ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v03.n743

Internet Message Format | 2002-02-03 | 23KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V3 #743
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest       Monday, February 4 2002       Volume 03 : Number 743



In this issue:
-
       Re: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers
       Re: Bjork ranting+raving (No Zorn Content)
       Re: Bjork ranting+raving (No Zorn Content)
       Re: Tori Amos, indeed
       Re: Bjork ranting+raving (No Zorn Content)
       RE: Tori Amos, indeed
       polish f. on the net (NZC)
       Re: Tori Amos, indeed
       Re: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers
       Re: bjork, extended vocal technique, female singers.  non-zc.
       Re: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers
       RE: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers
       Re: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers

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

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:13:07 -0800
From: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers

> From: Matthew Ross Davis <[e-mail]>
> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 15:42:09 -0600
> To: Remco Takken <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Ajda the Turkish Queen <[e-mail]>, Zorn List
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers


> Bjork and Madonna and PJ Harvey all work within very very specific idioms
> of music, and they all have varying degrees of musicality and artistic
> creativity. But you cannot expect them to work within a popular idiom and
> completely alienate their audience.

But what about working in an idion specifically designed to generate dollars
while purporting to be all about art? Whenever you see somebody bitching
about being famous even as they have a VERY expensive publicist, you're
likely right to suspect their motives from the ground up.  Bjork has been a
very canny career strategist, and the way she's played the media is by no
means beneath -- or for that matter above -- examination.  She's on a major
label, makes sure to hire the kinds of people who will guarantee that her
work is percieved a certain way by virtue of their participation, and has a
publicist out there pushing all the right buttons.  I would say this is not
working to alientae an audience.  I would say it is working to look a
certain way to a certain clientele so they will buy records.  If you don't
believe me, come to Hollywood and check out how these things work.  I
guarantee you'll think twice before purchasing another major label record.
You'll likely buy it anyway, but you will likely feel unclean for having
done so.

If Bjork was on Tzadik, she'd be in a whole other boat.  But she's on a
major, and her use of major label machinary is pretty much like everyone
else's.


> And just to genericize my argument, look at Autechre. Yes, many folks on the
> Zorn list probably prefer their latest outings into experimental electronica
> to
> earlier works, but a good majority of their fan base think they went way
> downhill.

Your fan base doesn't count.  Your art does.  Unless you're only in it for
the money.
>
> The point is that you cannot categorically dismiss the work of a good artist
> because they choose to work within a medium that you don't like (or worse,
> don't understand and therefore shun).

There's no such thing as an inherently bad medium.

skip h


- -

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 15:59:31 -0600
From: Matthew Ross Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bjork ranting+raving (No Zorn Content)

Patrice L. Roussel([e-mail])@Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 01:57:40PM -0800:
> > I am completely unaware of Bjorks influence on techno and dance, like I
> > missed Coltrane's influence on later jazz, back when I thought his playing
> > was pretty normal.
>
> I always had the feeling that Bjork was like Gainsbourg, keeping her ears
> opened to jump on the new trends. She more a catalyst to me (and we need
> artists like that).

I'll chime in here too and say I think techno has more of an influence on her
than the other way around - ergo her desire to have Bogdan or Matmos work with
her on Vespertine.

m
http://craque.net

- -

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:18:08 -0800
From: "Rev. Freud Hairs" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bjork ranting+raving (No Zorn Content)

>>>....what Matmos is doing now... <<<

Seeing Matmos do what Matmos does, on the stage of the esteemed
Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, was a rare treat.

I must admit I was proud of my 13 y/o son [who attended Bjork with
me], when he remarked after attending a performance by the Jeff
Kaiser Improvising Big Band [including Vinny Golia, Brad Dutz,
Wayne Peet, et al.] here at Ventura's City Hall: "That music was a
lot better than Bjork, Dad."


- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:26:53 -0800
From: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tori Amos, indeed

> From: "Zachary Steiner" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:48:01 -0500
> To: "'Chris Selvig'" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: Tori Amos, indeed
>
> I don't equate money to success as an artist or quality of work in any
> way.  Is Brittany Spears better than all of the artists discussed on
> this list because she pulls in millions or even because more people
> listen to her albums? I think not.
But is she WORSE because she does? No.  And to a certain audience, she's
completely effective.

>  In my Tori Amos post I was more
> commenting on the bitterness of less successful (monetarily) musicians
> towards those who are more successful.  I believe that artists should be
> content with artistic success whether it produces material success or
> not.

