ftp.xmission.com

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ ftp.xmission.com / 2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar / ftp.xmission.com / pub / lists / zorn-list / archive / v03.n695 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 2002-01-21 | 21KB

From: owner-zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (Zorn List Digest) To: zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: Zorn List Digest V3 #695 Reply-To: zorn-list Sender: owner-zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Zorn List Digest Tuesday, January 22 2002 Volume 03 : Number 695 In this issue: - Cecil Taylor Technical Question RE: RE: Zorn List Change? (PLEASE READ) Odp: RE: Zorn List Change? (PLEASE READ) Re: free jazz (was spontaneous performance/composition) Re: free jazz (was spontaneous performance/composition) Fwd: Cecil Taylor Technical Question Fwd: Re: free jazz (was spontaneous performance/composition) Re: Re: who understands harmolodics? and jazz journalism Re: who understands harmolodics? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:22:52 -0800 From: "Rev. Floyd Errors" <keithmar@msn.com> Subject: Cecil Taylor Technical Question >>>I've never seen Taylor as a technical pianist as I'd regard, for instance, Joey Baron or Mary Ehrlich on their respective instruments.<<< Are you saying he is less technical, or technical in a different way? - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:15:22 -0500 From: "Steve Smith" <ssmith36@sprynet.com> Subject: RE: RE: Zorn List Change? (PLEASE READ) Well, after I reflected on the fact that I download unfamiliar music for free with AudioGalaxy... ;-) Seriously, Bill, your points were well taken, and I'm all for embracing and engaging a more challenging creative atmosphere. I'm sure that I've gleaned more than a few thoughts, concepts and pointers here on the Z-list that have found their way into my work in one way or another, so I shouldn't complain about others being able to do the same with my ramblings. Thanks, too, for the helpful pointer regarding citations. Steve Smith ssmith36@sprynet.com NP - Ludwig van Beethoven, String Quartet in E-flat, Op. 127 - Quartetto Italiano (Philips) - -----Original Message----- From: Bill Ashline [mailto:bashline@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 1:25 AM That was too easy. I was hoping for a little debate first :-). - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:20:02 +0100 From: "Marcin Gokieli" <marcingokieli@go2.pl> Subject: Odp: RE: Zorn List Change? (PLEASE READ) I do not think that the copyright is the problem here - if someone wnts to steal something he will. Subscription to this list is not a problem, so how do you want to prevent that? And the fact is that this info is useful - some remarks on the director's cuts of some films made me search more info, and were useful for the article I wrote. Thanks you all. What I do find problematic is the fact that anyone could find out what I do - just by typing Marcin Gokieli in google (the Smiths on this list may not have to face those prpblems, but Gokielis do). But if that's the only way to make archives searchable, I won't protest. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:38:36 +0000 From: "Bill Ashline" <bashline@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: free jazz (was spontaneous performance/composition) >From: Skip Heller <velaires@earthlink.net> >Well, if you don't like rhythm'n'blues, you're not going to like GW's >material. Pretty reductive. I like rhythm and blues and don't care for Grover Washington. > >I also don't think avant-garde jazz is any more noble than any other form >of >music that people play for money, so belonging to that camp does not buy >you >protection. No. But protection from stupidity, yes. I think you equated Ornette with the Blues Brothers and claimed he played out of tune. That's pretty idiotic as far as I'm concerned. >Actually, I probably know more about it than you're led to believe. Show me the money, man. >And I >hold it as suspect as I hold other systems theories in music. Well this seems to be the problem then. What about your system theory of music? The one you take as the norm? >I also think >that just because a guy invents a vehicle does not mean he operates best. >For example, I am no huge Schoenberg fan, but I do go for Berg and Webern >in >a big way. All this means is that you're not a fan of Schoenberg. It doesn't mean that he doesn't operate his "vehicle" well. > >I always held Cherry as the harmelodic improvisor of note. His attention >to >craft, his ability to really play the damn trumpet, his ability to project >ideas and be an effective ensemble player no matter with whom he plays, and >his beautiful sound all let me in on something deep and special. I won't argue about Cherry. But Ornette is every bit the player that Cherry is. >Orrin Keepnews had a sign up in his studio that read "Important to who?", >and I think that's always the best question. Important to a large community of consensus to whom you don't apparently belong in this case. