Personal Scratch (Eighth Day)
                   - FJF- Blow Horn (Okka) which I was just complimenting
but it's a bit abrasive for me in the end.


- -

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

Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 20:57:16 -0500
From: Craig Rath <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fripp thinks he is a god

At 03:57 PM 6/4/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Noo real Zoen content, but I know a lot of list members like
>Fripp. I saw ProjeKct Two (Fripp, Belew, Gunn) and an announcement
>was made before the show that there was no smoking, recording devices,
>or cameras allowed. During the second set a flash went off.
>Everybody left the stage mid-song. An announcement was made
>that whoever took the picture had to turn in the film to the
>sound man and be escorted out of the venue in order for the show
>to resume. About ten minutes later Fripp was back on stage and
>unravelled the roll of film and threw it into the aduience. They
>picked up right where they left off. Great show music wise, but
>Fripp seems like he has a huge ego.
>

How is this any different than what any other musician does to control the
way their music/appearance is put forth?  I seem to remember similar
incidents ocurring with Mr. Zorn recently, especially with regard to the
web casts from the Knitting Factory.  Or the more violent methods used by
some groups, such as physically attacking someone caught in the act.

Fripp has, from the day King Crimson began, been very much concerned with
having the final say about how he and the musicians who play with him are
represented, whether on a recording or in their live performances.  I don't
see that as egotism, more as perfectionism - a big difference.  While I
still don't completely agree with the strictness of anti-recording rules, I
can at least understand the reasons behind them.  I do agree that recording
(in any form - audio or visual) of someone's work and then selling it
without their approval is reprehensible.  But I also think that doing so
for your own use or as a remembrance of something you experienced should be
treated differently.  But you have to remember, at the time that this
incident occurred, Fripp had no idea which of these two outcomes the
perpetrator had in mind, so he came down on the side of caution and
prevention.

As you can tell from my e-mail address I've been a follower of his for
years. I do not always like some of the things he has done and have often
thought he could lighten up a bit, but the thing to remember (especially
noticeable from his liner notes) is that he tries his best to represent the
musician above all other considerations.  I don't consider that egotism,
just the right way to do things.  And if that means coming down on someone
who doesn't obey the rules he sets up ahead of time (notice he warned
everyone first) I say the more power to him.  Especially if prevents
someone from capitalizing on something they had no right to.

Just my take on the matter.



- -

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: SUGAR in their vitamins? <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fripp thinks he is a god

speaking of Fripp... sort of.

that nifty clear jewel case
for my copy of King Crimson's
"The Nightwatch" (phenominal live
recording, despite Fripp's
disparaging remarks in the liner
notes btw) is broken and i am crushed.
it's one of those "slimline"
double-cd jewel cases. i haven't
been able to find a record shop
in the area (San Francisco) who
sells empty cases like this. any
reccommendations for a mailorder
outfit that does? left and right-hinged
cases are desired.

thanks!

hasta.

Yes.  Beautiful, wonderful nature.  Hear it sing to us: *snap*  Yes.  natURE.


- -

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: a rancid amoeba <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fripp thinks he is a god

> Fripp has, from the day King Crimson began, been very much concerned with
> having the final say about how he and the musicians who play with him are
> represented, whether on a recording or in their live performances.  I don't
> see that as egotism, more as perfectionism - a big difference.  While I
> still don't completely agree with the strictness of anti-recording rules, I
> can at least understand the reasons behind them.  I do agree that recording
> (in any form - audio or visual) of someone's work and then selling it
> without their approval is reprehensible.

I'll make a blanket statement that artists that are preoccupied
with attendees taping the show or taking their picture based on
the argument that the attendee is going to make money from it
are coming heavily from the side of egotism, not perfectionism
or even fairness.

This isn't to say that I feel that it is right to make bootlegs
and sell them. The reality is, though, that those live bootlegs
help the artist far more than they hurt them.


chanel

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/                          [e-mail]
              r e c o r d  l a b e l s  o n  t h e  w e b
                 future home of a rancid amoeba records


- -

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

Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 20:18:20 -0700
From: Jeff Spirer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fripp thinks he is a god

At 07:35 PM 6/4/98 -0700, a rancid amoeba wrote:

>I'll make a blanket statement that artists that are preoccupied
>with attendees taping the show or taking their picture based on
>the argument that the attendee is going to make money from it
>are coming heavily from the side of egotism, not perfectionism
>or even fairness.

Let me say as someone who has been paid by artists to photograph them in
concert (and published in Drum and Modern Drummer magazine) that this is
completely within the artist's rights and may reflect any number of
concerns, *not* egotism, including a feeling of intrusion, problems with
flash going off during a performance disturbing musicians, contracts with
professional photographers, club requirements (musicians often get blamed
for having a crowd that fucks with the rules), etc.

If the rules say "No Photography," then people who want to take pictures
should go see something else.  If someone unauthorized takes pictures, I
think it is fine for the artist to take the person's camera, take out the
film and destroy it.  Anyone who wants to fuck around with what the artist
wants in a performance should expect to get fucked with in return.

Let me give people here some idea of how completely fucked up this can be.
Clubs almost always forbid flash, even if they allow photography.  When I
have permission to use flash, I usually set slave flashes up near the
stage.  These trigger from any flash, and when people in the audience use
flash my slaves go off.  This is a) annoying to the musicians, since I
usually clear when I can use them (like not when the lights are out), and
b) it runs their power down and I can't get them to fire when I need them.
So some punk-ass idiot decides for his own good to fuck up the artist's
ability to get decent photographs of the concert.

Fripp was perfectly within his rights and, like I said before, someone that
doesn't like the rules should go listen to someone else.



Jeff Spirer
B&W Photos: http://www.pomegranates.com/frame/spirer/
Color and B&W Photos: http://www.hyperreal.org/~jeffs/gallery.html
Axiom/Material: http://www.hyperreal.org/axiom/

- -

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

End of Zorn List Digest V2 #384
*******************************


 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]