ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v03.n696

Internet Message Format | 2002-01-21 | 22KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V3 #696
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest       Tuesday, January 22 2002       Volume 03 : Number 696



In this issue:
-
       Re: Zorn List Digest V3 #695
       Re: free jazz (was spontaneous performance/composition)
       Re: who understands harmolodics?
       Re: who understands harmolodics?
       Re: free jazz (was spontaneous performance/composition)
       Re: free jazz (was spontaneous performance/composition)
       Baseball Season, Was: Re: Re: who understands harmolodics? and jazz journalism
       Re: Odp: Ornette Coleman Is God
       Re: Speaking of Free Jazz and music snobiness (no offense..

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:56:47 +0000
From: "Bill Ashline" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Zorn List Digest V3 #695

>From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Efr=E9n=20del=20Valle?= <[e-mail]>

>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?
>

The best and only accurate explanation, Efren, comes from your own ears,
assuming they are capable of hearing.  But our ears are sometimes deceptive
and don't allow us to hear what others are hearing.  Then we look for
explanations and communities of listeners who support the said artist.  The
reason there aren't very many clear explanations is that the theory eludes
the limitations of language.  Try Jost, though, maybe that will help.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com


- -

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:20:36 +0000
From: "Bill Ashline" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: free jazz (was spontaneous performance/composition)

>From: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>

>I didn't realize I was stupid.   It may not have dawned on you that I don't
>need to think or hear your way in order to think clearly.

You're far from stupid Skip, but I think your comment was.

>Out of tune is not subjective,

I think this discussion has revealed, Skip, that what we think is "out of
tune" is in fact subjective.

>It's not something I'm really into doing, but that doesn't mean I didn't
>study it.  But I don't really feel a need to do it because you want proof
>of
>something.  Or am I legitimized only if I deal in harmelodics? Am I
>supposed
>to pass some special test for you and you alone?

You claimed that you understood harmolodics better than I thought.  I simply
asked you to explain what you understood.  If you don't wish to do so, fine.

>
>
>I don't know how familiar you are with George Russell, but he developed a
>system theory (for jazz) called The Lydian Concept Of Tonal Organization,
>and it''s a brilliant thing.  It's great for making jazz, whether you're
>putting an arrangment together, or using it as an improvising tool when
>using either modal harmony or harmonic structures where the chords are
>densified by prolific use of upper partials (re: the kinds of chords with
>little numbers to the right of the letter-name of the chord).  I was really
>sold on this, until I tried to use this system on a different kind of gig
>in
>a context that required different tools.  It didn't apply, and made me
>realize that, even with something as developed and encompassing as what
>Russell laid out, it's still only one thing.  The infinite variety of music
>(to use Leonard Bernstein's term) insists on trying to assemble an infinite
>variety of tools.

Yes, I do know of Russell's theories, and now we're getting somewhere.  And
yes, you are right.  None of these theories are universal.  Not a single
one.  They all apply in separate contexts under different registers.  All of
our aesthetic ideas do.


>Exactly.  You can't put down the integrity of craft and the skill at work
>there.  But It comes off cold to me.  I don't feel he operatedthe vehicle
>as
>well as his students.

Or perhaps you don't relate as well to his vehicle as you do to his
students.

>You're entitled to that opinion, but I think it's questionable to state an
>opinion like that as fact, especially when one can call execution into
>question.

I'm not stating an opinion as fact, though the separation between fact and
opinion is itself an opinion.  One can always call execution into question.
One can also call "the calling of the execution into question" into question
as well.

>... and an even larger community will jump over ten Ornette's, twenty
>Trane's, and thirty Joe Henderson's to listen to the Beatles.  I don't
>think
>anyone's ever wrong for choosing the Beatles, anymore than I think it's
>wrong to listen to [insert name of any jazz artist you love].

No, I never, ever said they were nor would I say so.  There are multiple
communities that sometimes intersect.

>The largest
>"community of consensus" thinks the bulk of the stuff we discuss on this
>list doesn't even exist.  I doubt they'd go for much of it at all if they
>heard it.  Is the music they love, that means something real in their
>lives,
>inconsequential? They're not part of THIS "community of consensus", but I
>don't think any one community has the consensus market cornered.

Yes, I agree that the largest community of consensus has no interest in this
music.  I'm not thinking about them.  What I'm thinking about is the general
consensus of the community that support the avant-garde in jazz and
elsewhere.  That's the consensus that interests me.  And no they haven't
"cornered the market."  That's why their opinions are not absolute, but only
true within a consensus.  But if you want to convince those within the
consensus about the quality or lack thereof of an artist, Skip, you're going
to have to do better than associate him with the Blues Brothers or tell us
he's an empirically "bad" saxophone player.  You're going to have to show
us.