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:40:30 EST From: UFOrbK8@aol.com Subject: Re: free jazz (was spontaneous performance/composition) - --part1_145.83361b0.297e7f7e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/22/02 2:39:41 AM Central Standard Time, bashline@hotmail.com writes: > >Well, if you don't like rhythm'n'blues, you're not going to like GW's > >material. > > Pretty reductive. I like rhythm and blues and don't care for Grover > Washington. you know what i like? pomegranates. you know what i don't like? zucchini. > > - --part1_145.83361b0.297e7f7e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML>In a message dated 1/22/02 2:39:41 AM Central Standard Time, bashline@hotmail.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">>Well, if you don't like rhythm'n'blues, you're not going to like GW's >material. Pretty reductive. I like rhythm and blues and don't care for Grover Washington.</BLOCKQUOTE> you know what i like? pomegranates. you know what i don't like? zucchini. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> </BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML> - --part1_145.83361b0.297e7f7e_boundary-- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:43:59 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Efr=E9n=20del=20Valle?= <efrendv@yahoo.es> Subject: Fwd: Cecil Taylor Technical Question Hi, I said: > > >>>I've never seen Taylor as a > technical pianist as I'd regard, for instance, Joey > Baron or Mary Ehrlich on their respective > instruments.<<< And Keith asked: > Are you saying he is less technical, or technical in > a different > way? Well, I'm not a musician so the contents below are not great insights at all. When I read all these posts about intellectual approaches to music I sometimes wonder if things are not much easier than that (Except when you get paid for writing about music, of course). Knowing this, my perception of Taylor's music from a plain listener's POV is that he's probably technical, but as you say, in a different way. I mean, he doesn't seem to have any problems with (supposed) wrong notes or using strange tempos in relation to his bandmates (if any). I don't see him as a pianist in search of perfection but trying to capture feelings or maybe just what he thinks fits in that particular improv/piece. He can get really ugly sometimes. By this I don't mean that he's doing an "anything goes" kind of thing at all. But he's probably more spontaneous (now that's pretty obvious) than, say, Matt Shipp, who seems to be playing right from his brain sometimes, in spite of from the heart/soul/whatever-you-like. By mentioning Taylor and Ehrlich, for istance, I was just putting two examples of what I understand as intuition as opposed to perfectionism - or (theoretically) "ugly sound" versus "beautiful sound" (as understood by a vast majority). I don't want to re-read this message (i'm still sleepy and must be really, really stupid). I'll take the risk anyway. Best, EfrΘn del Valle _______________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger Comunicaci≤n instantßnea gratis con tu gente. http://messenger.yahoo.es - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:15:06 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Efr=E9n=20del=20Valle?= <efrendv@yahoo.es> Subject: Fwd: Re: free jazz (was spontaneous performance/composition) Hi again, Bill wrote: > > Fair enough, Skip. Me neither. But I'm left > concluding from this exchange > > that you understand very little about harmolodics. > Your dismissal struck me > > as pretty casual and unsupported. If you want to > go that way, expect some > > debate. Maybe Skip hasn't got a clue but as far as I've seen, nobody seems to, then. I've searched for explanations to the harmolodics theory repeatedly and even asked some Spanish jazz afficionados/musicians and what I obtained were just mind-wanderings full of "perhaps" and "maybes" that led to nowhere. I share those suspictions with Skip, although I like Ornette (not my idol, that's for sure). If Ornette's theories are so strong, why is it so difficult for so many to find a clear explanation to them, and specially for Coleman himself? Sometimes there's no need to explain oneself, but 40 years, that's far too much, isn't it? Regarding Ornette as a key saxophonist is, IMHO, a bit exaggerated. You can either enjoy his style or not, but I wouldn't say he's exactly a virtuoso as I think Coltrane is, for instance. Ornette's "dirty" sound was probably groundbreaking in the last 50'2-early 60's in comparison to be-bop purism but that'll hardly impress someone born in 1977 (me). IMHO, It's obvious that the Atlantic material is a must (either you come to like it or not) since it represents for me a clear turning point in the jazz world but other than that, I don't really think that the "harmolodic" thing deserves so much attention- at least, not 40 years of vague discussion. some more messy ideas, sorry. Best, EfrΘn del Valle _______________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger Comunicaci≤n instantßnea gratis con tu gente. http://messenger.yahoo.es - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:24:14 +0000 From: "Bill Ashline" <bashline@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Re: who understands harmolodics? and jazz journalism >From: Skip Heller <velaires@earthlink.net> >The culture of rock is largely the same at this point. The world of jazz >was penetrated by intellectuals who wanted to turn it into an >intellectually >documentable form. Jazz writers, who are largely intellectuals, relate to >jazz as an intellectual endeavor. Unfortunately, this has lead to a >dismissal of a lot of jazz, which can't really be reduced to >intellectualism. And I say reduced because the only way to get something >to >fit into an "ism", you have to make it smaller. My question for you Skip is what is "intellectualism?" And how is jazz an "intellectual" endeavor as opposed to some other kind. > >I think the largest reason critics are unsatisfied with answers is that few >musicians speak English as well as they speak music. Some musicians don't speak English at all. > >(Think about any form, regardless of style, as a kind of baseball diamond, >and then think about running the bases in a different order. You would >need >motivation and a certain tactical reason to do stuff like that in order for >it to make sense with regards to the form of baseball. Same goes for >music, >whether you're putting extra bars in a 12 bar blues, introducing upper >partials in a bluegrass context, or whatever. But music doesn't have one generic form, unlike baseball. The answer to the question of what is music changes all the time. >From: James Hale <jhale@sympatico.ca> >I don't think the jazz media is alone in this... the folk press and early >rock >press used to ask Bob Dylan 'what it all meant' and Rolling Stone's early >years >are filled with literature-grads-turned-critics trying to explain music >that >doesn't really require an explanation. God forbid we should have lit students becoming critics, but I'm curious, James, as to why music doesn't require or deserve any explanation. And if not, why do we even bother having a mailing list devoted toward discussing and explaining music. >Perhaps a better way to understand Ornette's dilemma of constantly having >to >explain himself is to realize that he often asks people on meeting them for >the >first time, "Do you play?" If he gets a negative answer, the curtain comes >down. >I think he realizes that if you don't play, you'll never understand his >music, >or at least the joy of making it. Sort of like going to a foreign country and asking someone if they can speak English. If they can't and you can't do the local lingo, the curtain certainly comes down unless you have the patience to use dictionaries. >From: Skip Heller <velaires@earthlink.net> >Critics generally fall into two categories >A) Guys who know a lot about music who decide to write >B) Guys who write who become interested in music So the distinction is which came first, the music or the writing? This sounds a bit simplistic to me. >Jazz journalism has been too often plagued by the specter of >intellectualism, and, as a result, music that does not come with noticiable >intellectualism attatched gets the shirt shrift. How can music come of its own with "intellectualism" attached? And what exactly is a "spectre" of "intellectualism?" >A great many players who >made jazz that gained popular acceptance -- Ahmad Jamal, Eddie Harris/Les >McCann, Cannonball Adderley -- faced polite dismissal at best in the jazz >press during their heyday because they weren't putting intellectualism at >the fore. How would they have put "intellectualism" (whatever that is) to the fore? I like their work myself, but not because they put "intellectualism to the fore" (whatever that means). >But their music has endured and has continued to shape the >standards and practices of jazz. But, looking back at old DOWNBEATS, more >critics were in a hurry to analyze Dolphy (one way or the other). You >never >read a review from that time that says "The band grooved, the audience >sweat, and we all had a great time." Would it be interesting to say such a thing? And to say such a thing again and again and again? Would saying something else be the emergence of this so-called "spectre of intellectualism?" >Instead, you read a great many reviews >of how someone like Baby Face Willette