ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v03.n168

Internet Message Format | 2000-11-15 | 21KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V3 #168
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest      Thursday, November 16 2000      Volume 03 : Number 168



In this issue:
-
       dresser-galas performance
       Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film
       Re: Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film
       Re: Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film
       Re: Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film
       Re: Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film
       Re: Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film
       Re: Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film
       Re: Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 10:22:21 -0800
From: "Martin Wisckol" <[e-mail]>
Subject: dresser-galas performance

I believe both Dresser and Diamanda are from San Diego. In any event, both
were living there in the late 1970s. I was not aware of anything
approaching regular performances together. But I did catch the two in what
may have been a duet (memory!), bass and vocal, in an upstairs coffee
house in the afternoon. I recall sunlight through the window striping the
room, Galas in her most ferocious shrieking form, Dresser using his full
arsenal of non-traditional techniques.... A Sunday afternoon, I think....


- -

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:51:42 -0500
From: Perfect Sound Forever <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film

Lovely quote from this self-appointed historian (mind you, the whole series is
19-hours):

"The film actually ends with (Louis) Armstrong's death in 1971 and Ellington's
demise three years later; and Burns spends a single hour wrapping up the subsequent
30 years of history. He's already heard plenty of criticism from those jazz fanatics
who want to know why he pays so little attention to modern-day practitioners. "And I
say to them, 'So you tell me, among the people playing now or anyone alive in jazz,
who is the equal of Armstrong, Ellington, Parker, Davis, or Coltrane?'" he says.
"Complete silence. I said, 'I have made my point.'"

Guess that settles a lot of arguments, eh!  ;-)
Not surprisingly, our dear friend Wynton was a major consultant for the film.

culled from http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2000-11-16/music.html

Best,
Jason
- --
Perfect Sound Forever
online music magazine
[e-mail]
http://www.furious.com/perfect



- -

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:12:57 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film

In a message dated 11/16/00 2:55:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< He's already heard plenty of criticism from those jazz fanatics
 who want to know why he pays so little attention to modern-day
practitioners. "And I
 say to them, 'So you tell me, among the people playing now or anyone alive
in jazz,
 who is the equal of Armstrong, Ellington, Parker, Davis, or Coltrane?'" he
says.
 "Complete silence. I said, 'I have made my point.'" >>

Time will tell.  Burns is correct when he says no one today is "equal" to the
above list, at least in terms of popularity and recognition.  Even people who
have never heard a note of legitimate jazz have heard the names Miles Davis,
John Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, and Louis Armstrong.  Whether
anyone today, anyone creating groundbreaking music of that caliber, can
establish that kind of name for him/herself has yet to be seen.

Zorn is very popular compared to other avant practitioners, but he's hardly a
household name.  Chances are you won't see him on a Macintosh billboard with
the words "Think Different" printed beneath.

Dave Douglas is having his day in the sun, and things look like they can only
get better, but given his cross-genre stylistic approach I can't see him
having the popularity with as wide an audience as Louis Armstrong.  It just
ain't gonna happen.  (Too bad, too, as I spend many of waking hours listening
to Douglas with awe.)

Wynton Marsalis is widely known, and he's a solid player and composer (go
ahead, flame away; i know most of you loathe him; i figure he's better than a
poser like Kenny G), but he's more a populizer than a true visionary
groundbreaker.  Chances are Marsalis's name will be remembered for his making
the public more aware of jazz than for his own contributions to the genre.

So tell me:  Who on today's scene do you predict will be considered equal to
Armstrong, Parker, Davis, Ellington, Coltrane in terms of both innovation AND
popularity?

Just curious,
tom



- -

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:24:26 -0500
From: Maurice Rickard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film

At 3:12 PM -0500 11/16/00, [e-mail] wrote:
>Zorn is very popular compared to other avant practitioners, but he's hardly a
>household name.  Chances are you won't see him on a Macintosh billboard with
>the words "Think Different" printed beneath.

But what an image!  http://www.thewire.co.uk/out/img/0004_1p.jpg
would seem to be made for this purpose.  Although some of the Naked
City covers and videos would work, too.

