ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v03.n744

Internet Message Format | 2002-02-04 | 22KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V3 #744
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest       Monday, February 4 2002       Volume 03 : Number 744



In this issue:
-
       Re: Bjork/Gainsbourg
       Re: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers
       Britney, Tori, et al
       Re: Tori Amos, indeed
       Re: Britney, Tori, et al
       Re: Tori Amos, indeed
       RE: Britney, Tori, et al
       Re: Britney, Tori, et al
       Bjorkasaurus
       Re: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers
       Re: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers

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

Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 00:52:55 +0100
From: duncan youngerman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bjork/Gainsbourg

>
>
> I always had the feeling that Bjork was like Gainsbourg, keeping her ears
> opened to jump on the new trends=2E
>
>         Patrice:
>
>
>
> -

Bj=F6rk's ears will never be in the same league as Gainsbourg's (without ver=
y
costly plastic surgery, that is) !!

DY=2E


- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:51:38 -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 17:04:22 -0600
> To: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Remco Takken <[e-mail]>, Ajda the Turkish Queen
> <[e-mail]>, Zorn List <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers
>
>> 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.

Let me rephrase that -- because you're right in light of the flimsy way I
wrote that.  New sentence:
Your fan base should not dictate anything about your artistic choices.  The
symbiosis ideally occurs when -- based purely on an art motive --  the
artist and the audience grow together, and that the audience comes to check
things out with the artist.  Z-List favorite Ornette Coleman as example: the
bulk of the people I knew to be fans of the original quartet were into Prime
Time, because they wanted to go exploring with Ornette.  Doing Prime Time
was a different thing for him to do, and I doubt that he was trying to
appease anyone by going in that direction.  But the fan base went because
they want the journey.  I don't think he did it to make $.  That's the ideal
symbiotic relationship.  Whereas the relationship that has a guy servicing a
fan base by providing more of what they already like out of some fear of
f**king with the formula is in bad shape.

The artist is in business for the people who buy the CD.  he should make the
best effort he can.  But he shouldn't compromise himself in the effort to
become a human jukebox that just spits out more of the same.  To be Ornette
Coleman in the Prime Time situation must have been pleasant.  But to be a
human jukebox... Well, let's just say I've heard Jimmy Buffett is rumored to
go to great lengths to avoid dealing personally with his fan base.

Glenn Gould once said that it would be interesting to see what happened if
musicians were completely annonymous and had no concept of who was listening
to them, why, or how much it sold.  Then, he opined, the artist would have
to rely solely on his own artistic judgement.

It's a little extreme, but interesting to ponder.

skip h


- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:47:17 -0800
From: Chris Selvig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Britney, Tori, et al

Zach,
   I'm relieved to hear you are not a defender of the sales figures =
genius equation.  While the professor is a bit loserly for being so bitter
about it, I'd certainly try to dissociate myself from any and all Tori Amos
associations.  As for defenders of Britney Spears and her ilk, while I do
not expect to hear snarling el/ac improv on a Top 40 station, my main
criterion for music is that it be interesting.  I find her music dull, and
I think extramusical concerns drive her career.  The medium in which
Madonna and her clones operate is music only tangentially - they are
professional celebrities, puppets for pop-song writers and producers; their
art form is fame.  The fact that Ms. Ciccone controls her publicity machine
does not make her music any better, though perhaps she deserves cudos for
her business acumen.
   Now that I have that off my chest, I hypocritically wish to move away
from this thread: I'd like to hear recommendations for some country records
to check out.  I have no interest in new country and don't wish to hear
about alt-country, but I'd like recommendations on some good entry points
into classic c&w.  I have Hank Williams' "40 Greatest Hits," which I would
definitely take to my desert island; I love Dock Boggs and early Johnny
Cash and Willie Nelson and that's about it.
   And... it seems like Get Back is maybe going to reissue all of the BYG
Actuel series - is this the case?  I hope so, 'cause I really NEED Alan
Silva's "Luna Surface" LP and my, uh, career trajectory is not currently at
a point where I can troll for such precious items on Ebay.

Chris Selvig


- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 23:57:03 +0000
From: "thomas chatterton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tori Amos, indeed

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

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

I tend to think that 98% of the people who do get signed to the majors have
NO idea what they're getting themselves into, and I say this from the
experience of watching promising local artists landing deals, thinking
they're finally going to hit the top, getting that nice fat advance to
record an album (and fill up their nostrils and veins), then heading out on
the road to play the never ending string of one nighters in the vague hope
that they can generate enough sales to pay back that big advance. And
finding out in the end that they owe the label a helluva lot more than they
got fronted because of course they've been charged for every piece of
stationary, every cup of coffee, every postage stamp that's been 'invested'
in their 'career'. Really it's only the very successful artists (Tori Amos
just got dropped by her label right? Rod Stewart made millions& millions for
Atlantic but just get dropped) who end up benefiting from being on a major
label.  But some of the majors are in serious trouble now, the old
established system of marketing music (ooops! should read 'product') is
falling apart, and those not willing to change with the times must surely
perish...

