ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v02.n923

Internet Message Format | 2000-05-05 | 23KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V2 #923
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest          Friday, May 5 2000          Volume 02 : Number 923



In this issue:
-
       muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")
       Re: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")
       Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")
       Re:  Re: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")
       Re: dave douglas sextet review
       Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")
       Wayne Horvitz interview
       Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")
       NP
       Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")
       Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")
       Re[4]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")
       Re: Charms in Belgium
       Re: dave douglas sextet live review
       Approaching Bailey

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

Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 12:28:54 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")

i remember an interview with muhal richard abrams several years ago where he was
asked about wynton marsalis. i, of course, was poised for vitriol, but his
response was perfect. (as i recall it), "if you don't have any ideas to push the
music forward, then for heaven's sake keep the past alive."

in other words, the point is not that brian setzer shouldn't be allowed to make
records...



- -

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

Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 10:36:53 -0700
From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")

On Fri, 05 May 2000 12:28:54 -0500  [e-mail] wrote:
>
>
> i remember an interview with muhal richard abrams several years ago where he was
> asked about wynton marsalis. i, of course, was poised for vitriol, but his
> response was perfect. (as i recall it), "if you don't have any ideas to push the
> music forward, then for heaven's sake keep the past alive."
>
> in other words, the point is not that brian setzer shouldn't be allowed to make
> records...

Although I would expect Wynton and Brian's motives to be quite different.

Another reason to push the past is that it sells.

    Patrice.

- -

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

Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 15:04:33 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")

patrice with a lower-case r opines:

Another reason to push the past is that it sells.

true enough, but what i took muhal's rather elegant statement to mean is let's
recognize the (albeit less valuable) position such musicians hold and not waste
time or energy on them (and now i am talking to a greater degree about the likes
of wynton m than dave d).

but if that's what someone wants to play -- for love of the music, of money or
lack of any other ideas -- they should get to play it. in a truly free society,
sha na na is not against the law!

kg



- -

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

Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:19:36 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re:  Re: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")

Certain past outsells others.  I doubt if Don Byron and Brian Setzer have the
same objectives.

sh

- -

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

Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:40:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: Whit Schonbein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: dave douglas sextet review

marcin wrote:
> It's strange, when i buy a DD album, i love it at first, but then i listen
> to them it rarely...

i'm the opposite: it takes multiple listens for me to come to appreciate
what's going on with most dd projects.  interesting (don't know what to
make of the difference)...

- --and in another message, patRice continued the discussion:
> whit wrote:
> >>I saw perowsky with an incaranation of douglas' quartet (mark turner on
> >>sax, ed howard on bass) in april '99, and thought his playing was great.
> >>based on that experience, i have difficulty imagining a performance of his
> >>being "horrible," but i suppose everyone can have an off night.

and patRice responded:
> well, whit, i was there.

i didn't say anything about how his playing was when you saw him, only
that based on my experience i would chalk it up to being a bad night
rather than him being a bad drummer.

> i'm a drummer myself and think i can judge performances - and "rather
> horrible" was the impression i got.

i didn't say you couldn't judge performances. i am prepared to grant that
the perfomance was "rather horrible".  but that does not imply that
perowsky is a bad drummer.  as a drummer yourself, you probably have
experienced the remarkable effect bad acoustics can have on group
dynamics; the point simply being that there are other explanations of the
bad performance than perowsky's being a bad drummer (btw, i speak as a
musician having experienced bad nights myself, if that makes any
difference).

then whit said:
> >>As for the 'retro' or 'old hat' nature of douglas' sextet repertoire, one
> >>could attempt to defend it through a consideration of the other sorts of
> >>music constituting the remainder of douglas' output: the sextet pieces are
> >>only one element of a larger project of musical synthesis (in terms of a
> >>diviersity of styles) and exploration.  but this is compatible with the
> >>music itself still being worthless.

and patRice responded:
> well, one could definitely attempt that; but:
> if i go to a concert and dislike it (as was the case with the dd sextet)
> - - i don't really care about what the bandleader does in his other
> projects. "tonight is not interesting, but at least all his other
> cds/gigs i've heard so far were pretty good"; that would not be me.
> if i'm there and it sucks; it sucks.

