ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v03.n755

Internet Message Format | 2002-02-06 | 20KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V3 #755
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest      Wednesday, February 6 2002      Volume 03 : Number 755



In this issue:
-
       Odp: Odp: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers
       dick hyman
       Re: cibo matto recs
       Re: Jazz Death?
       Odp: Zorn as Miles????????
       Re: Odp: Zorn as Miles????????
       Odp: the new miles's
       Re: Jazz Death?
       Odp: Zorn as Miles????????
       Odp: Odp: Zorn as Miles????????

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

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:15:52 +0100
From: "Marcin Gokieli" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Odp: Odp: Bjork ranting+raving, Plus: Peabody degree losers

> Reading my statement above I realize that it could be misunderstood. By
"not
> buying it anymore", I meant the argument that Skip was pushing (people
being
> clueless, illustrated by the Mark Twain quote).

After having deciding toi THINK, i came to the solution you pointed here.
But i was a little bit shocked at first.


- -

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:25:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Whit Schonbein <[e-mail]>
Subject: dick hyman

i have a couple of enoch light albums i enjoy more for the album art than
the music.  my only hyman album is 'Moog: The Electric Eclectics of Dick
Hyman', on Command records (same as enoch light).  It features such
kwality klassiks as 'Tap Dance in the Memory Banks', 'Topless Dancers of
Corfu', and my personal favorite (title, that is), 'The Legend of Johnny
Pot'.  The album liner notes trumpet, "The Startling Sounds of the Brave
New Music World!...singular, synthesized composition that heralds the
future art of Sound-Expansion!"  I can't find a date on it anywhere, so i
have no idea what year it heralds from. In the end, the music is not as
good as, say, Perry and Kingsley's moog work (if 'good' is an adjective
that can be used here).  And that's all I know about Dick Hyman.

end transmission.....whit


- -

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:41:48 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: cibo matto recs

i really like viva la woman!.
i also like any of their albums (several have it) with the song "know your
chicken".

i also really, really like sean lennon's first album.  i know the lyrics are
total shit mostly, but i think musically it's just a really hip album, and
yuka honda is on it all over the place (as is john medeski).  i guess that's
what happens when you're the son of famous people and fuck other famous
people.

love,
  kate.
*fukkr
- -----
[ .n o t h i n g  i s  w h a t  i s  s a i d. ]

.k a t e  p e t e r s o n.
.c o m p o s e r / p e r f o r m e r.
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/uforbk8/kate.html">
http://www.geocities.com/uforbk8/kate.html</A>
<A HREF="http://www.icefoundation.org">http://www.icefoundation.org</A>
(roundtable)

- -

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:38:48 -0500
From: "Brian Olewnick" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Jazz Death?

Chris Selwig dared to ask:

>    OK, I'm going to get in trouble for this, but I'm going to stick my
> digital foot in my virtual mouth and ask:  is jazz a dead language at this
> point, or can we really look forward to major formal innovations in the
> future?

If it's not dead, it's on a resuscitator. I've argued this point here and
elsewhere for a number of years. While I'm not quite as extreme as some, I
do think that there has been extremely little of great value produced in the
last few years that any reasonable listener would term "jazz" and that what
_has_ been achieved has been by musicians 40 years old or older. For
example, imho, Cecil Taylor still creates at almost as high a level as he
ever has, Braxton still produces fine work (though calling his superb
"Composition 247" from last year "jazz" would certainly be stretching the
term); Threadgill, Bailey, etc. are all still in pretty good shape. My
personal favorite jazz of the last 10 or so years has been that of Barry
Guy's LJCO and New Orchestra, though whether one wants to call that
innovative or building on the solid foundations laid by Mantler and the JCOA
is an open question. (fwiw, I don't think Zorn's produced much of interest
since 'Bar Kokhba').

But all of these folk are my age (47) and older. I don't see _any_ jazz
musicians in their 20's doing beautiful, innovative work. To be sure, we're
up to our knees in fine jazz _musicians_, but not, imho, great jazz
creators. I've said it before, I'll say it again: where's the current
equivalent, in jazz, of Braxton in 1968 (at 23, when he recorded 'For
Alto'), Roscoe Mitchell in 1966, Mingus in 1959, Taylor in 1955, etc.? I
don't hear him/her. It might be a simple matter of there being no stones
left to overturn. I've heard several musicians use the term "an historical
form" with regard to jazz and perhaps that's the simple fact of the matter.
All movements have their life spans; no reason to think jazz is any
different. It troubles me, as it's a form I very much love but....

