ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v02.n442

Internet Message Format | 1998-08-17 | 22KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V2 #442
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest       Tuesday, August 18 1998       Volume 02 : Number 442



In this issue:
-
       Re: tony conrad's no bomb, but the bomb
       Non-musicians can't improv???  Nuts to that!!
       Re: Non-musicians can't improv???  Nuts to that!!
       Re: experimental/ skills
       Re: Tri-Centric Festival, NYC
       Miles Concert tapes
       Re: experimental/ skills
       Marc Downing
       Re: Non-musicians can't improv???  Nuts to that!!
       Re: Non-musicians can't improv???

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 00:38:16 -0400
From: Joseph Zitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: tony conrad's no bomb, but the bomb

Matthew Colonnese wrote:
> All of these can be usefull descriptors of why one person did or did not
> like a piece of music, but too often (and I sense of whiff of this in
> Joseph's responces to TC*) they are used as universal measures of success
> or failure of piece.  They are nothing of the sort.  They are fairly
> arbitrary assumptions about artistic value used to reductively analyze
> music and then give these analyses some objectivity.

One light bulb goes on for me in reading this: if, in experiencing music,
I enjoy it at a gut level, I often don't dissect it very much, unless
it's in the sense of seeing what makes it tick so I can incorporate
those elements in my own work. If I dislike something, though, (and I'm
frequently razzed by my more judgmental friends about how rarely I ever
dislike anything), I tend to try to break it down into figuring out
what was meant, how it was done, the conditions in which it happened,
and the like, in the hopes of learning exactly what it was that didn't
work for me and how to avoid it. Experiencing the Conrad performance
helped me come to some realisations about duration, performance
structure, and performance space organisation that I hope to be able to
use in creating my own performances.

- --
- ---------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: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 01:07:51 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Adam MacGregor)
Subject: Non-musicians can't improv???  Nuts to that!!

: Let me present
: you with an example from my area. A band in my town formed that was billing
: itself as a noise band. Having been acquainted with a few of the members of
: this band I knew full well that none of them (not one single one) had any
: idea how to even play their instrument. This is not good, improv in
: ignorance is akin to having no human intelligence actually attempting to
: affect sound. This is not music...it is not "organised sound". It is akin
: "to an act of nature or the sounds of machines. Without human interference
: they may be beautiful but they are not music. Needless to say, the
: performances of thisband were embarassing. They managed to pose as
: revolutionaries.Locally of course. But again if listening isn't enough to
: tell-perhaps you need to reexamine your understanding of music.Sorry about
: the essay....


OK...I have to take issue with this cat...What about the work of the
Nihilist Spasm Band?  For those of you on this list who may be unfamiliar,
I'd highly recommend checking out their stuff, it's all on import from
Alchemy.  These guys started a band with no desire at all to learn how to
play music on traditional instruments, even.  They began as a kazoo band in
1965 in London, Ontario, Canada and are still in existence today.  I had the
great pleasure to catch most of a show that they did in Pittsburgh, PA, last
October and was thoroughly impressed (after I had some time to sort out what
exactly the fuck I had just witnessed).  Their music is wholly improvised on
homemade instruments, and they're led by a cat named Bill Exeley who reads
his own language-poetry type texts in a basso profundo over a total wall of
clattering percussion, violin and guitar scree, kazoo shreiking, and
sometimes a theremin, according to thier webpage.  Check it out at
http://www3.sympatico.ca/pratten/NSB/ for some mind-blowing info.

I think that they provide sort of a nice contrast to improv music as an
otherwise "serious" and "groundbreaking" medium--rather, they sound like a
bunch of guys who are interested in presenting chaotic sound at "play," as
in Romper Room after a truckload of pixie-stix, if you know what i mean.


- --adam


- -

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 22:41:26 -0700
From: "Christian Heslop" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Non-musicians can't improv???  Nuts to that!!