Cheer up, Skip, it's just a row about music.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.


- -

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:27:48 -0800
From: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: who understands harmolodics?

> From: "Bill Ashline" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:38:38 +0000
> To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: who understands harmolodics?
>
> "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.
>
Actually, it looks more like I'm the SECOND biggest Don Cherry fan.

And, in all fairness to a lot of musicians, it wasn't the end of anything
that they were already doing.  Lacy is one guy who was around.  if you talk
to other guys who were around, they have a different opinion of how much
impact Ornette, or even Trane, had on what was going on in their respective
scene.  I don't think, for instance, that Hank Jones was looking for ore
freedom, but he did make some great records in the sixties.

You are, by the way, the first person to call me an academic.

sh



- -

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:36:58 +0000
From: "Bill Ashline" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: who understands harmolodics?

>From: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>

>You are, by the way, the first person to call me an academic.

Ha ha ha!  Well no.  I was saying that if Lacy's interpretation is accurate,
then according to that account, and making an application to what you were
saying, you would be an "academic."

_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldÆs largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com


- -

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:42:18 -0800
From: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: free jazz (was spontaneous performance/composition)


> I think this discussion has revealed, Skip, that what we think is "out of
> tune" is in fact subjective.
>
I was more under the impression that whether or not you wanna hear some out
of tune stuff is subjective.


>
> Or perhaps you don't relate as well to [Schienberg's] vehicle as you do to his
> students.
>
Same vehicle -- 12 tone music -- but I have a preference, and it is based on
something.  And I have checked out a lot of Schoenberg.  Bottom line -- I
always hear the math.
>
> I'm not stating an opinion as fact, though the separation between fact and
> opinion is itself an opinion.  One can always call execution into question.
> One can also call "the calling of the execution into question" into question
> as well.

That's too convoluted for me to get anywhere near.


> Yes, I agree that the largest community of consensus has no interest in this
> music.  I'm not thinking about them.  What I'm thinking about is the general
> consensus of the community that support the avant-garde in jazz and
> elsewhere.  That's the consensus that interests me.  And no they haven't
> "cornered the market."  That's why their opinions are not absolute, but only
> true within a consensus.  But if you want to convince those within the
> consensus about the quality or lack thereof of an artist, Skip, you're going
> to have to do better than associate him with the Blues Brothers or tell us
> he's an empirically "bad" saxophone player.  You're going to have to show
> us.

I think Ornette Coleman is a very bad saxophone player.  As for the
consensus of any community, I don't really take it past the fact that I may
or may not have some idea of their collective opinion.  But it does not
affect my personal hearing.  A lot of people I respect think Beck is just
the greatest.  He makes me sleepy.  They can have my Beck.

> Cheer up, Skip, it's just a row about music.

Glad to know.

sh


- -

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 01:27:04 -0800
From: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: free jazz (was spontaneous performance/composition)

>> 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.
>
Interesting,  Grover is well-regarded throughout the R&B community, espec
amongst the hip-hop crowd (he's sampled often and well).
>>
>> 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.

I didn't realize I was stupid.   It may not have dawned on you that I don't
need to think or hear your way in order to think clearly. Also, you're about
the only guy that's gotten rude about this.  Most people just agree to
disagree.  They might say that they don't care about in tune or cleanly
executed, but they wouldn't get carried away to your level over whether or
not someone has the right to like or dislike something.

You wanna set here and analyze waveforms? Out of tune is not subjective,
especially not when just about anything he plays near the concert E-flat (a
10th over middle C) is just REALLY sqeaky out.  I pulled out THIS IS OUR
MUSIC this afternoon just to see if I was being harsh, and I came out of it
pretty sure I hadn't been.

>> Actually, I probably know more about it than you're led to believe.
>
> Show me the money, man.

It's not something I'm really into doing, but that doesn't mean I didn't
study it.  But I don't really feel a need to do it because you want proof of
something.  Or am I legitimized only if I deal in harmelodics? Am I supposed
to pass some special test for you and you alone?

>
>> 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 don't have one.  You can't always say "this is what works -- end of story"
when you're dealing with a lot of different musicians who play from
different worlds.  What works among bluegrass players doesn't always work
with the jazz guys and etc.

I don't know how familiar you are with George Russell, but he developed a
system theory (for jazz) called The Lydian Concept Of Tonal Organization,
and it''s a brilliant thing.  It's great for making jazz, whether you're
putting an arrangment together, or using it as an improvising tool when
using either modal harmony or harmonic structures where the chords are
densified by prolific use of upper partials (re: the kinds of chords with
little numbers to the right of the letter-name of the chord).  I was really
sold on this, until I tried to use this system on a different kind of gig in
a context that required different tools.  It didn't apply, and made me
realize that, even with something as developed and encompassing as what
Russell laid out, it's still only one thing.  The infinite variety of music
(to use Leonard Bernstein's term) insists on trying to assemble an infinite
variety of tools.
>
>> 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.
>
Exactly.  You can't put down the integrity of craft and the skill at work
there.  But It comes off cold to me.  I don't feel he operatedthe vehicle as
well as his students.  But he did show 'em the car.  And I think Berg, more
than Arnold himself, was born to drive.
>>
>> 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.