There are tons of great young musicians, but they aren't playing jazz. I had
the huge pleasure of hearing one of them several times over this past
weekend: Taku Sugimoto (alone and in the company of two wonderful old
timers, Gunter Muller and Keith Rowe (the latter, in his early 60's, quite
capable of holding his own in any stable of youngsters). I'm currently in
the midst of the pretty amazing 10-CD set, "Improvised Music from Japan"
which features numerous musicians born in the 60's and 70's, many of whom
are creating far more vital free music than their jazz-rooted peers.

Of course, this is just my opinion. But when it comes time for someone like
Cecil to die (he's about 73, I believe), I don't see anyone to take his
stead. Not Matt Shipp, not DD Jackson much less Brad Mehldau. Fine pianists
all but not nearly in Taylor's league as thinkers/creators. Sure, there
might be some toiling away in total obscurity, but obscurity is harder and
harder to achieve these days.

Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong on all this.

Brian Olewnick

NP - Aki Onda - Two Women




- -

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

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:06:34 +0100
From: "Marcin Gokieli" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Odp: Zorn as Miles????????

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Kayser <[e-mail]>

> Uh, oh.  I hope you aren't serious here.

No, I'm not. ;-). I just wanted to point out to the person who sent the mail
in which he/ she stated that nothing special would have happened if there
was no zorn records that his importance goes beyond the existance of cds on
shelves: he's a great leader, a visionnary, a label owner, etc.


>I like what JZ has done, and take
> nothing away from what he has accomplished.  But...First, Frisell, as with
> many of the musicians associated with JZ, was around for quite some time
> before falling in with NC.He certainly didn't "find" Frisell, as say Miles
> found 17 year old Tony Williams.    I don't hear the musical influence on
> Douglas, Frisell, as say Miles had on Weather Report, Lifetime,
Mahavishnu,
> and countless others.


BF's 'before we were born' recorded in 1987 contains a track arranged by
Zorn. BF has played on Spillane and godard, the latter being from 1985. and
his records before he met JZ were different.
DD states JZ as major influece, and a lot of his pieces have a strong JZ
influence (thre's a NC-like eclectic piece on forst quartet disc, for
example)
I do not want to say that the situation is 100 percent identical,  just
similarities exist. And i do think, BTW, that BF's americana period is an
effort to free from JZ's influence.



> finding and organizing, how about Uri Caine and Bobby Previte, to name
two.
> They have both produced very diversified projects utilizing many of the
same
> musicians as JZ.  And again IMHO, both have produced music every bit as
> important as JZ.  Neither has achieved the "cult" status that JZ seems to
> have at this point.  This is not meant to compare or take anything away
from
> JZ.  Just think the Miles comparison is a bit off.

as i said, i see no contemporary work that would be as important and
original as godard, spillane, torture garden, absinthe, even masada, in a
way. And if we take zorn's work as a whole, its weight becomes even more
obvious. Previte makes great records, but what would you try to put up
against JZ's work? Hue&cry is his bets, but it is not more original then
masada.
I do not want to say that JZ = MD of 1990's or anything. Just wnated to
state that he's VERY important. And the 'cult' status is an element of it -
it makes him very influential, he's a partof our culture in a wider sense:
not just as musician, but as a 'freak musician of our time', a position held
probably by Zappa in late 60s an 70s.
Marcin




- -

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

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 17:08:43 -0800
From: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Odp: Zorn as Miles????????

> From: "Marcin Gokieli" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:06:34 +0100
> To: "Alan Kayser" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Odp: Zorn as Miles????????
>
> as i said, i see no contemporary work that would be as important and
> original as godard, spillane, torture garden, absinthe, even masada, in a
> way.

