ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v02.n440

Internet Message Format | 1998-08-16 | 21KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V2 #440
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest        Monday, August 17 1998        Volume 02 : Number 440



In this issue:
-
       Re: tony conrad's no bomb, but the bomb
       Re: tony conrad's no bomb, but the bomb
       Re: Zorn List Digest V2 #438
       Re: weird little boy
       Tony Conrad
       Re: tony conrad's no bomb, but the bomb
       Re: Tony Conrad
       Zorn completist.
       Re: Tony Conrad
       Re: Tony Conrad
       Praxis

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:24:42 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: tony conrad's no bomb, but the bomb

In a message dated 98-08-17 13:04:46 EDT, Matthew Colonnese writes:

<< Furthermore, if an artwork is truely
 experimental, reducing it to "good" or "bad" is simply not the point. >>

I'm not familiar with Tony Conrad, but it strikes me that there's a good
definition lying herein - perhaps "experimental music" is that to which "good"
or "bad" can't be applied?

Just a thought.....

Dale.

- -

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:27:25 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: tony conrad's no bomb, but the bomb

In a message dated 98-08-17 13:24:27 EDT, Joseph S. Zitt writes:

<< As some well known composer said a while ago (I forget who it was): by the
 time it reaches an audience, it had better not be experimental anymore.
  >>

If I remember right.....I think we concluded this was Varese.

Dale.

- -

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:34:55 -0400
From: David Keffer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Zorn List Digest V2 #438

>From: Ken Waxman <[e-mail]>
>Maybe then he and the other "free form" diletantes, such as Thurston
>Moore should leave the music to those who know it and *want* to play it
>- -- the names Coleman, Taylor, E. Parker, W. Parker, Lowe, Guy, Ware,
>Gayle, Bailey, Oxley, Brotzmann come immediately to mind.

This is news to me.  Has Thurston Moore made some statement that he does
not *want* to participate in the "free form" ensembles that he has been
participating in over the past several years?  To my knowledge, he has not.
Were this the case, he could abandon those projects and stick with his
money maker SY.  If Moore has made no such statement, then your accusation
against him appears to me to be a product of high-brow snobbery, namely,
that someone involved in popular music cannot be simultaneously involved
in music of the marginal culture.  Your accusation seems to have ample proof
against it originating just in this list, where many of the Zorn-listers
are simultaneously interested in Brotzmann/Bailey/Taylor crowd and
popular bands--taking examples from with long threads from past
digests:  King Crimson, Pere Ubu, Frank Zappa, Captain Beefheart...

On the contrary, I have some respect for Thurston Moore in that he chooses
not to just put out one SY record after another (which IMO are pretty good
listens in their own right) but also contributes to many improv records with
the likes of Tom Surgal, Loren MazzaCane Connors, William Winant,
Borbetomagus, etc.

David K.


- -

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 12:39:15 +0200
From: "Felix" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: weird little boy

>What might be the characteristics of a bad experimental music recording?
>Would it be a failure to break past cliches (though enough cliches
>organized well might instead define a genre), an inability to play the
>instruments well, or some other factor? I know that in listening back
>to Comma's work, I like some of what we've done better than others,
>but it's hard to determine what those factors are.


Two recent examples: I bought SYR3 by Sonic Youth and Jim O'Rourke a few
months back. In the Echo Canyon list, everyone was saying how great it was,
saying it was free jazz and all, the reviews described it, at the very
least, as the best Sonic Youth release of the decade, possibly of their
entire career. As I happen to like SY's and O'Rourke's work, and seeing as
everyone described the album as great I bought it.

What a disappointment it was. 56 minutes of guitar feedback with some
(really) bad trumpet playing and Kim Gordon's moaning voice in the middle. I
only play the album now because I want to have my money worhtwhile, but I
can't feel what's so great about that album. I was so disappointed that I
found I liked Mystic Fugu Orchestra EP more than SYR3 (because the first
presents something new, it's strange and it has a concept; SYR3 lacks all of
these characteristics). My guess is that SY fans thought it was great
because, for them, it was something really new, something they've never
seen, but for the most people of this list (I assume), SYR3 will present
nothing new or original.