You're entitled to that opinion, but I think it's questionable to state an
opinion like that as fact, especially when one can call execution into
question.

>> 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.
>
... and an even larger community will jump over ten Ornette's, twenty
Trane's, and thirty Joe Henderson's to listen to the Beatles.  I don't think
anyone's ever wrong for choosing the Beatles, anymore than I think it's
wrong to listen to [insert name of any jazz artist you love].  The largest
"community of consensus" thinks the bulk of the stuff we discuss on this
list doesn't even exist.  I doubt they'd go for much of it at all if they
heard it.  Is the music they love, that means something real in their lives,
inconsequential? They're not part of THIS "community of consensus", but I
don't think any one community has the consensus market cornered.



skip h
np: john hartford, aereo plane


- -

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:07:15 +0100
From: "Remco Takken" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Baseball Season, Was: Re: Re: who understands harmolodics? and jazz journalism

>
>(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.
- ------------------------------

Is any of you aware of saxophone player Dan Plonsey's piece BASEBALL
SEASON??

It is minimal jazz, where all repetitions are following the same lines as
Baseball: every rule is the same, the whole season long, games are similar,
but still, it's exciting. His 16-bar or so BASEBALL SEASON- theme is
repeated 256 times, so automatically trhe musicians start to play bum notes,
fall out of breath etc. There's a great recording of it.

Remco Takken




- -

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:04:03 +0100
From: "Remco Takken" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Odp: Ornette Coleman Is God

Marcin Gokiele Wrote:
> And Skip, what do you mean by 'later' Zappa bands you don't like?
everything
> after early MOI? '80s bands?
> Marcin
>
Abbreviated Skip Here Answers:
>>>My own weird personal theory -- and this is based on what friends of mine
who worked with FZ said about their time with him -- is
that he lost something personal when he lost Ruth Underwood.  And he didn't
really get it back until, ironically, he found the Synclavier, because I
think that was the first "Oh my god! I never dreamt I could get this sound"
after her.

skip h

Remco Takken Adds:

To top this not so weird theory, is the fact that, near the end of his life,
Zappa asked Ruth back in his home studio to sample her sounds for future use
in his synclavier. That's what I believe you can hear in parts of
CIVILIZATION PHASE III: long samples of presumably written out performances
by a great live musician.

The second disc of YCDTOSA volume 5 (1982 live in Europe) is exemplary for
me, to underline the 'lost something personal theory'. Steve Vai and other
technocrats from the 1982 group play the old stuff faster than ever, but
their performances come nowhere near 'favorite versions' in my book.

I also wished Zappa had recorded his Doo-wop favorites with earlier outfits
than his 1982-84 live groups. Still glad that live versions of 'Little Girl
of Mine' and 'No No Cherry' exist though.

I feel the 1982 group played the newly composed material OK though, perhaps
because it was specially written for them. Enter 'something personal' there
IMHO (Drowning Witch etc).

Regards, Remco Takken

np Paolo Angeli: Linee di Fuge.
Saw his show in Eindhoven, Holland yesterday...wow, what a great guitar
player!!!


- -

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:56:29 +0100
From: "Remco Takken" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speaking of Free Jazz and music snobiness (no offense..

From: the muff

I was just wondering, what do you admire most about a jazz song.  Not a
song
necessarily, but an artist, etc.  And when you listen to an album, do
you go with
the flow, or inspect every note and analyze the way they're fused
together, etc.
I find myself to do both, but I was wondering how "experts" view the
music.


Remco Takken Writes:
Skip Heller just said it somewhere in one of his many mails of late. Skip
applauded the listening techniques writer James Hale applied. Look that up
in recent messages somewhere, I think that one is OK.

Trying to find out what a record wants, and judge it by that standard. In
practice, that's very abstract. Does an Ornette Coleman record want you to
dance with a nice lady, does Grover Washington want you to look up from your
Kierkegaard book, and say 'phew, that Washington guy does interestingly new
stuff, what would his theory be' ?

Music can groove, experiment, rock, or add some colour to your home
surroundings, anything. And some of them are very special in their field.
Hence the feeling that Howlin' Wolf is equally important as Stravinsky or
Zorn. They express different things, and they all do it very well.

Bye, Remco


- -

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

End of Zorn List Digest V3 #696
*******************************


 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]