We'll probably have a better idea in a few yrs as to what was important, to
whom, and for how long.  It's too soon to tell about Uri Caine's Mahler
Project, Charms Of The Night Sky, or a million other things.  Importance is
a tricky issue to throw around, because each listener and each player forms
his own musical tradition.  And in many musical communities within the
jazz/new music realm, Zorn is not seen as all that influential.  In others,
the guy is unavoidable.  And, in a way, who cares, really? If each person
who gets into some aspect of Zorn's music is somehow the better for it,
that's better than some declaration (from wherever these things are
decalred) that he or anybody else is "important".  I don't really hear the
press saying how important Cannonball Adderley is, but Cannonball Adderley
is still wielding a very positive influence over a lot of players who did
not bother to check if he was "relevant", "important", or anything else.
They just hear it, love it, and draw from it.  Which is the best.

skip h



- -

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

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:24:09 +0100
From: "Marcin Gokieli" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Odp: the new miles's

Skip  wrote:

> Any strong leader who has a specific musical vision -- Miles, Mingus,
Zorn,
> Prince, Raymond Scott, Zappa -- is going to share things in common with
> other strong musical leaders posessed of specific musical vision.  But
that
> doesn't mean that they mirror each other.

But MD shared with JZ the extreme diversityof his output. As I wrote before,
i do not want to push this analogy very hard - i just meant that he's
important as a leader of some musical community.
This list is a good exaple of his role - although the man is not that ofyten
discussed, we're discussing on all those kinds of music on the ZORN LIST.
Marcin


- -

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

Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 17:26:24 -0800
From: Skip Heller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Jazz Death?

> From: "Brian Olewnick" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:38:48 -0500
> To: <[e-mail]>, "Chris Selvig" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Jazz Death?
>
> Chris Selwig dared to ask:
>
>> OK, I'm going to get in trouble for this, but I'm going to stick my
>> digital foot in my virtual mouth and ask:  is jazz a dead language at this
>> point, or can we really look forward to major formal innovations in the
>> future?
Is innovation neccessary for the stuff to feel and sound good? I was in New
orleans for my honeymoon this past October, and I heard some guys playing
really beautiful music in a comparitively early style.  It wasn't
freeze-dried or anything, it was just the way they played, and it delivered
the goods.

To me -- and I speak only for myself -- the object isn't to launch a major
formal innovation.  It's for each player and listener to share some notion
of discovery along the way.

> If it's not dead, it's on a resuscitator. I've argued this point here and
> elsewhere for a number of years. While I'm not quite as extreme as some, I
> do think that there has been extremely little of great value produced in the
> last few years that any reasonable listener would term "jazz" and that what
> _has_ been achieved has been by musicians 40 years old or older.

It depends who you ask and where their tastes lie.  Also, the term
"reasonable listener" might get you an argument from someone like Dave
Douglas, who thinks a reasonable listener is exactly liable to stretch the
term jazz to include all sorts of things.

> For
> example, imho, Cecil Taylor still creates at almost as high a level as he
> ever has, Braxton still produces fine work (though calling his superb
> "Composition 247" from last year "jazz" would certainly be stretching the
> term); Threadgill, Bailey, etc. are all still in pretty good shape. My
> personal favorite jazz of the last 10 or so years has been that of Barry
> Guy's LJCO and New Orchestra, though whether one wants to call that
> innovative or building on the solid foundations laid by Mantler and the JCOA
> is an open question. (fwiw, I don't think Zorn's produced much of interest
> since 'Bar Kokhba').

A lot of reasonable listeners would disagree with that assessment of Zorn,
though.  Also, I see some really incredible young players/thinkers who are
building their own vocabulary in the music. Jim Black leaps to mind.

> But all of these folk are my age (47) and older. I don't see _any_ jazz
> musicians in their 20's doing beautiful, innovative work.

I don't think "beautiful" and "innovative" mean the same thing.  Hank Jones
may not be the most innovative pianist, but he's one of the most beautiful.

Also, the downtown crowd is, as a school of thought, still relatively young,
but largely made up of players who came that way after developing somewhere
else, so they are not in the most advanced stages of their respective
careers (if that makes any sense) even though they're often ten yrs older
than the previous typical upstarts.

