>we find that Zorn is in it for more than just his music.
>Fuck capitalism.
>Let the rich bastards pay for his music.
>We should have it for free.
Troy,
I hope that you're joking about this. This kind of attitude concerns me
greatly, especially from members of a list that should know better than
this.
Yes, Zorn is in it for the money, as well as the music, and anyone who
possesses talent in the abundance that Zorn does deserves to be paid for
what he does.
How much great music would be created for public consumption if all of
our composers and musicians had to work day jobs? More than that, Zorn's
music IS NOT free to him. One must consider not only the sizable
investment in time and money that artists put into their art, but also
the loss of opportunity to make money in other disciplines that an artist
accepts every time he or she practices his or her musical discipline.
Music is not free, and I would hope that everyone who is on this list can
understand this. Certainly, those among us who are practicing musicians
should understand.
What's more disconcerting to me, is the fact that your statements, Troy,
are largely a reflection of the general view taken by many music/art
consumers in the United States. Zorn lives in the United States, and he
is a professional musician and composer, meaning he makes money by making
music. He is a capitalist. I live in the United States and struggle to
make a living as a musician, and I too, am a capitalist. I take it from
your email address, Troy, that you live in the United States of America
as well, and guess what that makes you?
If music where free, I'm sure that we'd all have way more of it, but it
can't be. We can't expect musicians to give away their hard work any
more than we can expect a doctor, a lawyer, or a builder to give away his
or her hard work.
It is important for those of us who enjoy music that is outside of the
mainstream--as clearly everyone on this list does--to realize that hardly
anyone who is making this music is getting rich. It is, in fact, most
often a labor of love for the musicians. It is wonderful that musicians
making this music can support themselves by doing so, and it's wonderful
that you enjoy this music. If people undermine this capitalist system by
giving away music against the musican's will, the musician will no longer
be able to afford to make music for all of us to enjoy.
I'm not a "rich bastard" by any means, but I do admit to being a "fucking
capitalist." I support the music I love. I pay for recordings of the
artists whom I admire, and pay to see them in concert whenever I can. I
may even be a brain-washed capitalist, because I believe in tipping well
at the bar whenever a musician whom I admire is playing, and I am sure to
thank as many people employed by the establishment for having good music.
Hell, I do the same thing when I'm playing, because like it or not,
money is what makes this all possible in the first place, and it only
takes a few cocktail waitresses complaining to their manager about
getting stiffed by patrons to make the club owner think twice about
having a particular artist back, because of the kind of fans that artist
attracts.
I really hope that this makes some sense to those out there who might
feel the same way as Troy, because once we take away the artist's ability
to support himself, we will be depriving ourselves of much great art, and
we'll all have to start listening to what the big record labels want us
to hear.
- -Peace,
Doug
N.P. Dave Douglas _Wandering Souls_ (for which I don't mind having paid
full retail)
- -
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 02:21:42 +0200
From: 2L <laurent.levy@fnac.net>
Subject: Re: Zorn's NO to MP3
Hey Doug,
I totally agree with you.
But you have to take into account that the mp3s which were taken down from
the server were not regular versions of the songs, some of them were not even
full versions. Moreover, there was one song by each artist (except for Naked
City). There weren't whole shows. So what's the big deal about this? It would
have been "normal" to take the files down if there were full albums or full
shows. But the aim of this mp3 section was just to present some live stuff to
the people who never have the opportunity to see these great musicians play
live and who most of the time already own their studio stuff. I mean, I
downloaded the Charged file because I like the record (I bought it) and
because I had the chance to see this band live.
That's it.
And by the way, I would be curious to know who told Artur that Zorn is
against mp3 (if it isn't him off course).
2L.
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 20:51:16 EDT
From: Dgasque@aol.com
Subject: Re: Zorn's NO to MP3
I've got to agree here too- this is not copyright violation in effect here- a grey area of bootlegging maybe, but since there was no profit being made here, even that description may miss the target.
I'd guess that copyright infringement would come into effect if one of these concerts were to become pressed to CD in the future- then it would be your responsibility to remove it.
I'm all for the artist making as much money as he/she deserves. On the other side of the coin, I would also ask musicians to look at other musicians and groups that *allow* recording and distribution of their concert material and take notice the benefits in added sales that this activity produces also.
=dg=
=========================
In a message dated Mon, 8 May 2000 8:25:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 2L <laurent.levy@fnac.net> writes:
<< Hey Doug,
I totally agree with you.