I can't believe Britney Spears is being discussed here!

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx


- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:05:13 -0800
From: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Britney, Tori, et al

> From: Chris Selvig <[e-mail]>
> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:47:17 -0800
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Britney, Tori, et al
>
> I have no interest in new country and don't wish to hear
> about alt-country, but I'd like recommendations on some good entry points
> into classic c&w.

Any decent Lefty Frisell collection on Columbia, my fav being LOOK WHAT
THOUGHTS WILL DO
Bob Wills -- CLASSIC WESTERN SWING (Rhino)
anything by Jerry Lee Lewis on Mercury
Merle Haggard -- DOWN EVERY ROAD (4 CD box, all meat, no fat and an
essential part of any American record collection, IMHO)
GEORGE JONES -- Best Of (Rhino)every volume of Rhino's HILLBILLY FEVER
series has the essential stuff in its respective subgenre
Flatt & Scruggs -- TIS SWEET TO BE REMEMBERED Earl Scruggs was to 5 string
banjo what Charlie Parker was to alto saxophone.  All dazzling.  Great track
selection, too.
any RCA Dolly Parton album made before "Here You Come Again" (1977).
Tom T Hall -- GREATEST HITS (Mercury).
Ernest Tubb-- any best of on MCA.
Louvin Bros -- WHEN I STOP DREAMING (Razor & Tie)  Even the fundamentalist
Christian tunes on here ("that word 'broadminded' is spelled S-I-N") are
amazing.  Great Chet Atkins solos throughout,and some of the best brother
harmonies ever.
any Hank Snow best of on RCA
Jimmy Martin -- KING OF BLUEGRASS (I forget the label) -- The Ray Charles of
bluegrass singers
THE ESSENTIAL JIMMIE ROGERS (RCA)

contact me off-list if need be.  this was my first love.

skip h


- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:14:07 -0800
From: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tori Amos, indeed

> From: "thomas chatterton" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 23:57:03 +0000
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Tori Amos, indeed
>
>
> I tend to think that 98% of the people who do get signed to the majors have
> NO idea what they're getting themselves into, and I say this from the
> experience of watching promising local artists landing deals

You're right and more than right fr that angle.  I'm speaking from
Hollywood, where people have lawyers reading the service agreements for
their kitchen sinks.

skip h



- -

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:21:00 -0500
From: "Zachary Steiner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Britney, Tori, et al

When it comes to musicians and actors, the vast majority of people want
a pretty face and/or a nice body.  Listening to people in my age group
talk about celebrities they want to meet, I hear the vast majority say
they want to meet a celeb of the opposite sex.  When pressed as to why
they want to, I normally hear "Cause they're hot."  I never hear
"Because they do good work" or "Because I think they would be
interesting to talk to." It seems logical that tastes for actors would
bank on looks, but it seems bizarre that musicians are judged on looks.
I listen to musicians that I wouldn't know if I tripped over them.
Maybe that's just me...

Zach


- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:22:26 -0800
From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Britney, Tori, et al

On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:47:17 -0800  Chris Selvig wrote:
>
> Zach,
>    I'm relieved to hear you are not a defender of the sales figures =
> genius equation.  While the professor is a bit loserly for being so bitter
> about it, I'd certainly try to dissociate myself from any and all Tori Amos
> associations.  As for defenders of Britney Spears and her ilk, while I do
> not expect to hear snarling el/ac improv on a Top 40 station, my main
> criterion for music is that it be interesting.  I find her music dull, and
> I think extramusical concerns drive her career.  The medium in which
> Madonna and her clones operate is music only tangentially - they are

You are absolutely right. It is called entertainment business. It is big
and a lot of money is at risk if wrongly managed.

> professional celebrities, puppets for pop-song writers and producers; their

Here we are in the third millenium and the cliche of the young woman in the
music business being totally manipulated goes stronger than ever. I don't
know what control you have on your life, but I am sure that I would be
better off with hers.

> art form is fame.  The fact that Ms. Ciccone controls her publicity machine
> does not make her music any better, though perhaps she deserves cudos for
> her business acumen.

You know, when you deal with an audience which counts in the million range,
you have to run your business a little bit differently than a coffee shop
with a weekly concert evening.

I am sure that Madonna would have a chuckle at seeing people on an obscure
mailing list questioning her capability of control :-).

    Patrice.

- -

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:27:54 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Bjorkasaurus

Always fun to follow debates on this list, even when things seem somewhat out
of hand. A lot of these Bjork exchanges assume Bjork arrived fully formed and
instantly successful. In her defense, Bjork started out an indie artist in
Iceland - can't get much more obscure or isolated than that - then slowly
earned the respect and (relative) popularity more recently lobbed her way.
And she appears to have done it her own way, at her own pace.