On the other hand, I went to that show I talked about earlier (Mori/
Coleman/ Lindsay/ Ribot/ Kang + Oval + Zφngaro/ Yoshihide/ Mⁿller/ Bochinho)
and I absolutely loved it. That single show made my summer worthwhile (and
missing SY which were playing in the same night). However, the reviews said
the show had been short of bullshit and they used the show to make this lame
piece on how the New York experimental scene was dead (is it, new yorkers?).
They absolutely trashed a show which I loved and still carry a smile in my
face because of it.

SO my guess is that experimental music is all about the feelings it awakens
in somebody when they listen to it, more than any other music, because
experimental has very few structures for you to hang on.

Sorry for THIS rant.
Felix
[e-mail]


- -

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:51:39 -0400
From: David Keffer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tony Conrad

>On Sun, 16 Aug 1998, Joseph Zitt wrote:
>> There is, however, a bit of Emperor's New Clothes about it all. I
>> recently attended (or perhaps I should say "was held hostage in") an
>> excruciating Tony Conrad performance here in DC. At the end those who
>> hadn't fled the room, in talking about it were using kind of polite
>> niceties. When someone asked me what I though (though not until then)
>> I said flat out that I thought it was a pretty terrible abuse of an
>> audience, and that it seemed that Conrad neither knew nor cared how
>> his performance was perceived. At that point, it was like a dam broke.

Having seen "Slapping Pythagoras" and "Four Violins" (behind the sheet)
performed and enjoyed them both, I have a different interpretation of
the music.  However, each person interprets on their own terms and
reaches their own conclusions.  I have no problem with that.

What I don't understand in this post is the part where "I thought
it was a pretty terrible abuse of an audience, and that it seemed that
Conrad neither knew nor cared how his performance was perceived."  What
would you have had him do?  He is playing a composed piece from
beginning to end.  If he (somehow) were to sense that the audience
was dissatisfied with the performance, would you have had him abandon
the piece midway through and switch to something a little more "rocking"?
(That would have been something to see. :) )  I think Conrad came
to DC to play a drone.  He did exactly as he intended.  If the merits
of the drone were lost on the (perhaps uninformed or perhaps unwarned
or perhaps informed but unimpressed all the same)
audience, there is nothing he can do about it except play for those
who are enjoying it and finish the night out.

David K.




- -

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 12:02:43 -0700
From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: tony conrad's no bomb, but the bomb

On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:24:42 EDT  [e-mail] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 98-08-17 13:04:46 EDT, Matthew Colonnese writes:
>
> << Furthermore, if an artwork is truely
>  experimental, reducing it to "good" or "bad" is simply not the point. >>
>
> I'm not familiar with Tony Conrad, but it strikes me that there's a good
> definition lying herein - perhaps "experimental music" is that to which "good"
> or "bad" can't be applied?

Right, if you can define what experimental is. Tony Conrad, for example, was
definitely experimental... 35 years ago. Being one of the creators of the
"drone" movement, there is nothing wrong about him still pushing it at the
end of this century, but does it mean it is still "experimental"?

    Patrice.




- -

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:15:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph S. Zitt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tony Conrad

On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, David Keffer wrote:

> What I don't understand in this post is the part where "I thought
> it was a pretty terrible abuse of an audience, and that it seemed that
> Conrad neither knew nor cared how his performance was perceived."  What
> would you have had him do?  He is playing a composed piece from
> beginning to end.

Well, then, perhaps the problem is in the composition. A piece designed to
be performed before an audience must take the audience into account.

