Let me add a positive mention of TJ Kirk, and second the notion that the
first of the two CDs is better, and I favor that to anything I've heard
Hunter do on his own. The guys funk up Monk and Kirk compositions
effectively (the reggae version of Volunteer Slavery seems a natural), and
manage to merge tunes by those two with James Brown tunes. This ain't
Cecil Taylor, but it's fun. And it begs speculation: What Rahsaan and
Thelonious be playing if they were alive and 25 right now?
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:00:19 -0800
From: "Fag music" <pattonsucks@37.com>
Subject: Bitchney Spears-Can she SING?
Now that you mentioned it,
we just had Rock In Rio 3 here in Brazil,and,from what I've heard,Britney's show was in playback.Well,some people noticed,she got booed and left off saying that this was her ''worst show ever''.And she also cursed her crew too.Check out napster for a song called ''oops!I think someone left the mic on''.AHEM...anyway....I dunno if she really can sing...you know,with all the technology and stuff,I wouldn't be surprised to know it isn't she who actually sings.
>It's pretty pompous to think Brittney Spears has no talent don't you think? I mean, I don't like her, but she can sing and can dance. I think she fits rather well into pop culture--which is apparently what she wants. Just think, in ten/fifteen years, she'll be the next Madonna--steal what everybody's been doing for thirty/forty years, and pretend you invented it. Yes, it will be wonderful when she releases her first improvised album, and cites Derek Bailey as one of her favorites from way back.
http://e2893.37.com/Free-E-Card/ <--- You Have A Greeting :)
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:03:42 -0800
From: "Fag music" <pattonsucks@37.com>
Subject: Show me your talent,babe
Yeah,
but that's how it's always been,is't it?I think so...but this brings us to another topic:which labels do you guys think that are really in it for the music,not for the money?I know a few of them that aren't doing this just for pleasure,and I'd have to say that Tzadik,Earache,Relapse and even Ipecac are in it just for the pleasure of seeing obscure stuff that is considered to be ''commercial suicide'' getting listened.Could anyone recommend me any others????
http://e2893.37.com/Free-E-Card/ <--- You Have A Greeting :)
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:18:19 -0600
From: Joseph Zitt <jzitt@metatronpress.com>
Subject: Re: Show me your talent,babe
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:03:42AM -0800, Fag music wrote:
> Yeah,
> but that's how it's always been,is't it?I think so...but this brings us to another topic:which labels do you guys think that are really in it for the music,not for the money?I know a few of them that aren't doing this just for pleasure,and I'd have to say that Tzadik,Earache,Relapse and even Ipecac are in it just for the pleasure of seeing obscure stuff that is considered to be ''commercial suicide'' getting listened.Could anyone recommend me any others????
I would be surprised if, even at the biggest, most mercenary labels,
you wouldn't find a significant chunk of people who are "in it for the
music". Look at the labels for which, for example, Steve Smith has
written -- RCA and its overseers don't have the indie cred of, say,
Erstwhile, but he's managed to get some good work in there, at least
for a while.
- --
|> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <|
| Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:19:44 -0500
From: wlt4@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Re: the validity of negative criticism
>from Glenn Gould that said something to the effect of the only >worthwhile journalism being advocacy journalism. I realized
Criticism and journalism are not the same thing, though for music and film in today's publishing environment the distinction is often blurred, in good part because there are few outlets for real criticism. So many reviewers are called critics when in fact all they're doing is saying whether something is worth a purchase or admission price. Such consumer advice has its place but it's not often actual criticism. "Advocacy journalism" is almost an oxymoron, basically meaning that journalists should just be writing ad copy. Does the world really need more of that? (For what it's worth I avoid writing negative reviews of obscure albums/films; quite a few friends are musicians and I know how much work goes into even bad music. So what's the point of knocking something that will only be heard by a small circle? But anything really offensive or major-label or moderately well-known is fair game.)
>Maybe, but wouldn't it be more worthwhile for Christgau to attempt >to comment on what Zappa is trying to do, rather than his own knee->jerk assessment, a [...] I seriously doubt that Christgau ever took >the time to check out Zappa's interests before writing
The specific point (and one probably open to argument) is who cares what he was *trying* to do or what his interests are; what he did is really all that matters. Of course neither of us will ever know but descriptions of Christgau's work methods by him and others plus his published work consistently indicate that he actually does pay close attention to the work and to its context. Not to mention that clearly Christgau is far more open-minded than Zappa (something of more importance in a critic than an artist; I've met numerous genuinely excellent musicians with quite limited tastes/interests). It's interesting that in my minor writing career I've received far more complaints about negative things I've written about Zappa than for anything else and that they always begin with "clearly you haven't listened to Zappa's work." I would have thought clearly I had or I couldn't discuss it but the last time I ever responded the Zappa fan had actually heard far less so now I just le!
!
t these pass.
>His oeuvre is as tight as anybody's, rife with cross associations, >allusions, historical relevance, self-reference. If that's not >conceptual, then I don't know what is.
Zappa's music is not conceptual in the way that word is used in the arts. Conceptual art/music is based primarily on idea(s) and often (but not always) lacks any allusions or references. Cage's "4'33"" is perhaps the best known musical example; prepared pianos are not conceptual since the idea is mostly irrelevant to the resulting work. La Monte Young's "Composition 1960 # 5" which consists of letting a butterfly loose in the performance area is conceptual though his extended drone pieces are not. Tony Godfrey's "Conceptual Art" is a nice overview while Alexander Alberro's "Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology" is a good selection of source material.
Lang
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:59:14 -0500
From: "Richard Allen" <richardfallen@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Show me your talent,babe
I'd consider any artist-owned or operated label to be worth a degree of
trust -- Mike Patton's Ipecac, Neil Young's Vapor, Thurston Moore's Ecstatic
Peace, any of Boredoms' imprints (Shock City and Yamamoto's label, which I
can't think of off hand), the Butthole Surfers' Latino Bugger Veil (and King
Coffey's Trance Syndicate). I'd also put faith in Sub Pop, Drag City and
Touch & Go.
- ----Original Message Follows----
From: "Fag music" <pattonsucks@37.com>
To: pattonsucks@37.com, jcurwin@hartingdale.com.au,
zorn-list@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Show me your talent,babe
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:03:42 -0800
Yeah,
but that's how it's always been,is't it?I think so...but this brings us
to another topic:which labels do you guys think that are really in it for
the music,not for the money?I know a few of them that aren't doing this just
for pleasure,and I'd have to say that Tzadik,Earache,Relapse and even Ipecac
are in it just for the pleasure of seeing obscure stuff that is considered
to be ''commercial suicide'' getting listened.Could anyone recommend me any