Thinking _really_ different,
Maurice

- --
Maurice Rickard
http://mauricerickard.com/

- -

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:53:16 -0500
From: Steve Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film

[e-mail] wrote:

> Wynton Marsalis is widely known, and he's a solid player and composer (go
> ahead, flame away; i know most of you loathe him; i figure he's better than a
> poser like Kenny G), but he's more a populizer than a true visionary
> groundbreaker.  Chances are Marsalis's name will be remembered for his making
> the public more aware of jazz than for his own contributions to the genre.

I think Marsalis is proving a rather boring and derivative composer, but agree
with your estimation of his position in jazz history.  Too bad he makes use of
the platform to denigrate and marginalize anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with
his particular version of jazz history.

And despite Kenny G's dearth of talent, I say more power to him.  If people want
to consume his pablum, fine.  It makes them feel better, just like Braxton or
Zorn or Merzbow or whatever make us feel better.  Who's to call his fans wrong?
And if even the tiniest sliver of his gargantuan audience takes another step
deeper into "real" jazz, then he's accomplished something.  (A confession I've
made before: I initially came into the music largely through Spyro Gyra.)

> So tell me:  Who on today's scene do you predict will be considered equal to
> Armstrong, Parker, Davis, Ellington, Coltrane in terms of both innovation AND
> popularity?

No one.

And this is not because there aren't worthy and innovative artists out there.
As an artform, jazz is healthier and more diverse than ever, both in the
avant-garde (cite all the obvious names we always talk about) and in the
mainstream (where Jason Moran, Avishai Cohen and Ben Allison are but three
players off the top of my head who are doing genuinely interesting things, all
completely different from one another).

Rather, it's because I don't ever foresee a time when jazz will return to the
level of social cache and societal awareness that it enjoyed in the pre-rock
days, when it was still the pop music of choice.  For better or for worse, when
Charlie Parker took the music out of the dance halls and made it more
self-consciously an artform, that spelled the end of its mass popularity.  The
music is richer for it, but the culture got a chance to take a pass and look for
less challenging fare.

I'd also hazard a guess that Parker, Davis and Coltrane aren't as "popular" as
all that.  Most music lovers seem compelled to add 'Kind of Blue' to their
collections (much like the tacet requirement that every record collection in
Long Island must include a copy of 'Bat Out of Hell'), but how many people truly
know Miles Davis's career?  And if you did a Jay Leno-style walkaround and asked
the average person on the street, do you think that many people would know
Parker or Coltrane?  We on the list perceive them as icons, as does Burns,
evidently, but we're all distinctly NOT the societal norm and neither is he.

That said, I do think it was irresponsible and misleading for Burns to
arbitrarily neglect the avant-garde, fusion, and Latin jazz, all critically
important developments that can't be overlooked if the objective is to create a
truly representative history of the music.  (Mind you, I've not seen the series
in advance; I can only make judgement from what I've read and from a talk by
Burns back in January...)  It goes back to what I quoted Matt Shipp yesterday as
having said about the "death industry": Burns seems to have essentially
canonized the music, set it up on a museum pedestal, and overlooked the fact
that innovation and new developments are still taking place.  If he does take
heed of Marsalis and his ilk, to my mind that simply reinforces the notion that
jazz is now a finite canon, a repertoire in which new developments are
overlooked in favor of recreations and imitations.

The thing I'll be most curious to see is the ratings the series garners when
it's aired.  I think it will do much, much worse than the Civil War and baseball
series did, because jazz is so much further from mass awareness.  The appeal
won't be as great, I fear, and I don't really anticipate a groundswell in jazz
market share; at best, we might see a quick blip.

But lest anyone take this as a whole lot of doom and gloom, read what I said
above again.  As an artform, jazz is healthier and more diverse than ever.

Your turn,
Steve Smith
[e-mail]


- -

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 12:55:10 -0800
From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film

On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:12:57 EST  [e-mail] wrote:
>
> So tell me:  Who on today's scene do you predict will be considered equal to
> Armstrong, Parker, Davis, Ellington, Coltrane in terms of both innovation AND
> popularity?

