ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v02.n446

Internet Message Format | 1998-08-19 | 21KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V2 #446
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest       Thursday, August 20 1998       Volume 02 : Number 446



In this issue:
-
       Re: San Francisco (Zorn, Praxis, Patton, Frith, Negativland, etc.)
       Skills and all aesthetic discussion on zorn list.
       RE: Shopping in San Fran
       Re: Skills and all aesthetic discussion on zorn list.
       Re: everyone can make music
       Re: everyone can make music
       Re: Skills and all aesthetic discussion on zorn list.
       Re: everyone can make music
       Re: Skills and all aesthetic discussion on zorn list.
       New Don Byron
       Re: Skills and all aesthetic discussion on zorn list.
       Re: everyone can make music
       Re[2]: Skills and all aesthetic discussion on zorn list.
       skills and all aesthetic discussion on zorn list
       Re: New Don Byron

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 19:10:52 -0700
From: "Keith McMullen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: San Francisco (Zorn, Praxis, Patton, Frith, Negativland, etc.)

FWIW, Larry Ochs was anything but overbearing at the LA show. Masaoka plays
the most gorgeous koto I've ever seen and is a delight of delights to watch.
And Frith was absolutely stunning. Oh how he can use the strangest
techniques to make brilliantly crafted and beautiful music. Take something
to toss at Ochs if he returns from the dead or plays too much or too loud,
but by all means go.

Keith McMullen





- -

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 01:21:47 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Skills and all aesthetic discussion on zorn list.

there is no place for any of us to judge others.  If the artist has an
intention, and by some means creates that, or something he finds to be equally
valid, he will use it. If the artist finds the work to be shit, i doubt it
will be used. Another point is, art shouldn't be judged by the artists who
made it, or how it was made, but on the art itself. This is the only way we
can truly see the art, of course if we are looking for the exact meaning, we
might want to look to the artist. Another issue of art is why it is created.
Art exists for reflection of the society in which it was created, outside of
aesthetic levels. even if someone is playing 1930's swing in modern times, we
can trace everything to questions like, Why is music from the past still valid
now? If we go back to the 1930's we can ask, how did this society encouarge
the evolution of this style? Because for the most part, Artists live in
society, and if not the artists, the art certainly does.
I have countless people who i have tried to turn on to john zorn. And to nit-
pick on which of his pieces are valid, or anyone's pieces are valid, is a
waste of time, because the larger part of the world isn't listening :) I don't
mean to sound angry in anyway, i just sort of hoped that my ideas might help
clear things up.

- -

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 23:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: SUGAR in their vitamins? <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Shopping in San Fran

On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Benito Vergara wrote:

> Slim pickings for used Zorn right now; just came back from there this
> afternoon empty-handed (well, I did come back with the new Bettie Serveert).

i've found the Berkeley store to be
better for jazz selection.

too, the prices in Berkeley are
significantly cheaper. it's not
surprising. everything in SF is
artificially high. Amoeba is just
going with the flow.

hasta.

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


- -

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:13:24 -0400
From: Marc Downing <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Skills and all aesthetic discussion on zorn list.

This point:

>art shouldn't be judged by the artists who
>made it, or how it was made, but on the art itself.

may contradict this point:

>Art exists for reflection of the society in which it was created, outside of
>aesthetic levels.

unless you believe that artists must, by necessity and by intention, be
lenses for viewing a culture rather than an individual.  I'm unprepared to
accept that either is absolutely true.

>Because for the most part, Artists live in
>society, and if not the artists, the art certainly does.

So do you. So do I. So does our criticism.

>i just sort of hoped that my ideas might help
>clear things up.

Ideas like these are fascinating, but muckier than Lake Erie in spring.

Marc



- -

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 15:59:33 +0200
From: "J.T. de Boer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: everyone can make music

> From: "J.T. de Boer" <[e-mail]>
> > Why is music something *anyone* can make?
> > The language of music
> > may be harder to define, but that shouldn't be a reason to trie to
> > copy it and then say it's possible for anyone to make music.
>
> I have to disagree with this statement.  I remember reading in the
> liner notes of a Charles Ives record a statement that Leonard Bernstein
> made which ran, "The problem with minimalism is that anyone can do it."
> The statement posted above is similar in tone to this statement, which
> is basically a statement promoting elitism.