> To be sure, we're
> up to our knees in fine jazz _musicians_, but not, imho, great jazz
> creators. I've said it before, I'll say it again: where's the current
> equivalent, in jazz, of Braxton in 1968 (at 23, when he recorded 'For
> Alto'), Roscoe Mitchell in 1966, Mingus in 1959, Taylor in 1955, etc.? I
> don't hear him/her.
Think of how undisocvered those people (save for Mingus) were during the
years you state, then ask this: How much amazing shit is going on that
likely I'm not hearing yet?

> It might be a simple matter of there being no stones
> left to overturn. I've heard several musicians use the term "an historical
> form" with regard to jazz and perhaps that's the simple fact of the matter.
> All movements have their life spans; no reason to think jazz is any
> different. It troubles me, as it's a form I very much love but....
Your words echo almost exactly those dixieland and swing guys who were
lamenting the coming of a form they considered not jazz -- be-bop.  Jazz is
less a what than a how, so it will endure.

> There are tons of great young musicians, but they aren't playing jazz.
That's one opinion, not neccessarily held by the players.  My thesis -- is
you design it as jazz, and execute it in a collective ensemble context (solo
work not withstanding), it's jazz.  What happens next is the listener's
decision.
>
> Of course, this is just my opinion. But when it comes time for someone like
> Cecil to die (he's about 73, I believe), I don't see anyone to take his
> stead. Not Matt Shipp, not DD Jackson much less Brad Mehldau. Fine pianists
> all but not nearly in Taylor's league as thinkers/creators. Sure, there
> might be some toiling away in total obscurity, but obscurity is harder and
> harder to achieve these days.
So's media attention.  You can bet your bottom $ that there are guys doing
exactly what you crave, and probably lots of 'em, but that they're nowhere
near an effective publicist.

> Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong on all this.
You might be.  And you'll likely be relieved to be.

skip h


- -

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

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:19:32 +0100
From: "Marcin Gokieli" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Odp: Zorn as Miles????????

From: EfrΘn del Valle <[e-mail]>

> titles in all their supposed immensity, but IMHO, Miles had his time, and
> now's the time for something else.

Efren...
Try approaching Miles with three albums: 'filles de kilimajaro', 'big fun',
and 'Dark Magus'.
If that won't work, then well, probably nothing ever will.
But I can hardly imagine THAT. Those albums are real killers, they blow away
non - miles jazz record, except, maybe 'out to lunch'. In my humble,
although true ;-), opinion, of course.


> I don't know about Uri Caine, because I haven't heard too many of his
works,
> but putting Previte at the same level as Zorn seems quite exaggerated.
Maybe
> I missed something, but I find him just a great drummer with a
> immediately-recognizable sound. However I have strong doubts about his
> compositional competence.

I have not heard his last album, which I suppose is great, but his 'Weather
clear, track fast' albums are very, very good. Not very original, but gret
music.
Best,
Marcin


- -

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

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:38:36 +0100
From: "Marcin Gokieli" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Odp: Odp: Zorn as Miles????????

> We'll probably have a better idea in a few yrs as to what was important,
to
> whom, and for how long.  It's too soon to tell about Uri Caine's Mahler
> Project, Charms Of The Night Sky, or a million other things.

FWIW, I do not believe that any of those projects could be influential.
Caine's mahler seems to be repeating what Mclaugling tried to do on 'Vision
of the emerald beyond' - very explosive arrangements etc., but the whole
thing gets boring ofter a few listens.

>  Importance is
> a tricky issue to throw around, because each listener and each player
forms
> his own musical tradition.  And in many musical communities within the
> jazz/new music realm, Zorn is not seen as all that influential.  In
others,
> the guy is unavoidable.  And, in a way, who cares, really?

Of course.

>If each person
> who gets into some aspect of Zorn's music is somehow the better for it,
> that's better than some declaration (from wherever these things are
> decalred) that he or anybody else is "important".  I don't really hear the
> press saying how important Cannonball Adderley is, but Cannonball Adderley
> is still wielding a very positive influence over a lot of players who did
> not bother to check if he was "relevant", "important", or anything else.
> They just hear it, love it, and draw from it.  Which is the best.

To make things clear, musicians with a capital M are IMO Igor Stravinsky,
Miles Davis, Brian Eno, John Zorn. They define the way I hear music now.




- -

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

End of Zorn List Digest V3 #755
*******************************


 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]