ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v02.n554

Internet Message Format | 1998-12-15 | 21KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V2 #554
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest      Tuesday, December 15 1998      Volume 02 : Number 554



In this issue:
-
       Re: Penguin Guide
       Re: Penguin Guide
       Free Jazz (semi-longish)
       Improv/Penguin
       Re: Penguin Guide
       Re:  Free Jazz (semi-longish)
       Re: Penguin Guide
       Re: Improv/Penguin
       Re: Penguin Guide
       Re:  Improv/Penguin
       Re: Penguin Guide
       Re: Improv/Penguin

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:43:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Brent Burton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Penguin Guide

On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Patrice L. Roussel wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:26:07 -0500 (EST)  Brent Burton wrote:

> > think there comes a point when the refinement becomes static (like hard
> > bop in the late fifties/early sixties), but seeing that the free community
> > has almost entirely avoided the stagnation of repertory, i think that there
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I am curious to know where you read about that. It seems to me akin to
> Christians saying that the existence of God has not been questioned for the
> past 300 years... You statement has more to do with faith than with
> facts. Or your statement comes from an insider that has not taken the
> temperature outside for a long time :-).

what are you talking about?  there *is no* free jazz repertory in the sense
that there is a bop or dixieland repertory.  with the exception of a few
instances, you don't see groups playing playing free jazz standards (for
lack of a better phrase) for their whole set.  my whole point was that
there is more interest in reinvention within the free jazz community than
in other genres that fall under the rubric of jazz.  just because "touching
on trane" is a trio date with all-acoustic instruments doesn't mean that
they are aping anyone.  they don't even play coltrane songs!  yet you say
that it's stagnant?  i say that it stems from a tradition, just as
(bluegrass banjo player) roscoe holcomb was influenced by (bluegrass banjo
player) dock boggs.  if you listen to recordings of these guys, you
can't tell when they were recorded (fidelity aside).  they both have the
spark of innovation and you can't say the same thing for a lee morgan
record vs. a wynton marsalis record.  i think you're reading something
into my statement that just isn't there.  my original point was that
attempts to canonize works are often arbitrary.  i also think that it's
kind of shortsighted to dismiss gayle, because he plays improvised jazz
which is influenced by coltrane.  hell, you'd have to shoot every tenor
saxophonist around today if you wanted to eradicate that influence.  and,
yes, there are a lot of totally unique improv recordings made every year.
some of my favorites this past year were from joe morris, ken vandermark,
marc ducret, william parker, derek bailey and joe mcphee.  not all brand
spankin' new names, but certainly not all 30 years old.

b

- -

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:14:51 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph S. Zitt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Penguin Guide

While in strictly improvisational music there, of course, aren't cases of
people playing preexisting pieces, there are well known gestures and
structures that people fall into as an earlier jazzer might fall into
playing the Rhythm changes. We've all heard them, and when we find
ourselves uninspired at a free-improv performance, either as performer or
audient, there's usually one or more of them happening.

There's the frenetic blowing of saxophones as fast and loud as possible...
the walls of guitar feedback... the "everybody plink" moment with
strings... the random orgasmic sounds of vocalists...

A cause and effect of these is often an inability or unwillingness to
listen to the others playing. Quite often, a player hitting one of these
tropes, can shut down perception and just plow ahead (knowing that some of
the audience will get off on it due to sheer volume or weirdness and that
others will assume that there's something more, rather than less, going on
than they can comprehend).

The trick/point is to, as Miles put it, "play what you don't know"... and
of course, to know enough of what has gone before to recognize the cliches
when they happen and redirect yourself.

I've never heard Charles Gayle, Joe McFee, or Mark Ducret, and have never
played the one Joe Morris CD that I have. Time for more investigation...

(Speaking of careful group interaction, I just finished listening to disk
4 of Braxton at Willisau and have popped disk one back in.  After not
"geting" Braxton for years, this set lays out what's happening
beautifully, as much due to Graham Lock's liner notes as to the music
itelf. I'm now devouring "Forces in Motion" to get the rest of the
story...)