No it's not. I hate being called an elitist because I have certain
ideas about music, plus I disagree with Berstein that minimalism is
something anyone can do. Of course there are people who take the idea
of minimalist music (by hearing minimal music) and produce a
composition based on the parameters of minimalism, but I make a
distinction between people who can't work out an idea by themselves
and people who use the example to generate individual
ideas/compositions. I admit this is almost impossible to distinguish
but it's the theoretical idea I have. In this case people who can't
play an instrument can be good composers and vice versa.

>  Bernstein implies that
> "high art" must exclude the vast majority of the population.

He's wrong. Art in general  creates a distinction in a sociological
sense. I don't think art must be used to distinct, it's the
inevitable result of the being of art.

>  His statement
> says nothing about the quality of the music, only that something anyone
> can do has some intrinsic problem.  The idea, which you voice above, that
> not everyone can make music, forgets that everyone has hands and voices
> and creative impulses.

So someone who has a pair of legs, a pair of arms and a body plus a
creative idea about dancing can dance? I don't believe that theory
(but of course there are exceptions as in the book-example you
mention). I strongely believe that there are people who have
*creative impulses*  that are musically more valuable than other
peoples ideas. I say *musically*, because I DO think that the less
valuable ideas can be called music also, but we're making
value-judgements now and that's a completely other discussion.


Regards,

Jeroen



- -

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:13:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph S. Zitt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: everyone can make music

On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, J.T. de Boer wrote:

> So someone who has a pair of legs, a pair of arms and a body plus a
> creative idea about dancing can dance?

Undeniably.

Whether another person might be interested in watching that person dance
is an entirely different, and only distantly related question.

- - ---------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, 20 Aug 1998 07:18:56 -0700
From: "Keith McMullen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Skills and all aesthetic discussion on zorn list.

<<there is no place for any of us to judge others>>

Sure there is. There are a lot of places from which to judge others and
their ideas and their art. Just making the above statement is a rather
significant judgment in and of itself. What's wrong with discussing
judgements and debating them? Aren't we just pretending when we say we don't
have judgments, especially when it comes to our individual attitudes towards
and appreciation of music?

Keith



- -

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 07:26:52 -0700
From: "Keith McMullen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: everyone can make music

<<No it's not. I hate being called an elitist because I have certain
ideas about music>>

The whole 'elitist' argument is bogus. As soon as someone calls someone
'elitist' they are comitting the same act they are accusing the alleged
'elitist' of. They are saying their idea or opinion as a 'non-elitist' is
higher or better or more accurate than the opinion of the 'elitist' and in
so doing are contradicting themselves. Ken Wilber writes eloquently on this
point and on the nature of hierarchy (nee holarchy) in his book 'Sex,
Ecology, and Spirituality' which may provide a very nice model for
discussing the different levels of music.

np: Kenny G.

Keith




- -

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 98 09:42:27 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Skills and all aesthetic discussion on zorn list.

Orangejazz wrote:

>there is no place for any of us to judge others.

Oh, of course there is. Humans evolved to judge and differentiate, including
judging other people and their work. Your argument only holds water if you
bring in some religious imperative against judgment delivered from on high, in
which case argument becomes futile.

>  If the artist has an intention, and by some means creates that, or something
>he finds to be equally valid, he will use it. If the artist finds the work to
>be shit, i doubt it will be used.

Yeah, we should be so lucky. You vastly underestimate humans' capacity for
cynical manipulation (he said, cynically). Have you turned on the TV in the
last 30 years? Oh, you might say, but that's not art! Well, who are you to
judge that? TV sitcoms are certainly an art-form, even if 99%+ are god-awful.
Is it that unreasonable to pass judgment that "The Simpsons" is several orders
of magnitude "greater" than [pick your show]? Do you think the creators of "The
Love Boat" (thus risking the wrath of the rare JZ/Love Boat fan) were under the
delusion that they were creating anything other than a piece of shit? Do you
think Kenny G is? Exactly where along the line from Mr. Guralnik to Mr. Zorn do
you decide that it becomes "art"?