I agree.  But people signed to major labels are saddled with different
options and obbligations -- which they know when they sign.

>  I would imagine that some one who chooses jazz, classical, or
> experimental styles for artistic expression that they don't anticipate
> to be as rich as Brittany.
No, but they likely anticipate other fringe benefits.


>  I couldn't see Zorn shakin' his thang in a
> Pepsi ad (though it could be interesting).

Wasn't Naked City used to sell footwear?

> I have a problem with "rip-offs."  A situation where a inferior group
> gets rich or famous by merely imitating another group (normally poorly)
> that it claims as an influence.  I do believe that people deserve
> respect and/or notoriety for their innovations and creativity.
But for as many bands as have credited Beefheart, Iggy, X, the Velvet
Underground et al -- and therefore have given the respect publicly --
audiences generally want young, goodlooking people who are happening now.
You can't blame Kurt Cobain for not pushing more people to buy the
Raincoats' album.  And it's not his responsibility to sell Raincoats albums.
And its not even really the audience's job to go on a research project to
"correctly" build a record library.  They've already spent 40 hrs a week to
make that money, and they usually want some entertainment.  I don't think
anyone's trying to make a point for Brittney as a force of art, but it does
get certain people off.  I imagine that her work is meaningful to a 13 year
old girl, whereas Masada would not adress the concerns of a 14 yr old girl
as well.  And 14 yr old girls need music, too. Is she wrong to provide it?



- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:28:44 -0800
From: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bjork ranting+raving (No Zorn Content)

> From: "Rev. Freud Hairs" <[e-mail]>
> Reply-To: "Rev. Freud Hairs" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:18:08 -0800
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Bjork ranting+raving (No Zorn Content)
>
>
> I must admit I was proud of my 13 y/o son [who attended Bjork with
> me], when he remarked after attending a performance by the Jeff
> Kaiser Improvising Big Band [including Vinny Golia, Brad Dutz,
> Wayne Peet, et al.] here at Ventura's City Hall: "That music was a
> lot better than Bjork, Dad."
>
I am sending this over to Wayne right now.

skip h


- -

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:20:29 -0500
From: "Sean Westergaard" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Tori Amos, indeed

>  I don't think
>anyone's trying to make a point for Brittney as a force of art, but it does
>get certain people off.  I imagine that her work is meaningful to a 13 year
>old girl, whereas Masada would not adress the concerns of a 14 yr old girl
>as well.  And 14 yr old girls need music, too. Is she wrong to provide it?

the creepy part is that it isn't just 13 & 14 year old girls buying Britney.
I worked record (CD for you youngsters) retail for about 10 years, and a
good portion of her consumers don't fall into the teen/pre-teen girl
demographic.  i fear the ones really "getting off" are the middle aged men
who were buying it.  only some of them had kids.  YUCK

sean

- -



- -

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:35:04 +0100 (CET)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Ricardo=20Campillo?= <[e-mail]>
Subject: polish f. on the net (NZC)

Somebody knows a site on the net where I can find
images of polish films? I specially interested in the
films of: Andrzej Munk, Wojciech Has, Wajda, Jerzy
Skolimowski, Stanislaw Rozawicz and Henryk Kluba.
And the czechoslovakian Jaromil Jires.
Regards for everybody.

n.p.:Massacre"Meltdown"

_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger
Comunicaci≤n instantßnea gratis con tu gente.
http://messenger.yahoo.es

- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:42:15 -0800
From: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tori Amos, indeed

> From: "Sean Westergaard" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:20:29 -0500
> To: "Skip Heller" <[e-mail]>, "Zachary Steiner"
> <[e-mail]>, "'Chris Selvig'" <[e-mail]>,
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: Tori Amos, indeed
>
> the creepy part is that it isn't just 13 & 14 year old girls buying Britney.
> I worked record (CD for you youngsters) retail for about 10 years, and a
> good portion of her consumers don't fall into the teen/pre-teen girl
> demographic.  i fear the ones really "getting off" are the middle aged men
> who were buying it.  only some of them had kids.  YUCK

Well, that's a whole other thing that we probably don't need to go into.

skip h


- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:40:31 -0800
From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers

On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:13:07 -0800  Skip Heller wrote:
>
> But what about working in an idion specifically designed to generate dollars
> while purporting to be all about art? Whenever you see somebody bitching
> about being famous even as they have a VERY expensive publicist, you're
> likely right to suspect their motives from the ground up.  Bjork has been a

Do I detect bitter tears here or am I having some optical illusions?