Once you leave behind melody and rhythm, you take the risk of leaving also
most of the audience behind. It is not just jazz, look at the state of what
used to be called classical music? Did we really recover from dodecaphonism/
serialism and chance composition? I am talking from the intelligent and
curious audience point of view, not about the mainstream or the happy fews
like most of us on this list. Is it really surprising that when a contemporary
classical record raises above obscurity, it is by a composer who goes back to
old values like melody, feeling, easy rhythm (Gorecky, Nyman, Part)?

Should we still believe that most Occidental audiences have been brainwashed
by major/minor sclales and binary rhythms, and that one day they will see
the light? Or should we simply accept that beyond a certain level of
"experimentation", and many decades after to verify that what was perceived
as experiment still sounds like it (put your favorite obscure composer here),
that these "experimentations" are simply acquired taste with no common
denominator values (needed to reach a larger audience)?

This is a thrilling experience to feel different by not listening to the same
music as your next door neighbour, but if we feel lonely or left aside (by
most media), where is the fault?

And frankly, if most media would acknowledge "our" music (since some people
on the list feel sad about their total lack of interest for it), wouldn't
we be pissed? Where would be the underdog feeling so important for audiences
of obscure forms of art?

We love the obscure, right? In this case why are we complaining that nobody
sees us?

    Patrice (who feels that "his" music gets more media coverage than
        its relative obscurity really deserves and feels very lucky
        for that).

- -

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:22:33 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film

Thank you, Steve.  I knew that my query would elicit a thoughtful,
intelligent response from you.  Personally, I always thought of Wynton as
very intelligent but a "bit" (insert *eye roll*) conservative in his
interpretation of what jazz is and supposedly should be.  He tone and
technique are flawless, but he's hardly risky.  All of his compositions that
I've heard have been "derivative," but, as I said before, solid and steeped
in jazz's pre-bop and bop traditions.  He rather reminds me of the Salieri
character played by F. Murray Abrahams (sp?) in "Amadeus."  He's acutely
aware of where talent exists, possesses some himself, can make capable music,
but is unable to break any new ground.  And I will defend Wynton to the teeth
for the same reasons you, Steve, defend Kenny G.  If it weren't for Marsalis,
the jazz selection at your local CD store would be even thinner than it is
now.  Bless him for bringing jazz -- of ANY kind -- to the masses.

Discuss,
tom

In a message dated 11/16/00 3:55:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< > Wynton Marsalis is widely known, and he's a solid player and composer (go
 > ahead, flame away; i know most of you loathe him; i figure he's better
than a
 > poser like Kenny G), but he's more a populizer than a true visionary
 > groundbreaker.  Chances are Marsalis's name will be remembered for his
making
 > the public more aware of jazz than for his own contributions to the genre.

 I think Marsalis is proving a rather boring and derivative composer, but
agree
 with your estimation of his position in jazz history.  Too bad he makes use
of
 the platform to denigrate and marginalize anyone who doesn't see eye to eye
with
 his particular version of jazz history.

 And despite Kenny G's dearth of talent, I say more power to him.  If people
want
 to consume his pablum, fine.  It makes them feel better, just like Braxton or
 Zorn or Merzbow or whatever make us feel better.  Who's to call his fans
wrong?
 And if even the tiniest sliver of his gargantuan audience takes another step
 deeper into "real" jazz, then he's accomplished something.  (A confession
I've
 made before: I initially came into the music largely through Spyro Gyra.)

 > So tell me:  Who on today's scene do you predict will be considered equal
to
 > Armstrong, Parker, Davis, Ellington, Coltrane in terms of both innovation
AND
 > popularity?

 No one.

 And this is not because there aren't worthy and innovative artists out there.
 As an artform, jazz is healthier and more diverse than ever, both in the
 avant-garde (cite all the obvious names we always talk about) and in the
 mainstream (where Jason Moran, Avishai Cohen and Ben Allison are but three
 players off the top of my head who are doing genuinely interesting things,
all
 completely different from one another).