Mr. MacGregor,
    I didn't say that non-musicians were incapable of improvisation. That
would indeed be the only thing that they were capable of. My point was that
the "quality" of music can only be judged with knowledge of the performer's
intention otherwise if you enjoy something then there is no need to
persuade yourself otherwise. I personally enjoy The Jackson Fives "Dancin'
Machine" more than I do Stravinsky's Sym. in e-flat major. I see no reason
to question this. My other point was that if you can't determine the
difference between good and bad music when listening to it then you may
have a problem with your understanding of music. How else could you
determine it's quality if not by merely listening to it.
    "Musicians" are of course capable of producing bad music. Non-musicians
are not technically capable of producing good music when improvising, they
may simply find that they have done so. I'm frustrated...what exactly do
you mean by non-musicians? I personally feel that non-musicians would be
more likely to rely on the limited patterns that they can predict when
"improvising" than a skilled player would be. I find abhorrent the notion
that it is some sort of virtue to want to play music in ignorance.  I doubt
that such people can truly be said to love music. And after many encounters
with people who have done these same sorts of projects my assumptions have
been borne out. They seem to be more interested in thumbing their noses at
people who have made an effort to learn something about the medium. "you
don't need to learn music man...you just do it!" I can not verify your
example because I am not familiar with it, but nor can I discount it except
that you didn't really make clear whether they really were non-musicians
(people that don't know how to use an object to make sounds that they can
predict). If they are non-musicians then their product is not music...it is
sound


- -

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:45:36 +0200
From: [e-mail] (Chris Genzel)
Subject: Re: experimental/ skills

>> 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.
>> Experiment in the lab, if you want. Ap aying audience has a right to
>> expect at least a modicum of effectiveness.
>
> John Cage didn't like to use the word 'experimental' for his music for
> precisely this reason, that it implied somehow that the music wasn't
> "ready" yet.

    "I'll never forget what I experienced in the 60's when I played with
     Miles Davis. I learned such a lot when I was a member of his quintet.
     Saxophonist George Coleman used to practise in his room all day,
     experimenting on various scales and melodies. One day Miles said to
     him, 'I don't pay you for experimenting up in your room. I pay you
     for doing it with the band on stage.' And Miles was right. Experiment
     takes place in front of an audience, and the audience is a part of it.
     The true experimental field for a musician is the stage, and only
     during the concert there are moments of truth."
    (Herbie Hancock in an interview with Der Spiegel)


> you should start at the beginning-Monteverdi or something. Let me present
> you with an example from my area. A band in my town formed that was billing
> itself as a noise band. Having been acquainted with a few of the members of
> this band I knew full well that none of them (not one single one) had any
> idea how to even play their instrument. This is not good, improv in
> ignorance is akin to having no human intelligence actually attempting to
> affect sound. This is not music...it is not "organised sound". It is akin
> to an act of nature or the sounds of machines. Without human interference
> they may be beautiful but they are not music. Needless to say, the
> performances of thisband were embarassing. They managed to pose as
> revolutionaries.Locally of course. But again if listening isn't enough to

 But Arto Lindsay couldn't play the guitar as well. And he clearly couldn't
 sing. Myself, I can't play an instrument, but I'm the leader of a free-improv
 group. And I feel that we sound interesting nevertheless, and our performances
 could compare to, say, Material's Live From Soundscape (I realized this only
 after some performances, which means it's no plagiatism).

 Kind regards,
 - Chris.

 ---------------------------------------------
 *    Chris Genzel --- [e-mail]    *
 * Homepage & Herbie Hancock discography at: *
 *    http://home.t-online.de/home/stamil/   *
 ---------------------------------------------


- -

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 08:41:24 -0400
From: David Beardsley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tri-Centric Festival, NYC

>  [e-mail] wrote:
>
>
>      Visiting the Braxton-oriented Tri-Centric site at:
>
>         http://www-osf.wesleyan.edu/music/braxton
>
>      I saw the listing of this festival to take place at Greenwich House on
>      the weekends of 9/24-9/26 and 10/1-10/3. Though Braxton the composer
>      won't, apparently, be represented, he is performing with a number of
>      ensembles. Leading those groups will be: Rozanne Levin, Kevin Norton,
>      Seth Misterka, Taylor Ho Bynum, Morgan O'Hara, Bruce Morris, David
>      Novak, Jackson Moore, Richard McGee III, James Fei, Kevin O'Neil, Joe
>      Fonda, Brandon Evans and Chris Jonas, all of whom, I suppose, have
>      some relationship with AB at Wesleyan. I'm only familiar with two or
>      three of these names, mostly from work with Braxton. If anyone knows
>      more about any of these folk, I'd be curious to hear your impressions
>      of their music.