- - ---------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, 15 Dec 1998 17:21:17 -0500 (EST)
From: William York <[e-mail]>
Subject: Free Jazz (semi-longish)

> Anyway, I am seriously wondering where is the flaw there. Critics who can't
> stop whining at the past and jump on anything which could reassure them that
> the old days are still there? WASPs who feel guilty for having missed the
> '60s free-jazz and find in Gayle an excuse to repare the mistake (with an
> indulgence that almost looks like total lack of critic judgement). Kids
> who discovered jazz four years ago when Thurston Moore and Henry Rollins
> told them that there was music besides rock?

I have all of these same suspicions, not to say that I don't like some of
this stuff a lot (M. Shipp's "Prism" for ex.), but its 'popularity' does
certainly owe something to this recent hipness.  These folks have been
around for 20-25 years and people are treating it like its a new thing.

I also feel like the "spirituality" aspect gets overbearing - I'm not
saying its not there or not sincere or even that its not responsible for
creating inspired moments in the music- but I do think a lot of white
people (I know this to be true in some cases) put on the blinders when
someone plays a shitty solo or the music just doesn't work - "It's
all about sprituality and emotion" or something, they say.  That gets old
for me.

> to asking "well, wire were good, but what's the point of fugazi?"  (or
> even "julius hemphill was good, but what's the point of tim berne?")  i

Eck, are you serious! There's certainly a bigger difference in Berne,
like w/ Bloodcount, and Hemphill (or Fugazi and Wire) than Gayle/Ware and
Coltrane/Ayler.  Is there not? I was just listening to the recent William
Parker In Order To Survive CD, which is good, but compared to Nefertiti,
done 37 years earlier, I don't know.  I feel like it (Parker's stuff) gets
more predictable and has more of a tendency to dead end than what Taylor
and co. were doing, which to me is not a sign of refinement.

> bop in the late fifties/early sixties), but seeing that the free community
> has almost entirely avoided the stagnation of repertory, i think that there
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe it has avoided reportory, but a lot of it reaches the same
conclusions in terms of the dynamics and development (I know its wrong to
generalize but...).  Whereas with people like Hemphill I feel like there's
more of a development and a move away from the same "start quiet, build,
get loud, quiet down, draw it out too long" kind of thing.

> You might feel that way because everybody outside improv just don't care
> about the genre anymore. It was maybe the same in the '70s, but improv
> had the benefit of the novelty at that time, and some people were seriously
> believing that it was the next hot shit in music.

Well a lot of indie/post-rock people seem to think the same thing.  I
think its good that people like Roy Campbell, Assif Tsahar, as well as
Shipp and Parker and all those are getting exposure, but I wonder how long
it will be until the fad dies off with these younger people (my age
group), the record companies lose too much money, and then its back to
Cadence/Coda land for all these musicians.

Feel free to correct me because I'm relatively new compared to some of the
people here - just my pt. of view

WY


- -

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:42:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Jason Caulfield Bivins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Improv/Penguin

Hi,

It's just a tad ironic that what began as an exchange about the
arbitrariness of lists as evaluations (a touch subject for this group),
the exchange should've morphed into an attempted referendum on the state
of "improv" music.

I should say first of all that I agree with much of what Patrice has said
about the period in the late 60s-early 70s when "improv" was a relatively
new form. But, as might be evident by the use of scare quotes around the
term, this wasn't a tremendously long moment. Granted, there are still
those who, like Charles Gayle, have continued to explore completely
free-form improvisation (and I'm tempted to enumerate the other players
who I feel have done interesting things with this sub-tradition, like Evan
Parker, Marilyn Crispell, Mats Gustafsson, Joe Morris, etc.). But the
interesting story, both musically and culturally, has been the ways in
which traditions have cross-pollinated, structure and improvisation
negotiated for musical space, and in which new techniques and audiences
have pumped life into various idioms (few of which might be considered
"free," a term that practitioners themselves all too rarely use).

As for the Thurston Moore stuff, I sympathize to a degree. But why
complain if the audience for this music can grow, and if 20-somethings
like me were reared on hardcore and shifted into improv-core sometime in
the early 90s? Speaking as both a Sonic Youth and a Cecil Taylor fan, it
seems to me that what's vital about them both is that they've actively
pursued the creation of a unique sound-world. That, in my opinion, is a
substantive musical contribution that exists independently of its formal
attributes.

And oh yeah, why no 5-star ratings for Mr. Braxton?