But you have to take into account that the mp3s which were taken down from
the server were not regular versions of the songs, some of them were not even
full versions...(clipped)
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 21:52:19 -0400
From: "Nirav Soni" <nirav@ink19.com>
Subject: Re: ornette's first band
> >so i wonder: is it really possible that anybody on this list does not
> >enjoy ornette's first band?! or perhaps there was a band before the
> >wonderful cherry/haden quartet that you're referring to?
Ok, I thought I'd chime in with my thoughts related to this. I decided to cement my
foundations, and pick up some older stuff that I didn't have. Included in this was
Ornette's "The Shape of Jazz to Come." After I listened to this, I saw where a lot
of "new" music came from. I just thought that was interesting, and perhaps more
frighteningly obvious than I originally thought.
Second: I was listening to some Kaffe Matthews ("Cd Cecile" it was) when a friend
came over. She immediatley commented with "That's not Music!" I explained to her,
what (I thought) Kaffe was doing, why I enjoyed this "non-idiomatic free-improv",
and the whole bit. My friend attacked me on the point that there isn't any real
structure to the music, no coherence, no melody (at least not much), and it was all
dissonance. I wasn't feeling very confrontational, so I turned it off and put some
Joan of Arc on (avant-emo-rockist, wildly off-key vocals, lots of layers of
electronic sounds +gtr/bass/drums.) She jumped all over this, complaining about the
vocals, the fact the something-or-other didn't resolve, again, the lack of
cohesiveness. She said that the vocals made her ears hurt. This I couldn't stand
for. I have had minimal music theory training while this young lady has been
playing the flute for years. *But*, I considered myself much more fortunate because
I could enjoy Tim Kinsella's unique emo-driven form of crooning and idiosyncratic
wordplay, while her training prevented her from doing this. It got me to thinking
though. Should I be listening to jazz-based free-improv? I don't know/understand
the nuances of their playing, how it works chromatically. Am I missing something in
the music that prevents me from appreciating it like it should be appreciated. Am I
getting the whole picture when I listen to Ken Vandermark, Other Dimensions in
Music, Matthew Shipp, Art Ensemble of Chicago, etc.? When I see bands in the "new"
music in the flesh and on record I feel like I'm getting it, but this forces me to
reevaluate my circumstances.
One of the things that I like about it is that it isn't functional music. You can't
dance to it, it really doesn't evoke too much of an emotional responce, and it sure
as hell ain't background music. To quote Derek Bailey, "It doesn't make their arse
shake, and it doesn't make your eye wet - necessarily" My friend (the one mentioned
above) is a big swing fan, because she dances to it. I mentioned that I don't dig
the whole swing vibe and she said, essentially, "What the hell is wrng with you?" I
responded that I tend to nott like music that forces you into a certain
emotional/physical state. I like things that you can *listen* to, and when you are
finished with it, it stays finished. It doesn't stick in your head for days, it
doesn't sink you into a deep gloom or throw you into an artificially joyous state.
There isn't all of that emotional baggage to carry around, of which I need no more.
And the other good thing about this "non-idiomatic free-improv" is that you don't
have to have had years of musical training to understand, you just have to have
patience and an ear for subtle changes in texture/timbre. I don't think I made that
phrase up, but tell me if it isn't referring to what I think it's referring to
(AMM, the electroacoustic stuff referred to in the recent NYTimes article, the
Erstwhile/For 4 Ears rosters, etc.)
One more thing, for you expreinced jazz journalists out there. I am young (still in
high school) and have considered myself a somewhat competent music critic. I
recently recieved a *large* stack of Cadences (thanks Robert!), and I realized
that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about in my reviews. Would any of you
be willing to read a few things I've written and suggest areas of improvement? I've
no feedback at the magazine I write for (Ink19), so I'd very much appreciate any
assistance.
Cheers,
Nirav
- --
OnNow- GMueller_VoiceCrack_ErikM- Poire_Z (this I *know* I like)
"If he were homeward bound, or on his way out, if he were outward bound, for
whither can a man be bound, if bound he be, but on the one hand homeward and on the
other outward." - Samuel Beckett, Watt
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 21:35:19 -0400
From: Joseph Zitt <jzitt@metatronpress.com>
Subject: Re: approaching bailey
On Sat, May 06, 2000 at 12:33:35PM -0500, kurt_gottschalk@scni.com wrote:
> i haven't heard any bailey
> recording i don't like, but then i haven't heard the tacuma/weston thing yet.
FWIW, I've liked very little Bailey that I heard, but I enjoy the Tacuma/
Weston recording. There isn't much interaction that I can hear, but they
do some killer playing while Bailey makes his usual sounds, apparently in
the same room at the same time.
NP: Ornette Coleman: The Complete Science Fiction Sessions
- --
|> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <|