James Fei has been in Braxton's ensemble for a few years. He'sa student where Braxton
teaches.


- --
* D a v i d        B e a r d s l e y
*           [e-mail]
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n     E z i n e
* M E L A  v i r t u a l  d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm



- -

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:17:06 GMT0BST
From: DR S WILKIE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Miles Concert tapes

Hi,

just an off the cuff request, but if anyone has any Miles davis
concert recordings (audience, radio, whatever) that they'd be willing
to copy/trade, could they mail me off list ([e-mail]) with
the location and date of the concerts?  I'm afraid there's a lot I
don't want, but it would be too long to type out a list either way.
Also, I'll be away for a couple of weeks, so don't expect a quick
reply!  Thanks,

Sean

- -

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 06:16:53 -0700
From: "Christian Heslop" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: experimental/ skills

Chris,
    I think I would have to go with Varese on that question. But I do agree
somewhat with Miles Davis in terms of his purpose, if he wants to
experiment on stage then he isn't doing anything wrong by doing so. The
nature of jazz being improvisational I'm not really sure that you can still
call it experimental to do so in a "jazz" context and call experimenting.
Jazz musicians know what they are doing. I don't think that there is
anything more "experimental" about improv alone-it simply demands that you
compose more quickly.
    As to what you do...you say you are a non-musician?Then what are you
doing?! You and Mr.MacGregor seem to believe that I represent some sort of
classical music establishment or something in my definitions of musicians.
A musician is simply one who organises sound for a purpose-expressing with
sound alone (versus language). I also happen to believe that if the
"musician" is not aware of what they are producing then they are not
involved in any type of organisation-they are simply making sounds. If you
didn't know what it was going to sound like before you made it then you
can't possibly argue that there is a process of building going on that the
performer can take credit for. When you make music are you really unaware
of what you are doing-are your musical decisions based on your limited
musical vocabulary or do you free yourself of these constraints by being
ignorant (you said it). Do you think random noise is music?Do people
seriously believe that years of paractice etc. only limit the creative
wonders of the human ear. That's absurd-keep in mind I'm not saying to
limit yourself to instruments or written music BUT...
    You have to know what you're doing.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:09:23 -0700
From: "Christian Heslop" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Marc Downing

I have a much broader def. of musician than you seem to think I do. An
effect of being a non-musician is not a definition (not technically capable
of producing etc.)My point about the Jackson five was exactly that AND I
never have made any statement about loftier purposes or baser purposes.
What does it matter? Your purpose is a personal thing. I draw a distinct
line between quality and preference and that is what the Jackson/Stravinsky
example was for. It seems I am having trouble understanding what you mean
by "non-musician". That was what I was asking you when I said that (your
tech proficiecy quote) try re-reading it.I said exactly that the only way
one could determine the quality of music was by judging it's establishment
of creator purpose. So I don't think you could say that I claim to know the
difference between good and bad music. Musical ignorance is my paraphrase
of a condition expressed by someone in an earlier post-people who don't
know what they are doing musically.I don't think this means someone who
can't read music or play a traditional instrument. There is no virtue in
ignorance.My examples may be offensive but so is your complete
misunderstanding of what I said. My reactions to performers like this are
based only on personal experiences-I have seen nothing of virtue and no
love of music from these people. That is all I know. It might all have been
a little muddy- I have personal reasons why this topic can cloud my reason.
I invite you to email me so that we both have the oppurtunity to hash this
out.I dont want to burden this list any more than I have.
        [e-mail]

- -

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:08:06 -0400
From: Marc Downing <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Non-musicians can't improv???  Nuts to that!!

>the "quality" of music can only be judged with knowledge of the
>performer's intention

>I personally enjoy The Jackson Fives "Dancin'
>Machine" more than I do Stravinsky's Sym. in e-flat major. I see no reason
>to question this. My other point was that if you can't determine the
>difference between good and bad music when listening to it then you may
>have a problem with your understanding of music. How else could you
>determine it's quality if not by merely listening to it.

What were the intentions of the Jackson 5?  Are they, or is their music,
good or bad?  Are their aspirations, and therefore their intentions,
loftier or baser than those of Stravinsky?  Perhaps you consider it
unneccessary to judge the Jackson 5 because you enjoy them.

