ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v02.n679

Internet Message Format | 1999-06-15 | 20KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V2 #679
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest       Wednesday, June 16 1999       Volume 02 : Number 679



In this issue:
-
       Re: Waits 'n Stuff
       Re: Dead weight - was record collections
       dialectical materialism vs record collections
       Re: Dead weight - was record collections
       Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections
       Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections
       Re:  Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections
       Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections
       Kletka Red
       Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:33:26 -0700
From: s~Z <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Waits 'n Stuff

> I really like the way he
> moves around when he sings - it reminds me of a skeleton dancing around.
> He's truly quirky...
> Turkish Queen

and the way he SINGS when he moves around....I've seen him twice before,
and was still amazed at what he does with his voice.....much more
expressive than on recordings....much more extreme.....and the dirt
spread all over the platform he stands and stomps on.....for a while i
thought people were smoking.....it was a cloud of dust into which he
occasionally tossed handfuls of tinfoil confetti.....that visual image
alone captures the duplicity (multi-plicity) that is Tom
Waits.....scruffy lounge act performed to high prices in luxurious
halls.....get thee behind me mule.....

- -

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:41:17 -0700
From: "toddlike" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dead weight - was record collections

>
>Anyone care to indulge a thread about records/discs they own that get
played
>the least?
>
>Dale.
>

Why not?

Hermann Nitch's "Island" I have only ever listened to all the way through
once (thought it is 4CD's long, contrast this with Zorn's "Parachute Years"
8CD set which I have listened to many times...) it contains more use of a
whistle (the track and field type) than should be allowed in any one
recording. It's probably the most expensive recording I don't listen to but
won't sell.

Stockhausen's "Micheal's Reise" I have only ever given one spin as well; I
don't know why I keep the thing, I disliked it so strongly on the first
listen I have never gone back to it.

>-
>
>


- -

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:30:21 -0400
From: "David J. Keffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: dialectical materialism vs record collections

>From: Lang Thompson <[e-mail]>
>Subject: collections
>
>Umberto Eco had some kind of wiseguy answer to people who ask if he's read
>all the books he has but of course I've forgotten it since it wasn't that
>funny.  His point, however, was that these books are his tools and that
>nobody would ask a mechanic if he uses all those various sockets or
>wrenches.  Use the word "library" instead of "collection" and see if people
>catch the difference in intention.  (Personally I prefer "my stuff.")

I think these two comparisons between record collections and libraries or
tools
are flawed arguments made in an effort to justify compulsive materialism.
An attempt is made to transfer the value of libraries or tools to
record collections, but the transfer is erroneous.

Clearly a personal collection is not a library.  If we look up the definition
of the word library, we find that an intrinsic element of a library is the
fact that material can be accessed or borrowed by some body of people.
The public-service purpose of a library is lacking in a personal collection
of books or music.

Just as clearly, the tools of a mechanic are not a "collection"; tools
are not a luxury item, the way a record collection most certainly is.
The comparison would be legitimate if the record collector relied
upon the listening of any element of his/her collection to maintain
their livelihood, which I doubt anyone on this list would claim.

Now for Eco, his books may be his tools.  Very well.  See the paragraph
above on tools.  But they are useless tools unless read.  I maintain my
original position that the acquisition of 4 or 5 cds per day for years
and years necessarily results in an unlistenable amount of music, which
is useless.

My advice is to abandon all pretense of disguising the motivation for
a record collection and embrace it for what it is:  an unquestioning
susceptibility to the brainwashing inherent in having been raised in a
society of consumers for the dual purposes of comsumption and
propagation of future generations of consumers.

Yes!  How about that for an alternative perspective to record collecting!  :)

David "Drone of a Materialistic Society" K.




- -

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 03:00:24 -0400
From: Joseph Zitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dead weight - was record collections

On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 06:41:17PM -0700, toddlike wrote:
> Stockhausen's "Micheal's Reise" I have only ever given one spin as well; I
> don't know why I keep the thing, I disliked it so strongly on the first
> listen I have never gone back to it.

I'm pretty much the same way with Tony Conrad's "Slapping Pythagoras".
I poke at the boxed set on occasion, mostly for the CD-ROM material,
but the single disc just drives me away, from the illegible
packaging on in.

- --
| [e-mail]          http://www.metatronpress.com/~jzitt |
| Latest Solo CD: Gentle Entropy         http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt |
| Comma: Voices of New Music    Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |
| Next Comma Performance:   June 19, 6 PM, Art-O-Matic, Washington, DC |

- -

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 03:32:26 -0400
From: Joseph Zitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections

On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 10:30:21PM -0400, David J. Keffer wrote:

> Clearly a personal collection is not a library.  If we look up the definition
> of the word library, we find that an intrinsic element of a library is the
> fact that material can be accessed or borrowed by some body of people.
> The public-service purpose of a library is lacking in a personal collection
> of books or music.

That is, of course, a single highly constricted use of the term.
You might expand your vocabulary by looking up others. Webster's 1913 is
especially illuminating in its choice of examples for its very
first listing " as, a private library; a public library".