(snip)

> Art exists for reflection of the society in which it was created, outside of
>aesthetic levels.

I really hope you meant "as a" instead of "for". If not, I think you're way,
way off base.

     >I have countless people who i have tried to turn on to john zorn. And
     >to nit- pick on which of his pieces are valid, or anyone's pieces are
     >valid, is a waste of time, because the larger part of the world isn't
     >listening :)

     So, we should only discuss and criticize the Spice Girls?

     Brian (who thinks Scary Spice is the prettiest) Olewnick



- -

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:51:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: William York <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Don Byron

Anyone else got this?  I think it's awesome, similar to the title trk. on
Tuskeegee EXp with Sadiq narrating, but I have rarely heard such a good
and musical combination of this type of semi-spoken delivery w/ actual
well playedand written music.  Even if you profram out the spoken parts ,
there are still 60 min left nearly all excellent, and surprising that Blue
Note put something so non-lame out.

WY


- -

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:26:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Matthew Colonnese)
Subject: Re: Skills and all aesthetic discussion on zorn list.

>Orangejazz wrote:
>
>>there is no place for any of us to judge others.
>
>Oh, of course there is. Humans evolved to judge and differentiate, including
>judging other people and their work.Your argument only holds water if you
>bring in some religious imperative against judgment delivered from on high, in
>which case argument becomes futile.

As a biological-anthro major I heard a lot of wacky theories explaining how
and why humans evolved, but this is new.  We also evoloved separation of
work by sex, but this has rightly fallen into disrepute of late (in theory
if not practice so much).  There are a number of cognitive/logical
arguements we, as humans, make that have no firm grounding.  I would turn
your argument around and say the only way we can judge is if the rules of
such judgment are delivered from above.  You can decide not to like
something, come up with very interesting and informative, though ultimately
arbitrary, arguments to explain this dislike.  You could even form whole
schools of these critera, and as long as the rules are well understood, the
judgements would be valid.  But still arbitrary, or at least not
necessitated.

>Is it that unreasonable to pass judgment that "The Simpsons" is several orders
>of magnitude "greater" than [pick your show]? Do you think the creators of
>"The
>Love Boat" (thus risking the wrath of the rare JZ/Love Boat fan) were
>under the
>delusion that they were creating anything other than a piece of shit?

I think the creators of "The Simpsons" play upon the pseudo-rebellious
tastes of its target audience to the same degree as those of the "Love
Boat" (not that this statement does not imply either are cyncial). It's
just that their target is young, urban(e) and hip. And at least the latter
has the straight forward honesty to be all shmarmy about the wonder of love
etc...while "The Simpsons" comes off as tired, hip and cynical and comes to
the same conclusions.

matt, who learned much of the flora and fauna of Australia from a Love Boat
special, but little from The Simpsons.  Yet still watches The Simpsons far
more.




- ------
"Finally, a thing-a-ma-giggy that would bring people together...even if it
kept them apart, spatially."



- -

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:44:22 -0400
From: David Keffer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: everyone can make music

Keith McMullen writes:
>The whole 'elitist' argument is bogus. As soon as someone calls someone
>'elitist' they are comitting the same act they are accusing the alleged
>'elitist' of. They are saying their idea or opinion as a 'non-elitist' is
>higher or better or more accurate than the opinion of the 'elitist' and in
>so doing are contradicting themselves.

This statement is sophistry.  All of us know have encountered an
elitist situation at some time and are fully capable of identifying
it as elitism.  To recognize a person as an elitist is not an elitist
act, just as acknowledging that a person is a racist is not a racist
act.

Your statement is a textbook example of the common inability
to distinguish between an intellectual observation and personal
judgment based on the observation.  To identify a person as an
elitist is different from condemning or praising the person
for the elitist act (and thus participating in elitism oneself).