 Rather, it's because I don't ever foresee a time when jazz will return to the
 level of social cache and societal awareness that it enjoyed in the pre-rock
 days, when it was still the pop music of choice.  For better or for worse,
when
 Charlie Parker took the music out of the dance halls and made it more
 self-consciously an artform, that spelled the end of its mass popularity.
The
 music is richer for it, but the culture got a chance to take a pass and look
for
 less challenging fare.

 I'd also hazard a guess that Parker, Davis and Coltrane aren't as "popular"
as
 all that.  Most music lovers seem compelled to add 'Kind of Blue' to their
 collections (much like the tacet requirement that every record collection in
 Long Island must include a copy of 'Bat Out of Hell'), but how many people
truly
 know Miles Davis's career?  And if you did a Jay Leno-style walkaround and
asked
 the average person on the street, do you think that many people would know
 Parker or Coltrane?  We on the list perceive them as icons, as does Burns,
 evidently, but we're all distinctly NOT the societal norm and neither is he.

 That said, I do think it was irresponsible and misleading for Burns to
 arbitrarily neglect the avant-garde, fusion, and Latin jazz, all critically
 important developments that can't be overlooked if the objective is to
create a
 truly representative history of the music.  (Mind you, I've not seen the
series
 in advance; I can only make judgement from what I've read and from a talk by
 Burns back in January...)  It goes back to what I quoted Matt Shipp
yesterday as
 having said about the "death industry": Burns seems to have essentially
 canonized the music, set it up on a museum pedestal, and overlooked the fact
 that innovation and new developments are still taking place.  If he does take
 heed of Marsalis and his ilk, to my mind that simply reinforces the notion
that
 jazz is now a finite canon, a repertoire in which new developments are
 overlooked in favor of recreations and imitations.

 The thing I'll be most curious to see is the ratings the series garners when
 it's aired.  I think it will do much, much worse than the Civil War and
baseball
 series did, because jazz is so much further from mass awareness.  The appeal
 won't be as great, I fear, and I don't really anticipate a groundswell in
jazz
 market share; at best, we might see a quick blip.

 But lest anyone take this as a whole lot of doom and gloom, read what I said
 above again.  As an artform, jazz is healthier and more diverse than ever.

 Your turn,
 Steve Smith
 [e-mail] >>

- -

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 13:40:10 -0800
From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film

On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:22:33 EST  [e-mail] wrote:
>
> but is unable to break any new ground.  And I will defend Wynton to the teeth
> for the same reasons you, Steve, defend Kenny G.  If it weren't for Marsalis,
> the jazz selection at your local CD store would be even thinner than it is
> now.  Bless him for bringing jazz -- of ANY kind -- to the masses.

We need Kenny G because he is the perfect musician for people who don't
care about music. And I guess they also deserve someone :-).

On the sad note side, Tower Records in Portland used to have a room entirely
dedicated to classical music. A few years ago (when Tower Records was wondering
how to call new age music -- adult instrumental or acoustic classical), they
moved the new age music section to the classical one. Since the new age section
was small, it was not too bad. Unfortunately, a couple months ago they also
moved the jazz section to the classical room... Have people noticed the same
thing elsewhere?

    Patrice.

- -

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:41:00 -0500
From: Steve Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ken Burns' 'Jazz' film

[e-mail] wrote:

> Wynton [snip] rather reminds me of the Salieri
> character played by F. Murray Abrahams (sp?) in "Amadeus."

This analogy, of course, leaves us in the rather amusing position of casting his
Mozart, now, doesn't it?  ;-)

I prefer to think of Wynton as Czar Nicholas, claiming the spoils of the empire
and banishing those who would stand against him, with Stanley Crouch as his
personal Rasputin, the dark and vaguely threatening court madman running the show
behind the scenes.  William Parker can play Karl Marx in exile, en"Vision"ing a
workers' utopia, but I just don't see a Lenin waiting in the wings.

Threatening to derail an otherwise lucid train of thought,
Steve Smith
[e-mail]
NP - Joe McPhee/David Prentice, "The Garden - Part 1," 'Inside Out' (CIMP)


- -

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

End of Zorn List Digest V3 #168
*******************************


 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]