Jason Bivins


- -

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:25:08 -0500
From: Tom Pratt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Penguin Guide

Really interesting comments from Patrice...

Think of all that we attack Wynton Marsalis for - trying to keep alive an old form
of music that we believe to be dead. We accuse him of not causing any true musical
progress. Well, the music Wynton is trying to uphold was as innovative at the time
as free improv and avant-garde jazz was in the 60's. Why should attempting to
uphold the standards of the latter be more valid than what Wynton does? Perhaps
that is not the real problem many have with Wynton... perhaps it is more an
aesthetic issue (or maybe more realistically his attitude). I think free-improv
fanatics should have a little more perspective though.

There are definitely free jazz cliches! Did anyone see the Glenn Spearman
performance at FITV this summer? (perhaps that is unfair because he was quite ill
and has since died - really very sad...) I could hardly stand it. Some other guy
took the mouthpiece out of his horn and wailed on it... big fucking deal. I was
bored silly until Parker and Brotzmann - but then again, I've heard enough
Brotzmann.

                                    -Tom Pratt


- -

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:38:53 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re:  Free Jazz (semi-longish)

I think it's important to differentiate the NY-based "ecstatic jazz" scene
from improv in general. as far as Patrice's remarks apply to the NY scene
(Gayle, Ware, Shipp, Parker, etc.), I actually agree for the most part. but
that doesn't mean that improv is stagnant by any means.

Jon

- -

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:29:19 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Penguin Guide

patrice said:

<<Is it not surprising that the main names that
we are still dropping these days are the ones who created the genre... 30
years ago? >>

Patrice, maybe you're just not listening to the right records. there's good
records and bad records in any genre, no one's disputing that. some of the
improv records that I was really into this year by younger, lesser known
artists were:

Simon Fell-Composition No. 30: Compilation III (double CD on Bruce's Fingers)
Martin Klapper & Roger Turner-Recent Croaks (Acta)
Gunter Muller & Jim O'Rourke-Weighting (For 4 Ears)
RST-R136a (Ecstatic Peace)
Martin Tetreault-La Nuit Ou J'Ai Dit Non (Audioview)
Voice Crack-Below Beyond Above (Uhlang)

it's hard for really young musicians to make great improv records, as I think
experience really helps in this genre. yeah, Cecil Taylor, Evan Parker and
Derek Bailey are still doing great stuff. does that make improv a stagnant
genre? certainly not. and as for your assertion that no one cares about improv
anymore, I don't agree at all. I think it's gradually infiltrating more and
more musicians' and critics' mindsets, if not the actual music.

Jon

- -

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:51:08 -0500
From: Tom Pratt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Improv/Penguin

> I should say first of all that I agree with much of what Patrice has said
> about the period in the late 60s-early 70s when "improv" was a relatively
> new form. But, as might be evident by the use of scare quotes around the
> term, this wasn't a tremendously long moment. Granted, there are still
> those who, like Charles Gayle, have continued to explore completely
> free-form improvisation (and I'm tempted to enumerate the other players
> who I feel have done interesting things with this sub-tradition, like Evan
> Parker, Marilyn Crispell, Mats Gustafsson, Joe Morris, etc.).

uhh... Evan Parker was one of the free-improv innovators involved very early
(mid/late 60's) with the Spontaneous Music Ensemble. I believe his first
record was Derek Bailey's first as well - Withdrawl (66-67). I don't see why
he's clumped with the rest of the players you mentioned.

I agree though that Mats Gustafsson is a newcomer that is bringing some very
new ideas to the table. Whil influenced by both Parker and Brotzmann, I think
he's capable of making some really exciting music.

Why is it that many of the European free improvisors that pioneered the idiom
are still around and playing while the Americans from that period seemed to
have disappeared?

                                    -Tom Pratt


- -

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 19:14:50 -0300
From: Rick Lopez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Penguin Guide

Tom Pratt wrote:
>
> the music Wynton is trying to uphold was as innovative at the time
> as free improv and avant-garde jazz was in the 60's. Why should attempting to
> uphold the standards of the latter be more valid than what Wynton does?

I don't see this as an issue. I don't think anyone in improv is out
there doing what they do to "uphold a tradition"-- I see it more as a
choice of fuller palette, more colors, more options, etc. Also, it seems
to me that most of the folks doing improv are thus compelled. I mean
it's not a very smart career choice or anything! :-)

> I could hardly stand it. Some other guy
> took the mouthpiece out of his horn and wailed on it... big fucking deal.