The aspect of your argument that suggests that by leaving a record
in a record store it is somehow more beneficial to the public is
also shaky. It supposes (by some act of telepathy, I suppose) a
more noble intent on the part of whoever sees it next. I, for one,
have no way of seeing into the mind of people not yet in the
room. How would you do that?

> Just as clearly, the tools of a mechanic are not a "collection"; tools
> are not a luxury item, the way a record collection most certainly is.
> The comparison would be legitimate if the record collector relied
> upon the listening of any element of his/her collection to maintain
> their livelihood, which I doubt anyone on this list would claim.

The many composers, DJs, critics, etc on the list can easily and
truthfully claim that. And by livelihood do you mean strictly
financial gain? (Such a statement might reflect a pitiable state
of mind on the part of its writer.)

> Now for Eco, his books may be his tools.  Very well.  See the paragraph
> above on tools.  But they are useless tools unless read.  I maintain my
> original position that the acquisition of 4 or 5 cds per day for years
> and years necessarily results in an unlistenable amount of music, which
> is useless.

A few years back I pulled out of my collection the recordings to which
I had never referred in the previous two years, and it came to less
than 5% of the whole. And most of those I had gotten with the intent
of repeated listening and reference,

> My advice is to abandon all pretense of disguising the motivation for
> a record collection and embrace it for what it is:  an unquestioning
> susceptibility to the brainwashing inherent in having been raised in a
> society of consumers for the dual purposes of comsumption and
> propagation of future generations of consumers.

(The ghost of Cornelius Cardew is setting that paragraph for mixed
chorus even as we speak.)

(And if I want to revel in conspicuous consumption, I'll check out
La Boheme.)

My advice is to abandon tunnel visioned tirades and go listen to
some music.
- --
| [e-mail]          http://www.metatronpress.com/~jzitt |
| Latest Solo CD: Gentle Entropy         http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt |
| Comma: Voices of New Music    Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |
| Next Comma Performance:   June 19, 6 PM, Art-O-Matic, Washington, DC |

- -

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 21:22:38 -0700
From: s~Z <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in
mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I
will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing,
that there shall not be room enough to receive it. When this happens,
use the kitchen, or the apartment overhead if necessary.

                                      (Malachi 3:10)

So a minimum of one tenth of one's gross income should be spent on
supporting musicians. And if you give more, well that is all the more to
God's glory.

- -

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:45:44 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re:  Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections

<<> The comparison would be legitimate if the record collector relied
> upon the listening of any element of his/her collection to maintain
> their livelihood, which I doubt anyone on this list would claim. >>

I'm a claimer.

- -

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:05:10 +0200
From: "Francesco Martinelli" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections

> Clearly a personal collection is not a library.  If we look up the
definition
> of the word library, we find that an intrinsic element of a library is the
> fact that material can be accessed or borrowed by some body of people.
> The public-service purpose of a library is lacking in a personal
collection
> of books or music.
>
first, i admit that i collect records for the pleasure of the compulsive
materialist anal retenitve whatever you want.

second, your argument is rough and historically flawed: libraries WERE
personal collection: of kings or intellectuals. That is how we are able to
read Platon's Timaeus. Closer in time. all the 78 collectors, anal retentive
materialists etc, gave a great gift to all of us saving precious music that
now we can enjoy because of that.... when blues or gospel records were not
saved by any library. They showed each other their personal copies of Robert
Johnson's records? so what? an innocent pastime that let us hear today his
recorded works!
And this goes for people who taped concerts or took pictures of them.....
Many private collection gets donated to libraries; other are bought by
institution. This is how the major jazz archives in the world begun. Go to
Hogan's Jazz Archive and have a look at Russell's collection...
third, i write about msuic. i often buy records because i know the artist or
for any other reason, and think that they will come useful in time. If I see
a record with, say, Henry Grimes, I buy it and maybe in 10 years not listen
to it, but a commission comes and i take it off the shelf and listen to it
when needed....
fourth I have collections of specific artists. I collect data, compare
recordings, just enjoy the music, but it has to be as complete as possible
to be useful. i have to keep records by Chick Corea because of Braxton, by
Charlie Watts or Scott Walker because of Evan Parker, of Artie Shaw because
of Dodo Marmarosa. This is one of the tool-like uses.
fifth, my collection (books, cassettes, vinyl, cds....) has been already
used by four or five undergraduates in jazz courses that needed material
about european improvisation, free jazz, jewish musics - do you know that
people today are able to go in a shop and buy masada (which I dearly love)
and not Don Cherry's Blue Notes?
my point it: i do it because i like it, as everybody does, but not only i
dont do any harm, i'm sure i'm rendering a service to the community of music
lovers at large, because of the stuff i keep and of the things i do with it.

back to lurking mode....
Francesco


- -

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:07:49 +0200
From: "johnrust" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Kletka Red

No, I haven't recorded the concert, but I've got a lot of stuff by Leonid
Soybel'man and his Estonian band Ne Zhdali (they were on RecRec) and his
solo album Juliki which I consider extremely interesting. More than that, I
am also a Russian/Jewish musician in exile (= in Berlin), so we are
connected in some way, and after tryin' to reach each other per E-mail
unsuccessfully we finally met on the weekend and I hope to meet Leo in next
weeks - if he won't go to Estonia to do smth with Ne Zhdali - and get some
other stuff from him.
By the way, how did you like the Hijacking on Tzadik?..