yes.  which is why i rejected the argument ("but this is compatible with
the music itself being worthless", implying that the argument isn't very
good, if the conclusion is supposed to be that the music is not
worthless). a more promising argument is to assess the degree to which
DD's sextet output contributes in an original way to the tradition, as i
orginally suggested.  however, determining what counts as a significant
contribution to the tradition is no easy feat.  i for one am
impressed by the way douglas integrates early modern classical innovations
into his compositions (e.g., in his choice of chords and voicings), and
that is something new and welcome to my ears.  but, even if this were a
satisfactory argument to the conclusion that douglas' sextet work
contributes to the tradition in a positive way, it still does not show
that one ought to find the music aesthetically pleasing.  the latter
point, is, as you say, a matter of taste. (in the same way one can
appreciate ornette coleman's first band in terms of its piviotal role in
the development of 'free jazz' while still not enjoying hearing it).  so
none of this should be taken to be an arguement to the conclusion that one
ought to find douglas' music aesthetically rewarding.

i simply object to (i) dismissing perowsky as a bad drummer as opposed to
dismissing the performance as a bad performance, and (ii) dismissing
douglas' sextet work as contributing nothing new to the medium.  regarding
the latter, in my opinion, the worst we can conclude is that the issue is
open. we can leave the answer up to the next generation of musicologist
graduate students ;).

- -whit
np - miles davis - 'miles in the sky'


- -

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

Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 13:24:27 -0700
From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")

On Fri, 05 May 2000 15:04:33 -0500  [e-mail] wrote:
>
> true enough, but what i took muhal's rather elegant statement to mean is let's
> recognize the (albeit less valuable) position such musicians hold and not waste
> time or energy on them (and now i am talking to a greater degree about the likes
> of wynton m than dave d).
>
> but if that's what someone wants to play -- for love of the music, of money or
> lack of any other ideas -- they should get to play it. in a truly free society,
> sha na na is not against the law!

I doubt anybody would push for control on what should be done and what should
not be done (at least in music, which tends to be less controversial than litte-
rature or plastic arts -- who is shocked by Zorn's music these days? only the
graphic design of his records seems to create some reaction out of the lethargy).
I think that the issue was more about criticism of some approaches.

Let's be frank, there is a reason for everything done on earth. Should it be
a reason to say that everything is fine?

This is the usual issue with "openess" which starts from the best intentions but
can lead to the boring "everybody is pretty, smart, and has something interes-
ting to say".

These days, I do not read any reviews anymore because I know the conclusion
just by looking at the name of the artist who is reviewed (a Derek Bailey record
will always push the limits further, a William Parker one will break another
record in creativity, etc). And I understand why, if a reviewer does not put
himself in the cheerleader seat, he takes the risk of receiving a letter from
the artist or the label owner trying to prove him that he totally missed the
greatness of the record. Anyway, based on the huge volume of records produced
these days, I find suspicious to see so many overwhelmingly positive reviews.
Surprisingly, I find more negative reviews in the mainstream music (rock,
straight jazz) than in avant/experimental music. It is as if there were less
holy cows in rock than in avant/experimental music...

I personally respect Wynton's approach, although I don't listen to him at
all (one of his records is the only one that I gave up because I could not stand
it) and have little patience for his argumenting attitude on what jazz should
be (and this attitude makes me wonder about his sincerity). I am not sure that
I would be as indulgent with all the recent "let's put everything in the basket
and shake it" approaches to music.

To conclude: yes, every artist has the right to put out as many records as they
want, and we (the consummers) have the right to say what we think of them. And
if the artist has something really interesting to say, I know that he will
recover from a bad critic (not sure for the others).

    Patrice.

PS: besides agreeing or not agreeing, it was almost refreshing to see nega-
tive comments on DD, since 99.9% of everything written on him has been
positive (and beyond), and knowing how conservative most of the media are,
isn't it suspicious that an innovative artist can create such unanimity?

- -

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

Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:43:01 -0700
From: "Dave Egan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wayne Horvitz interview

Hi everyone,

I ran across an excellent (if too short) Wayne Horvitz interview last night
and I thought I ought to share it:
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/iviews/WHorvitz.htm
Check it out!
- - Dave


- -

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

Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 16:46:09 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")

patrice attempts:
This is the usual issue with "openess" which starts from the best intentions but
can lead to the boring "everybody is pretty, smart, and has something interes-
ting to say".

this is about as far from my original point as the number of records wynton put
out last year. if my point was that everything is smart and interesting, i don't
expect i'd use sha na na in my defense.

the point (mine, if not muhal's) is that talking about uninteresting music is
essentially uninteresting. certainly we can wonder and shit kittens about how
much attention wynton (and perhaps dave) get from the media, when people who
continue to reinvent forms for decades can't even get a record contract. but as
far as treating your ears properly, isn't wynton best ignored?

i don't mean that discussion shouldn't happen. but what muhal's comment meant to
me was why even waste energy raising your voice about nontalents when there's so
much beauty out there to eat.