Do we have any idea what was composed about the piece? In moving the small
number of pitches around, it seemed that he was cycling among identical
sections. In what parameter did the sections differ: rhythm? dynamics?
tempo? articulation?

To believe that a piece must include, say, 63 iterations of a pattern, no
matter the context, because the score says that it does, then to consider
the performance above reproach because it followed the score, is to
consider the score as a sacred text. I find this kind of elevation and
adulation of a composition above the reactions of the people experiencing
it to be a highly distateful disrespect for the audience.

After all, this power situation that he creates is precisely that which he
claims to detest in all his writings.

> If he (somehow) were to sense that the audience
> was dissatisfied with the performance, would you have had him abandon
> the piece midway through and switch to something a little more "rocking"?

He has been playing this same work for many years. He has, no doubt, been
able to hear feedback from his audiences. I found it quite significant
that
every single person speaking up between the sets had the same reaction.
(If others there believed as stronglythat the event was satisfying, why
were they silent?)

Should he have switched pieces in midstream? Probably not (though I do try
to include that kind of flexibility in my own pieces). Should he have
realized that much of the audience would feel trapped the performance, and
perhaps done it in a venue where people other than those in the front rows
could step out and in again without tromping others.

Some try to excuse this music by calling it "experimental". Practially
speaking, he has been performing this work for many years, has recorded
two boxed sets and a few other discs of it, and documented what he is
doing at great length. One would think that at this late date the
"experiment"  would be complete, and that he would have no further need
for quinea pigs.

> (That would have been something to see. :) )  I think Conrad came
> to DC to play a drone.  He did exactly as he intended.  If the merits
> of the drone were lost on the (perhaps uninformed or perhaps unwarned
> or perhaps informed but unimpressed all the same)
> audience, there is nothing he can do about it except play for those
> who are enjoying it and finish the night out.

And there is nothing we can do about it except to alert others that this
is what they might expect in a similar circumstances, and learn how to
improve on it in our own work.

- - ---------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: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:33:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: [e-mail] (Theo Klaase)
Subject: Zorn completist.

If I was wealthy, I'd have no problem buying each JZ Cd available.  I
wouldn't want to miss a particular amazing song that's possibly out
there floating on some disc I don't have.  Same goes for Zappa and
others such.  But I do agree that it is good not to fall into a rut of
only purchasing one artist offerings.   It's narrow-mindedness.  Please,
let us avoid that at all cost.


- -Theo


- -

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:35:05 -0400
From: David Keffer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tony Conrad

[e-mail] wrote:
>Well, then, perhaps the problem is in the composition. A piece designed to
>be performed before an audience must take the audience into account...
>He [Tony Conrad] has been playing this same work for many years.
>He has, no doubt, been able to hear feedback from his audiences.

I hear what you are saying about the performance experience
but I don't think it is within the privileges of the listener
to expect that the performer change what they are doing
based on the listener's response to the music.

I too have attended experimental shows where I could not believe
what I was hearing.  I attended a Borbetomagus show once, with little
advanced warning.  The deafening and piercing cacophony of that band
was news to me. I was staggered and wincing for about fifteen minutes
until I left with a headache.  But I am not about to expect
Borbetomagus to change their sound.

I have also seen Ornette Coleman (with Prime Time) where I had
a good deal of advance information but was simply horrified by
the dismal new age calamity I witnessed.  I stuck it through
just to hear the infrequent sax solos.  Again, I am not going
to expect that Ornette Coleman disavow himself of all doings with
about half of the other members in that performance (which is what I
think would have been a good idea).

It is certainly within the privileges of the listener to leave.
It is also perfectly legitimate and intelligent to comment on the
performance as you did.  However, I don't think one can expect
the performer to alter their music based on critical or mainstream
review.  The fundamental problem of popular music is just this:
recording artists are encouraged to alter their music to fit a mold, in this
case a mold defined by what is commercially marketable.  There is
a virtue in sticking to one's guns.  Admittedly that virtue does not
invariably equate to excellent music, but then again some virtues
are useless and self-defeating but virtuous nonetheless.