- -

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:06:14 -0400
From: "David J. Keffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: dialectical materialism vs record collections

At 03:32 AM 6/16/99 -0400, [e-mail] wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 10:30:21PM -0400, David J. Keffer wrote:
>
>> Clearly a personal collection is not a library.  If we look up the
definition
>> of the word library, we find that an intrinsic element of a library is the
>> fact that material can be accessed or borrowed by some body of people.
>> The public-service purpose of a library is lacking in a personal collection
>> of books or music.
>
>That is, of course, a single highly constricted use of the term.
>You might expand your vocabulary by looking up others. Webster's 1913 is
>especially illuminating in its choice of examples for its very
>first listing " as, a private library; a public library".

However highly constricted you may think my use of the word library is,
it is generally accepted meaning.  Don't you think that it is odd
for you to look back to 1913 to find some reference which might put
your position in a better light.  From my point of view, you are reaching
where ever you can to justify an untenable position.

Furthermore, once you begin to use personal attacks against the writer
on the opposite side of the argument, namely myself, by criticizing my
vocabulary, your arguments lose merit.  You are no longer relying
upon the strength of reason.  Instead, you have resorted to mud-slinging,
which, among many other things, is not a virtue and only serves
to undermine your overall position.

I would like to point out, although I feel it is redundant, that
my original arguments were not directed as a personal attack toward anyone.
They were posed as a philosophical argument.  You may also note
that at the end of my post, I include myself as a record collector,
although one who listens to every record he gets.)  I do not
exempt myself from my comments.

>The aspect of your argument that suggests that by leaving a record
>in a record store it is somehow more beneficial to the public is
>also shaky. It supposes (by some act of telepathy, I suppose) a
>more noble intent on the part of whoever sees it next. I, for one,
>have no way of seeing into the mind of people not yet in the
>room. How would you do that?

I see.  So what you are saying is that since the next person who
enters the record store is going to stash the record away unlistened-to into
a locked, private collection, you should do it first.  Your telepathy
is no different than mine; yours is just more pessimistic.

>> Just as clearly, the tools of a mechanic are not a "collection"; tools
>> are not a luxury item, the way a record collection most certainly is.
>> The comparison would be legitimate if the record collector relied
>> upon the listening of any element of his/her collection to maintain
>> their livelihood, which I doubt anyone on this list would claim.
>
>The many composers, DJs, critics, etc on the list can easily and
>truthfully claim that. And by livelihood do you mean strictly
>financial gain? (Such a statement might reflect a pitiable state
>of mind on the part of its writer.)

Fair enough, composers, DJs, critics can claim records as tools.
I already agreed to precisely the same thing about Eco.
But you have flown off the handle and missed the point.  The point
was that, if the records are not listened to, they are wasted.

And, I do mean livelihood as financial subsistence.  Read the
paragraph again. I am talking about the difference between
a mechanic's tools and a private record collection.  Substitute
the words "financial subsistence" in for livelihood and see
if the sentence makes any more sense to you.

The point of my post was this guy was trying to make more noble
record collecting by comparing it to other things, like tools.
I was simply pointing out the flaw in the comparison.  The
vast majority of record collectors do not rely on their record
collection for financial subsistence, especially since a record
collection is the product of discretionary income, which rules
out the possibility that the collector is living on a subsistence
level anyway.

Again, your suggestion of a pitiable state of mind on my part
does not further the strength of your argument.  You again
resort to character attacks.  Maybe you have mud-slinging on the
mind because you have been living in Washington D.C. too long.
Yes!  Personal attack of my own! Ding ding ding!  Points for me!
You see?  My personal attack has failed to convince you to any
greater extent that my point of view on the argument is legitimate.

>> My advice is to abandon all pretense of disguising the motivation for
>> a record collection and embrace it for what it is:  an unquestioning
>> susceptibility to the brainwashing inherent in having been raised in a
>> society of consumers for the dual purposes of comsumption and
>> propagation of future generations of consumers.
>
>My advice is to abandon tunnel visioned tirades and go listen to
>some music.

But tunnel-visioned tirades are fun.  I don't want to listen to music
all the time, like these collectors who must slavishly listen to 4 to 5 hours
of music every day of their lives.  I like to get some variety:  a little
music on Monday and a little tunnel-visioned tirade on Tuesday.

David K.

p.s.
"Francesco Martinelli" wrote
>first, i admit that i collect records for the pleasure of the compulsive
>materialist anal retenitve whatever you want.

More power to you.  To thine own self be true.

>second, your argument is rough and historically flawed:

My argument is rough because I am not making it for a Ph.D. thesis,
I am making it for the freaking Zorn list.  My definition of
the word library is historically flawed because I am not using
it in a historical sense.  I am using it in today's vernacular,
as people typically do.


- -

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

End of Zorn List Digest V2 #679
*******************************


 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]