PS: besides agreeing or not agreeing, it was almost refreshing to see nega-
tive comments on DD, since 99.9% of everything written on him has been
positive (and beyond), and knowing how conservative most of the media are,
isn't it suspicious that an innovative artist can create such unanimity?

np: ella fitzgerald sings the duke ellingon song book, because it's been done
and it's been done well.



- -

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

Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:07:57 -0400
From: Dan Hewins <[e-mail]>
Subject: NP

NP: Freeform GoGaGa Internet radio.  http://freeform.gogaga.com/

(I don't work there)

- -

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

Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:31:56 -0400
From: "Peter Risser" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")

> These days, I do not read any reviews anymore because I know the
conclusion
> just by looking at the name of the artist who is reviewed (a Derek Bailey
record
> will always push the limits further, a William Parker one will break
another
> record in creativity, etc). And I understand why, if a reviewer does not
put
> himself in the cheerleader seat, he takes the risk of receiving a letter
from
> the artist or the label owner trying to prove him that he totally missed
the
> greatness of the record. Anyway, based on the huge volume of records
produced
> these days, I find suspicious to see so many overwhelmingly positive
reviews.
> Surprisingly, I find more negative reviews in the mainstream music (rock,
> straight jazz) than in avant/experimental music. It is as if there were
less
> holy cows in rock than in avant/experimental music...

I wrote reviews for a place that flat out said, we won't publish negative
reviews.
Their reasoning was that nobody likes people who are negative.  (Huh?)  And,
of course, that if we diss records, labels won't send us more stuff to
review.  Both of which I think are false, by the way, as I worked for
another group that did publish negative reviews, occasionally scathing ones,
and they still got review copies by the truckload.

Frankly, I don't think a single review really cuts the mustard.  I'd like to
see a magazine that regularly published multiple reviews of the same thing
by different people, OR, assigned two people, one who likes it and one who
hates it, to co-write the article.  So you get a true balanced perspective.

Peter


- -

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

Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 14:35:49 -0700
From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")

    Kurt,

On Fri, 05 May 2000 16:46:09 -0500  [e-mail] wrote:
>
> the point (mine, if not muhal's) is that talking about uninteresting music is
> essentially uninteresting. certainly we can wonder and shit kittens about how
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which would make sense if everybody would agree on what uninteresting is.
Besides the obvious targets, I am sure that there are plenty of artists on
whom we disagree (and, surely, even more, on whom we agree).

> much attention wynton (and perhaps dave) get from the media, when people who
> continue to reinvent forms for decades can't even get a record contract. but as
> far as treating your ears properly, isn't wynton best ignored?
>
> i don't mean that discussion shouldn't happen. but what muhal's comment meant to
> me was why even waste energy raising your voice about nontalents when there's so
> much beauty out there to eat.
     ^^^^^^^^^

Life would be so easy if everybody agreed on what beauty in art is. Since this
is not the case, Muhal's point is flawed (or at least the way you present it).

And let's be practical, without "uninteresting music" and "nontalents", what
would beauty even mean? The reason for beauty to exist is our (supposed)
capability to recognize when it is lacking. Hence, a mythical world where
we (smart people) would only spend our time arguing about beauty looks to
me like paradise (where everybody loves each other :-).

    Patrice.

- -

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

Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 18:06:46 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re[4]: muhal weighs in (wasn't "old hat approach")

ah, whad i git mysself into?

look, of course the point is essentially unarguable. but that's why folks like
us talk, why this group exists. it's not just to announce gigs and release
dates. in vague ways people stumble into other people with similar frameworks. i
think i can get away with calling marsalis 'essentially uninteresting' when i
write to the newsgroup (there's probably some who disagree, but at least they've
heard it before). i wouldn't expect to so easily say it around my job, on whose
time i type now.

look, if i say 'mike patton sucks' and i say 'jeff lynne sucks,' i expect most
of the people here will think that i mean different things, and that that
difference is not easily defined.

that's why muhal's take, to me, was so illuminated. it's as if to say, look, we
all know whassup, why are we wasting our time? let's talk about schnittke
instead.

funny, because i got into trouble a few weeks back saying that the grateful dead
suck on the j-psych newsgroup. maybe i'll keep my opinions, and whatever
nietzschean defenses i can come up for them, to myself.

yeah, that's likely.