wasn't doing anytthing ambitious. >Even tho the guy made a ton of really fun records. What they should have said instead is that Baby Face was ambitiously making a lot of fun records but was otherwise unambitious about making other musical things. > >A goodly portion of jazz does well within academia. And you need that vein >of the music. Where in academia? Most of my academic friends don't know jack about jazz. But they do know a lot about rock and metal. >But when along comes a music that does not deal with the >intellectual, the intellectuals put it down. How does music deal with the intellectual? And which intellectuals "put down" such music? >The influx of rhythm'n'blues >influence in jazz was insulted by the critics, because the rhythm'n'blues >press was not dissecting the stuff in the DOWNBEAT style. But, by the time >rock'n'roll starting influencing jazz on a big scale, it was having a press >(via CRAWDADDY and ROLLING STONE) that cerebralized the music, and >therefore >was somehow worthy of the same treatment as jazz. So Skip. How does one "cerebralize" music? > >This is bogus. Anybody with a brain knows that James Brown is as heavy as >Jimi Hendrix. Hendrix certainly thought so. "Important to whom?" >But James was largely ignored >by the jazz press, until Miles started talking about him. Sly Stone, on >the >other hand, courted the rock press and was taken more seriously. > >Unfortunately, the trend largely continues, in both the jazz and the rock >press, because intellectualism is held up as this wonderful end. Which I >don't believe is any truer than anything else is a wonderful end. What else is a "wonderful end?" And what is "intellectualism" pray tell? >But, unfortunately, the jazz press is so largely defined by guy who seem to >feel like they have to defend a certain aspect of jazz as THE TRUTH, and >they miss the point -- not only of music, but of life. Please, Skip, tell us the "point of life." >Yes, you need >NEFERTITI. And you damn sure need "Jungle Boogie", even if it's not >getting >the same respect. I don't "need" either. >And I think "Jungle Boogie" is totally worthy of all the >respect. If not respect, then at least "boogie." OK agreed. >In the end, when the bulk of the critics are intellectuals, the bulk of the >good reviews will go out to music made by intellectuals, and Ramsey Lewis >be >damned. So the musicians that make music reviewed by "intellectuals" are themselves "intellectuals?" >But you'll meet more women with "The In Crowd" than you will with >"Ascension", which should tell you that everything that's any damn good has >a function. Indeed. _________________________________________________________________ Join the worldÆs largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:38:38 +0000 From: "Bill Ashline" <bashline@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: who understands harmolodics? >From: "Samuel Quentin" <nonintention@hotmail.com> >Subject: who understands harmolodics? > >But I'm left concluding from this exchange >that you understand very little about harmolodics. > > >do you understand harmolodics? (bill or anyone) and if so could someone >direct me to a source that would be good for understanding it... or at >least >explain it to me. Sam, essential reading would be Chapter 3 of Ekkehard Jost's book "Free Jazz." Quiz next Thursday. Final exam in three weeks. :-) This exchange led me to pick up Derek Bailey's book on improvisation again (I'm glad Derek at least thought it necessary to explain some things). On page 55 he's talking with Steve Lacy. Lacy's comments are funny in light of this discussion about so-called "intellectualism" in music: "Then when Ornette hit town, that was the blow. On the one hand there were all the academic players, the hard-boppers, the "Blue-Note" people, the "Prestige" people, and they were doing stuff which had slight progressive tendencies in it. But when Ornette hit the scene, that was the end of the theories. He destroyed the theories. I remember at that time he said, very carefully, `Well, you just have a certain amount of space and you put what you want in it.' And that was a revelation. And we used to listen to him and Don Cherry every night and that really spread a thirst for more freedom. But I think the key figure just then was Don Cherry. Cherry was freer, in a way. He didn't worry about all the stuff that Ornette was worrying about and his playing was really free...." Looks like, according to this comment by Lacy, that you, Skip, are the "academic" after all. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. - - ------------------------------ End of Zorn List Digest V3 #695 ******************************* To unsubscribe from zorn-list-digest, send an email to "majordomo@lists.xmission.com" 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 zorn-list-owner@lists.xmission.com