After the Sugarcubes (at best a cult phenom), she released a solo album,
largely a collaboration with Soul II Soul's Nellee Hooper; followed it with a
collab with 808 State, Tricky, Goldie, and Howie B; followed that by a more
wholly electronic release helmed by LFO's Marc Bell; then followed _that_ by
a disc backed by Inuit singers, Zeena Parkins, and Matmos. She then toured
with the same odd combo and stuck strictly to alternative venues. She might
sell out concerts and sell a few records, but I'm not quite sure exactly what
Bjork is doing to actively increase her audience through artistic compromise.
 Her interviews are relatively rare and her private life still pretty
private. She might have an expensive publicist - don't know of any beyond her
label - but I can't really say she's been going about her career like just
another superstar. If anything, she keeps getting more and more ambitious,
with fewer signs of compromise. Blame the hype for fueling overexposure, but
Bjork has as far as I can tell remained as creatively independent as any
artist I can think of, indie or major. Unless I'm missing something?

As for majors, the key differences between big labels and little labels is
usually just distribution and budget. There have been just as many "bad"
indies as "bad" majors. I mean, they're all out to make money, and as in any
capitalist system, some people and companies make more money than others.
Perhaps the whole system is therefore flawed, but I don't see many indies
offering their albums for free.

Josh

- -

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

Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:46:43 -0800
From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers

On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:36:34 -0800  Skip Heller wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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?

Who cares about somebody who plays like Wes Montgomery in 2002 (besides the
usual nostalgic of the good old time)? Forty years ago, it was another
story.

Classical orchestras are packed with top notch skilled technicians, but would
I interrupt my activities to see them if they decide to stop at my local
coffee shop for some "experimental" noodling? I doubt. But they know how to
play their instruments, you would say. Who cares if that's all they have to
put on the table of an already overcrowded music market.

> Zorn's opinion of the press and the effect major labels have on it was spot

Zorn is not your average joe. He can afford to not give a shit because he
has something that nobody else has.

> > 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.

Are you not tired of the same patronizing and condescending attitude? After
having followed non-mainstream music for almost thirty years, I just don't buy
it anymore. People are far from being stupid. We should not forget that the
first reason why music does not sell is because you can live without it (to
say it nicely). The myth of the tormented genius, pure in his mind, not
willing to compromise his art, and totally misunderstood... I won't comment.

Yes, big audience does not mean quality (or what gratifying qualifier you
prefer), but playing in front of empty rooms does not imply it either.

    Patrice.

- -

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 18:59:24 -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 03:51:38PM -0800:
> Let me rephrase that -- because you're right in light of the flimsy way I
> wrote that.  New sentence:
> Your fan base should not dictate anything about your artistic choices.  The
> symbiosis ideally occurs when -- based purely on an art motive --  the
> artist and the audience grow together, and that the audience comes to check
> things out with the artist.

With this I totally agree, I see where you were coming from in the first
statement.

It makes me interested in the dynamicism of what Autechre did on their last
tour. This is a duo that has won the hearts of a great deal of 'avant' dance
music folks to the point of becoming contemporary legends in the field. A great
deal of the flak they caught from the last album (which I love) and tour was
centered around a music that fit a sit-down audience more than a dance
audience.

I personally believe Autechre was being true to their art and not letting their
fan base dictate anything about their choices, but I also believe they were
alienating their fanbase in the way they chose to market both the album and the
tour - that is, to venues that are expected to be "dance music" events. Number
one, if you're going to gain new listeners, the ones interested in that kind of
music would never think to go to a dance club to hear it; number two, the
people who do go to dance clubs to hear dance music don't have the patience for
that much experimental sound that isn't danceable.

The Transmitions festival in Chicago last spring made this mistake too - Kit
Clayton and company played their experimental take on techno at one of the
least avant-friendly clubs in Chicago. I wasn't there, but friends of mine went
and said it was nothing short of a disaster - they should have booked it
elsewhere, not at Rednofive where people go to expect house and trance.

I'm not quite sure if there's any solution to this conundrum, or even what my
own opinion is on when you should be mindful about your audience and how it is
balanced with your own art, but these are some observations I've made in the
recent past.

> Glenn Gould once said that it would be interesting to see what happened if
> musicians were completely annonymous and had no concept of who was listening
> to them, why, or how much it sold.  Then, he opined, the artist would have
> to rely solely on his own artistic judgement.
>
> It's a little extreme, but interesting to ponder.

It's a great thing to ponder, indeed... I think it's actually probably a great
place to start (or at least take a short detour) in the creative process.

m
http://craque.net


- -

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

End of Zorn List Digest V3 #744
*******************************


 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]