>After all, this power situation that he creates is precisely that which he
>claims to detest in all his writings.

I don't think that Conrad's writing of the power situation involved
the power of performer over audience (which is pretty much ubiquitous
in any live setting) as much as the power of one performer over
other members of the ensemble...  (but I could be wrong; it's been a
while since I read the Conrad liner notes in the Table of the Elements
boxed set and his writings in the magazine Halana!.)

>And there is nothing we can do about it except to alert others that this
>is what they might expect in a similar circumstances...

Of course, I agree with you on this, and this is why we subscribe to the
Zorn digest.
But this was not the argument of the original post.  Anyway, thanks for
clarifying your point.

David K.

p.s.  Are there now two boxed sets of Conrad's work?


- -

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:54:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph S. Zitt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tony Conrad

On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, David Keffer wrote:

> I hear what you are saying about the performance experience
> but I don't think it is within the privileges of the listener
> to expect that the performer change what they are doing
> based on the listener's response to the music.

Ideally, the performer and audience have a symbiotic relationship, each
affecting the other. (Most ideally, there is no difference between
performer and audience, just people gathered together in a flexible
combination of people contribuing sound and peple contributing attention.)
I think there's a middle ground between being completely at the will of
the audience (at which point you become rather like a player at a piano
bar taking requests (not that that's necessarily a bad thing)) and
completely ignoring the audience (in which case you might as well have
stayed home and let someone play a CD).

> I too have attended experimental shows where I could not believe
> what I was hearing.  I attended a Borbetomagus show once, with little
> advanced warning.  The deafening and piercing cacophony of that band
> was news to me. I was staggered and wincing for about fifteen minutes
> until I left with a headache.  But I am not about to expect
> Borbetomagus to change their sound.

In that case you voted with your feet, being in a situation where it was
possible to do so. But you probably wished you had known what you were in
for ahead of time.

In Comma performances, we try to organise things so people can move in and
out with minimum disruption (which is admittedly hard in conventional
performance spaces). I like the freedom this allows, though it is someimes
more of a challenge.

> I have also seen Ornette Coleman (with Prime Time) where I had
> a good deal of advance information but was simply horrified by
> the dismal new age calamity I witnessed.  I stuck it through

Was this the Civilization shows last year, or something earlier? I saw him
perform a lot in the 80s, and find it hard to imagine a Prime Time show as
a  "dismal new age calamity". But perhaps some of the newer directions on
Tone Dialing were taken to an extreme.

> I don't think that Conrad's writing of the power situation involved
> the power of performer over audience (which is pretty much ubiquitous
> in any live setting) as much as the power of one performer over
> other members of the ensemble...  (but I could be wrong; it's been a
> while since I read the Conrad liner notes in the Table of the Elements
> boxed set and his writings in the magazine Halana!.)

From what I can understand of his writings (and, admittedly, when he gets
off onto the Pythagoras thing it gets a bit hard to follow, he is against
the whole star system in general. That he is now participating in it, with
fancy Web sites, magazine covers, and expensive product, is a
contradiction what he may not yet have consciously addressed.

> p.s.  Are there now two boxed sets of Conrad's work?

From what I've heard, _Early Minimalism: Volume Two_ is due in the fall.

- - ---------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: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 17:01:07 -0400
From: Kevin Neales <[e-mail]>
Subject: Praxis

I noticed a Praxis Compilation CD at a record store today. It has all
previously released material including one Death Cube K song.  It is on
the Douglas label, but the packaging looked really cheap.

However, I also noticed on the Koch webpage that there is a new Praxis
album due out this month called Mold on the Yikes label.  Does anyone
know anything about this?? Who plays on it????

                                                   Thanks,
                                                     Kevin N.

- -

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

End of Zorn List Digest V2 #440
*******************************


 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]