> very canny career strategist, and the way she's played the media is by no
> means beneath -- or for that matter above -- examination.  She's on a major

To play with the media, you first need to be on their radar screen.

> label, makes sure to hire the kinds of people who will guarantee that her
> work is percieved a certain way by virtue of their participation, and has a
> publicist out there pushing all the right buttons.  I would say this is not

Which means that if tomorrow Skip Heller gets a good publicist (you have an
address, BTW?), he will immediately pop up in every DOWN BEAT issue next to
Diana Krall? But we can be reassured that he won't do that because he will
never sell his soul to the devil.

> working to alientae an audience.  I would say it is working to look a
> certain way to a certain clientele so they will buy records.  If you don't
> believe me, come to Hollywood and check out how these things work.  I
> guarantee you'll think twice before purchasing another major label record.

Thanks for letting us know that besides confidential pressings (is 1000 not
too many?), there is no salvation.

> You'll likely buy it anyway, but you will likely feel unclean for having
> done so.

Unclean? For buying a popular record? Should we wait twenty years until
THE WIRE has a special dossier on rediscovering entertainment music from
the nineties? Since we all know now that it is cool to appreciate Burt
Bacharach and Abba (after decades of purgatory).

> If Bjork was on Tzadik, she'd be in a whole other boat.  But she's on a
> major, and her use of major label machinary is pretty much like everyone
> else's.
>
>
> > And just to genericize my argument, look at Autechre. Yes, many folks on the
> > Zorn list probably prefer their latest outings into experimental electronica
> > to
> > earlier works, but a good majority of their fan base think they went way
> > downhill.
>
> Your fan base doesn't count.  Your art does.  Unless you're only in it for
> the money.

    Patrice.[

- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 18:11:52 -0500
From: Rick Lopez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: bjork, extended vocal technique, female singers.  non-zc.

on 02.02.04 12:37 PM, [e-mail] at [e-mail] wrote:

> as a performer
...[HUGE snip]
> onto my iBook.


Ummm.... you married?



- -

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:04:22 -0600
From: Matthew Ross Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers

Skip Heller([e-mail])@Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 02:13:07PM -0800:
> If Bjork was on Tzadik, she'd be in a whole other boat.  But she's on a
> major, and her use of major label machinary is pretty much like everyone
> else's.

Yeah, but I doubt she'd ever be on Tzadik. However, she *has* appeared on Warp
with Plaid, and has several of those cats remix her tunes, so I fully trust her
ability to diversify and not just live a life of commercial music. The amount
of remix work and collaboration that Bjork does on the flip side of her major
label is quite enough for me to believe that she has her wits about her in this
area.

But it's quite obvious that Bjork made it into the entertainment business
because she's entertaining, she's a damn good musician, and she has a fabulous
voice. She is making a career of music, and to make a career of anything you
have to be willing to work within certain constraints. Vespertine is a much
less "pop" album than the past few, and I think it's readily apparent that she
did this as the "do what I want to do" release as opposed to "make people get
up and notice me" (like Debut, for example).

One of the things I love about the indie label world is how one artist
(obviously a successful one if he or she can get multiple deals on small
labels) can shop their different musical voices to different labels. Kit
Clayton is this way - he's got releases on a ton of different labels, and
their "sound" is reflected in what he chooses to release on that label.

> Your fan base doesn't count.  Your art does.  Unless you're only in it for
> the money.

I disagree. Fan base *does* count, because those are the people listening. You
don't have to be "only in it for the money" to desire a fan base and people who
want to listen to your music. It's a very symbiotic relationship.

(of course, this is my personal view, i am aware that plenty of folks are more
puritanical about it, which is cool with me and i respect that)

> There's no such thing as an inherently bad medium.

100% in agreement here!

m
http://craque.net


- -

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 15:14:13 -0800
From: "Benito Vergara" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Remco Takken
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:46 PM

> Ben Wrote:
> Now you may legitimately ask: what's so great about being "sonically
> adventurous" if we can listen to any Tzadik release and get our
> thrills that
> way?

> Remco Writes:
> Right, I feel Ben's point very urgently. To me the above
> arguments equal the
> giving of star ratings to different styles of crap. So Madonna, PJ and
> Radiohead get high rates in crap industry?

You're taking my words out of context. My above sentence is followed by "But
to combine
skillful pop songwriting with what are clearly risky musical choices is a
monumental task in itself, and Bjork succeeds most beautifully."