- -

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

Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 11:26:18 -0500
From: Diego Gruber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Charms in Belgium

Could someone please post about similar events in Paris? Thanks.

D

Rob Allaert wrote:

> Belgian citizens,
>
> * Anthony Coleman+Rodriguez+Street: 06 May 2000 - Beursschouwburg -Brussels
> * Matt Darriau+Art Barron+Laster+frank London+Brad
> Shepik+Fitzgerald+Schuller: 18,19,20 May - Beursschouwburg -Brussels
> * Klezmer Madness: 25 May 2000 - Beursschouwburg -Brussels
> * Bill Frisell: ? May - Brussels ?
> * Marc Ribot, cubanos: 31 May 2000: AB - Brussels
> * Kronos 4tet: 06 June 2000 - Paleis Schone Kunsten - Brussel
> * Dave Douglas' Charms 4tet: 22 Oct 2000 - AB - Brussels
>
> Want more ??
>
> Rob <<       .......
> http://www.frontstage.com/rob
> icq#18906168
>
> -




- -

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

Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 11:56:57 +1000
From: "Julian" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: dave douglas sextet live review

> well, one could definitely attempt that; but:
> if i go to a concert and dislike it (as was the case with the dd sextet)
> - i don't really care about what the bandleader does in his other
> projects. "tonight is not interesting, but at least all his other
> cds/gigs i've heard so far were pretty good"; that would not be me.
> if i'm there and it sucks; it sucks. and that usually pisses me off...
> (because i put time, money and energy into getting there.)

I believe the point was not that if this show sucked for you just think
lovingly about his other cds, but rather that you should think "maybe this
show wasn't for me, dave has 5 or 6 different projects, I can't really
expect to like them all"...


- -

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

Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 19:24:13 -0700
From: "Tom Johnson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Approaching Bailey

I see a lot of comments about the godliness of Derek Bailey, and having just
acquired one of his albums (thanks to Bruno Bissonnette!) I'd like to know
what you all think about his music, or more correctly, how you *approach*
his music.  Being "relatively" new to the more improvised music, this is
some pretty radical stuff.  I have his "Guitar, Drums & Bass" album, and
previously had the Sign of the Four set he did with Pat Metheny.  I bought
that particular set right after it came out, thinking that maybe it was less
obscure sounding that some made it out to be.  (Was I wrong?!  Yep!)  Now,
I'm into much more free-form music than I was at the time (Zorn, of course,
but not all of it - I do prefer the more "composed" sounding pieces still;
Ornette Coleman - just got the Beauty is a Rare Thing box and am loving it
immensely; Coletrane - I'm finding that I enjoy his post-quartet recordings
a great deal, even though I'm not quite grasping it all; Miles in the
Bitches Brew-era (and all, actually,); and some others, of course.)

The thing is, I'm still not "getting" Bailey.  I know that GDB is probably
not the most representative thing of his, seeing as it's just a bunch of
different mixes with what sound like different random guitar parts of
Bailey's on top.  Not to make a judgement at all, but all I hear and have
heard of Bailey at this point is a lot of random guitar noise.  What am I
missing?   Have I picked up entirely the wrong albums?  I'm certain that I'm
not entirely "ready" for Bailey at this point in my musical evolution, but
where's a good place to start?

(I'm hoping this doesn't start a flame-fest.  Nothing I said was meant to
indicate any kind of disapproval of Bailey or those who like him, it was
just meant to show how I'm seeing his stuff at this point.  This list seems
to be pretty level-headed, so hopefully nothing will be taken the wrong way.
:-))

Tom

- ----------------------------
"Go for super-stud!  Go for super-stud!"
                                         --Bill, on Freaks & Geeks

"I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a
career.
I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or
processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair
anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to
do that."
                                        --Lloyd, from Say Anything



- -

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

End of Zorn List Digest V2 #923
*******************************


 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]