This post has nothing to do with the original musical discussion,
but I felt inclined to argue that "The whole 'elitist' argument is
not bogus."

David K.



- -

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 98 14:18:43 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re[2]: Skills and all aesthetic discussion on zorn list.



I wrote:

>> Humans evolved to judge and differentiate, including judging other people
>>and their work.Your argument only holds water if you bring in some religious
>>imperative against judgment delivered from on high, in which case argument
>>becomes futile.

     you replied:

>As a biological-anthro major I heard a lot of wacky theories explaining
>how and why humans evolved, but this is new.

Hi Matt,

I may have been less than clear, but I didn't mean to imply that these were
the _only_ reasons humans evolved, but these qualities were certainly opted
for. Early humans, for example, needed to judge the differences in fruit to
determine which were poisonous and which not (or which were more or less
healthy, sweet, etc.). Judgmental abilities were in high demand when
complete information was lacking. Similarly, the ability to read gestures,
facial expressions etc. in otherwise unknown humans would, I think, be
quite beneficial to an individual's chances of survival and would've been
strongly opted for. Eventually, I imagine (I'm no former bio-anthro major
so I defer to your um, judgment, if this is off-base), one's differential
ability was used to judge whose sandals looked better-made and whose icon
was likelier to protect the family tent. From there to art critics...

My point was simply that judging and evaluating everything, including art,
seems to me an innately human attribute. And not, necessarily, a bad one.

     Brian Olewnick









- -

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:43:45 -0700
From: "Christian Heslop" <[e-mail]>
Subject: skills and all aesthetic discussion on zorn list

    "Art exists for reflection of the society in which it was created, outside
of
    aesthetic levels."

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here...(reflection "on" maybe?) but you
seem to be saying that one form of judgement is "valid" and the other is
not. Rather than proscribing criticism you seem to be establishing a new
criterion upon which all works may be judged. Example...

    " Artists live in society, and if not the artists, the art certainly
does."
    "Why is music from the past still valid now?"...
    "how did this society encouarge the evolution of this style?"

I have reversed the order of your comments but I don't believe that I have
changed the meaning by doing so.  You seem to be saying that music can be
considered (judged?) against the relationship of the artist's work to
society.  Is a work without the proper cultural context for it's existence
a "valid" one? You also seem to be assuming that society is the catalyst
for artistic change. I believe however that an artist creates an atmosphere
for artistic revolution..how else can we explain resistance? But whether
symbols influence a culture or culture influences symbols...I don't know.

    "Another issue of art is why it is created"

Then you have given us another criterion for criticism. If art has a "why"
then if that "why" is not satisfied it must be invalid. For criticism to be
invalid, artistic endeavour has to be completely motiveless.

    "If the artist finds the work to be shit, I doubt it
    will be used."

And what if it is? Are we still unable to judge? You have again implied
that there are standards for judging art. I don't really see the difference
between creator judgement and witness judgement if art "exists for the
reflection of society" I don't have the space to finish attacking what you
thought would "clear everything up". Forgive the vitriol but thats pretty
arrogant.


- -

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

Date: 20 Aug 1998 19:03:07 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Mike Chamberlain)
Subject: Re: New Don Byron

William York,[e-mail],Internet writes:
>Anyone else got this?  I think it's awesome, similar to the title trk. on
>Tuskeegee EXp with Sadiq narrating, but I have rarely heard such a good
>and musical combination of this type of semi-spoken delivery w/ actual
>well playedand written music.  Even if you profram out the spoken parts ,
>there are still 60 min left nearly all excellent, and surprising that Blue
>Note put something so non-lame out.

I've only had a chance to listen to about half of the album.  Nobody can
accuse Byron or Blue Note of playing things safe, that's for sure.  It's
already a subject of discussion on Amos's Sandbox (a/k/a rec.music.bluenote).
 I'll bet the album gets more bad than good reviews, but I like what I have
heard of it.  Both the music and the poetry stand up.

- --Mike

WY


- -



- -

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

End of Zorn List Digest V2 #446
*******************************


 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]