Later,
Ben

np: king tubby, "dub gone 2 crazy"

http://members.tripod.com/~tamad2/
ICQ/AIM: thewilyfilipino


- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:36:34 -0800
From: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers

> From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:40:31 -0800
> To: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Matthew Ross Davis <[e-mail]>, Remco Takken
> <[e-mail]>, Ajda the Turkish Queen <[e-mail]>, Zorn
> List <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers
>
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:13:07 -0800  Skip Heller wrote:
>>
>> But what about working in an idion specifically designed to generate dollars
>> while purporting to be all about art? Whenever you see somebody bitching
>> about being famous even as they have a VERY expensive publicist, you're
>> likely right to suspect their motives from the ground up.
>
> Do I detect bitter tears here or am I having some optical illusions?

Optical illusions.  You don't go into what I've gone into to be in lots of
magazines.  Guys who do everything but what you're supposed to don't get the
big media attention.  On the other hand, you get to do fun stuff all the
time and pay your rent doing it without having to answer to anyone.  I can't
complain.  The fact that I work in the profession I like under conditions I
can live with makes me the guy who won the lottery.  I know guys who can
play like Wes Montgomery who pump gas for a living.  You think I don't
mutter "there but for the grace of God go I" once a day at least?
>

> To play with the media, you first need to be on their radar screen.
And -- on that level of media -- that ain't cheap.  And the artist has to be
into working it as hard as the publicist.
>

> Which means that if tomorrow Skip Heller gets a good publicist (you have an
> address, BTW?), he will immediately pop up in every DOWN BEAT issue next to
> Diana Krall? But we can be reassured that he won't do that because he will
> never sell his soul to the devil.
I have turned down big ticket rock tours that would have paid bitchen wages
but did go out with NRBQ, if that tells you anything about my own personal
money/music equation.  And, incidentally, how did Diana Krall find herself
so far ahead of the pack of people with similar talents as hers? There's a
very serious publicity machine behind Ms Krall, coupled with her on
commitment to being the kind of artist that gets magazine covers.  I don't
find her objectionable, but I also don't think she's exactly light years
ahead of her peer group.  There's a enough evidence to suggest that, if your
label spends enough advertising dollars in a given magaine, you can call
some shots.  Which probably has a lot to do with who is on the covers of
magazines.

Zorn's opinion of the press and the effect major labels have on it was spot
on.  If you have huge a huge publicity machine, you'll pop up in every
DOWNBEAT, regardless of the content of your music (I don't dismiss Diana
Krall, but she's been on the cover more times than Guy Klucevsek, who
certainly is a great artist).  Look at Frisell -- while making fine records
on ECM, he didn't get large attention fr the press.  But Nonesuch could
afford a much more efficient and powerful publicist.  Not that I rank myself
with Frisell (who was already much greater at the start of his career than
I'll ever be), but he's a classic example.

>> working to alientae an audience.  I would say it is working to look a
>> certain way to a certain clientele so they will buy records.  If you don't
>> believe me, come to Hollywood and check out how these things work.  I
>> guarantee you'll think twice before purchasing another major label record.
>
> Thanks for letting us know that besides confidential pressings (is 1000 not
> too many?), there is no salvation.
It's much deeper and worse than that.  And sadder.  Mark Twain said that
people are best not knowing what goes into making their laws or their
sausages.  That should be extended to major label recordings.  Remember --
these are the guys who make cross-ventured deals with Clear Channel and the
Gap.  I've sat in meetings with these guys, and it really shook me up.

> Unclean? For buying a popular record? Should we wait twenty years until
> THE WIRE has a special dossier on rediscovering entertainment music from
> the nineties? Since we all know now that it is cool to appreciate Burt
> Bacharach and Abba (after decades of purgatory).
Again, if you met the people that were responsible for bringing the stuff to
you -- deciding what/who gets the shove into the marketplace and what that
decision is based on, you would likely be really disturbed.  They aren't
nice, they generally don't care about music, and their concept of what is
good is based pretty much entirely on what sold and how much.   Remember --
we're talking about committees that decided to push boy bands and joked
about how much income would be derived from the "pedophile demo[graphic]."
To quote Frank Zappa, recording artists on major labels are owned and
operated by truly bad people.

And it's always been cool to appreciate Burt Bacharach.  If you're looking
for some Burt you can't find, I'll hook ya up.

sh


- -

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

End of Zorn List Digest V3 #743
*******************************


 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]