>    "Musicians" are of course capable of producing bad music. Non-musicians
>are not technically capable of producing good music when improvising, they
>may simply find that they have done so. I'm frustrated...what exactly do
>you mean by non-musicians?

It seems you already have an answer.  They are "not technically capable of
producing good music when improvising".  You also claim to know the
difference between good and bad music, even at a technical level.  I think
your intellectual position on the quality of music is based on your
definition of what musical "ignorance" is (see below).

>I personally feel that non-musicians would be
>more likely to rely on the limited patterns that they can predict when
>"improvising" than a skilled player would be. I find abhorrent the notion
>that it is some sort of virtue to want to play music in ignorance.  I doubt
>that such people can truly be said to love music. And after many encounters
>with people who have done these same sorts of projects my assumptions have
>been borne out. They seem to be more interested in thumbing their noses at
>people who have made an effort to learn something about the medium. "you
>don't need to learn music man...you just do it!" I can not verify your
>example because I am not familiar with it, but nor can I discount it except
>that you didn't really make clear whether they really were non-musicians
>(people that don't know how to use an object to make sounds that they can
>predict). If they are non-musicians then their product is not music...it is
>sound

I understand the "virtue in ignorance".  Intellectualizing something you
love can be the best way to kill it.  Your caricature of the "musically
ignorant" ("... don't need to learn music, man ...") is glib, and a little
offensive.  For some, playing and composing can be lifelong pursuits, but
the idea of "education" can be, at the same time, unproductive and
irrelevant.

The Nihilist Spasm band plays music, and makes sounds.  At the same time.

Marc



- -

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:37:24 +0200
From: "J.T. de Boer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Non-musicians can't improv???

> From:          "Christian Heslop" <[e-mail]>
> To:            <[e-mail]>
> Subject:       Re: Non-musicians can't improv???  Nuts to that!!
> Date:          Mon, 17 Aug 1998 22:41:26 -0700

> My point was that
> the "quality" of music can only be judged with knowledge of the performer's
> intention otherwise if you enjoy something then there is no need to
> persuade yourself otherwise.

I totally agree with you. I think the problem is the fact that some
of the music from for instance Zorn, Ribot, Baily etc. sounds like a
free experiment, but we all know these guys are absolutely familiar
with their instruments and have very clear visions of how it should
sound like. It's hard to determine though whether *soundsculptures*
of musicians we are not familiar with are meant to sound what they
sound like: are false tones always meant to be false? does the
drummer only want to play unregular rhythms?

>My other point was that if you can't determine the
> difference between good and bad music when listening to it then you may
> have a problem with your understanding of music.

You're right again.

> I find abhorrent the notion
> that it is some sort of virtue to want to play music in ignorance.  I doubt
> that such people can truly be said to love music.

No, they love to be cool... Being avantgarde is cool...

>They seem to be more interested in thumbing their noses at
> people who have made an effort to learn something about the medium. "you
> don't need to learn music man...you just do it!"

A few years ago I read an article in a dutch musicians magazine
called "Music Maker", which consisted of an interview with the
belgian band dEUS. They stated, out of the blue, that musicians like
Pat Metheny and Joe Satriani deserved to die, because they weren't
making music, but only playing notes. Satriani was a 'notefucker'
their guitarist said, because he played fast. I think this statements
of non-musicians or musicians who just can't play as well technically
as the musicians they critisize are just comments of pure
frustration. These people just don't like music! I've been a drummer
for 16 years (I'm 24 now) and I used to be frustrated to see
professional drummers play at clinics or regular concerts, because
they had chops I knew I never could play. But it's not the chops what
it's about, it's about musicality. Of course Satriani, Joey Baron
Chick Corea, Zorn, Ribot etc. can play fast, but they know when to do
it. They know when it's musically interesting. For me it took some
years to recognize the clear distinction between playing notes and
playing music. I know the chops of Joey Baron, I could write them
down and study on them, but what's the use of integrating them in
your own music when you only play it as a note-example? You may be
sounding like someone you respect, but is this what respect is about?
Please create your own ideas and use all the great music around as an
inspiration, don't use it as a symbol for fake-musicality!

>If they are non-musicians then their product is not music...it is
> sound

And anybody can make a scratcing sound on a distorted guitar.


Jeroen de Boer

- -

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

End of Zorn List Digest V2 #442
*******************************


 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]