I'd have to hear this wailing mouthpiece to know whether it was or was
not a big fuckeen deal. I mean, by the same token, and yes I'm
oversimplifying here-- what's the big deal of someone sitting down
playing a piano? It's been done before.

- --
Marilyn Crispell, Susie Ibarra, Sam Rivers, Matthew Shipp, David S.
Ware, and Reggie Workman discographies--Samuel Beckett Eulogy--Baseball
& the 10,000 Things--Time Stops--LOVETORN--HARD BOIL--etc.,  at:
http://www.velocity.net/~bb10k

***Very Various Music For Sale:
***http://www.velocity.net/~bb10k/4SALE.html

- -

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:11:29 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re:  Improv/Penguin

In a message dated 12/15/98 5:45:14 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

<<And oh yeah, why no 5-star ratings for Mr. Braxton?>>

he gets plenty of four-star ratings, including Willisau and most of the Ghost
Trance stuff. what should get five stars?

Jon

- -

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:24:12 -0500
From: Tom Pratt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Penguin Guide

Rick Lopez wrote:

> Tom Pratt wrote:
> >
> > the music Wynton is trying to uphold was as innovative at the time
> > as free improv and avant-garde jazz was in the 60's. Why should attempting to
> > uphold the standards of the latter be more valid than what Wynton does?
>
> I don't see this as an issue. I don't think anyone in improv is out
> there doing what they do to "uphold a tradition"

Well *are* they upholding a tradition? While I do like some of his records, I would
say that Charles Gayle is whether he is consciously attempting to or not.

> -- I see it more as a
> choice of fuller palette, more colors, more options, etc.

More options? Not if you limit yourself to the "standard" free improv group pumping
out ideas established in the 60's. I don't even care if it's the same guys who made
that shit back in the 60's and 70's. I'm pretty confident I won't buy another
Parker/Guy/Lytton CD for instance and it might take some talking into to buy any
more solo Bailey (I love both of them to death of course).

If free improv professes the concept of freedom of all pre-established structure,
why is it that so much of it sounds alike? It's because there is a form that has
been established. (I like Patrice's Bailey quote) There are cliches. There are
pre-established ideas which are engrained concepts of what free-improv *should* be.
It makes it pretty obvious why groups like AMM were/are really important - while
much of their music was similar to itself, it was nothing like anything else going
on.

I agree with Jon Abbey that there's some great improv happening now (and I would
second the handful of his suggestions that I've heard), but what makes them
important is that they are new uses of free improvisation outside of what's now
become traditional.

                                -Tom Pratt


- -

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 19:01:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Jason Caulfield Bivins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Improv/Penguin

Actually, I think a lot of the American folks are still around, just not
in as high-profile a fashion. CIMP has done sterling service in recording
folks like Frank Lowe, Kalaparush McIntyre, et. al. God only knows where
Marion Brown is either.

As for Parker's presence in my mini-list, I suppose I should've qualified
it by saying folks who are STILL doing interesting things (thinking in
particular of his electro-acoustic stuff of recent years) as well as
relative newcomers like Gustafsson.

I suppose the Euro/U.S. thing boils down, in many cases, to a question of
funding. As most of us know, some of the major European labels (like Hat)
receive state funding, and a lot of promotions/booking organizations in
regional scenes get buttloads of grant money. I was shocked, on reading
Kevin Whitehead's marvellous "New Dutch Swing", just how many guilders
were flyin' around at one point in the 70s and 80s -- much to the benefit
of the Breuker Kollektier, ICP, et. al. Alas, without similar sponsorship
in the states (or serious sweat on the DIY front, as in Chicago), the many
many active musicians just aren't getting heard. If American artists from
the "classic" era of "free" are getting steady work, it seems often to be
in Europe (Sam Rivers, Cecil Taylor just to name two).

I've always wondered how it is that JZ manages (financially, that is) his
prodigious output and label-overseeing. More power to him.

Wow, I think this is more bandwidth than I've taken up in months. Enough
from me.

JB


- -

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

End of Zorn List Digest V2 #554
*******************************


 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]