ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v03.n856

Internet Message Format | 2002-03-25 | 21KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V3 #856
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest        Tuesday, March 26 2002        Volume 03 : Number 856



In this issue:
-
       Re: john cage - floodgates part II
       John Zorn: The Gift Live The Barbican
       Re: john cage - floodgates part II (why then?)
       Re: john cage - floodgates part II (why then?)
       Re: john cage - floodgates part II
       RE: john cage - floodgates part II
       cagey
       Re: john cage - floodgates part II
       Re: john cage - floodgates part II
       Re: john cage - floodgates part II
       Re: john cage - floodgates part II

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:42:16 -0500
From: "Zachary Steiner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: john cage - floodgates part II

So are there musicians that put form (means of composition) before the
function (the overall sound) of their music?  Do these artists deserve
the same attention as artists that use the standard form follows
function means of composing music?  Is it a different attention?  Do we
only look at the novel means by which their music is created and ignore
the fact that we don't want to listen to the music all that much?

I just find it interesting that many zorn-listers are quick to exalt
music created with experimental or novel means, but will always go back
to music that "sounds good" (or sounds comfortable) when all is said and
done.  These have been questions that challenge me both as a musician
and a listener as long as I've been pursuing experimental/out there
music.

Zach



- -

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:54:01 -0000
From: "Alan Marshall" <[e-mail]>
Subject: John Zorn: The Gift Live The Barbican

John Zorn: The Gift
Monday 25th March The Barbican

This was apparently the world premiere of John Zorn's The Gift Live. In
short it was an amazing gig, incredibly enjoyable. Last year I had the
pleasure of seeing Zorn with Dave Lombardo, Fred Frith and Bill Laswell.
This year the line up was that of the CD

Zorn: "Conductor", bird-calls, theramin
Marc Ribot: guitar
Jamie Saft: Keyboards
Joey Baron Drums
Trev Dunn: Bass (Double Bass on one song)
Cyro Baptista: Percussion
Roberto Rodriguez

Dave Douglas: Trumpet

Dave Douglas turned up for the track he does on the CD, and for the encore
him and Zorn played, the only time Zorn picked up his Sax.

The gig was amazing, there's little point in comparing it to last year,
since that was more in the Metal/Jazz crossover like much of Taboo and Exile
rather than the laid back exotic sounds of the gift.

As much of a fan I am of John Zorn's music, I don't really know the
technical side of things, I just know what I like, and I really liked this,
the CD is very good, but seeing it performed live was incredible. Zorn said
he didn't like doing this sort of music live, which seemed strange because
him (and the rest of the band) seemed to be enjoying themselves a lot,
especially when him and Cyro Baptista were doing bird calls at each other
during a song!

It was very interesting to see how some of the noises on the CD were made
and the wide variety of instruments/objects used! Cyro Baptista's arsenal
included those fluorescent flexi tubes which make a whirring noise when you
twirl them round your head, what looks likes lots of wooden blocks attached
to a net, some gongs, and what I'm guessing is an old Indian instrument. It
looked like a large bow, with a bowl at the bottom, and he plays the one
string using a pick which is like a large toothpick!

It was good to see Zorn use a theramin live, I've seen them played on TV
before but never live, looks very interesting..

As I said I'm not aware of all the technical terms one should use to
describe this type of music, I'll let some-one else talk about the various
techniques and things, what matters to me was that it was a great evening
out.

On a side note, Stuart Lee (comedian of Lee and Herring's Fist of Fun fame)
was sat in front of me!

Alan Marshall

[e-mail]
www.admars.co.uk
www.geocities.com/admars32





- -

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:54:45 -0600
From: Joseph Zitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: john cage - floodgates part II (why then?)

On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 01:44:56PM -0800, Patrice L. Roussel wrote:

> Cage is a holy cow in contemporary music

Utterly off-topic, but I think you mean "sacred cow". "Holy cow!" is
what one yells when excited at baseball games.

- --
| [e-mail]           http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt |
| New book: Surprise Me with Beauty: the Music of Human Systems        |
|                            http://www.metatronpress.com/nj/smwb.html |
| Latest CDs: Collaborations/ All Souls  http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt |
| Comma: Voices of New Music    Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |


- -

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:06:58 -0800
From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: john cage - floodgates part II (why then?)

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:54:45 -0600  Joseph Zitt wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 01:44:56PM -0800, Patrice L. Roussel wrote:
>
> > Cage is a holy cow in contemporary music
>
> Utterly off-topic, but I think you mean "sacred cow". "Holy cow!" is
> what one yells when excited at baseball games.

My mistake. Thanks for the correction.

    Patrice.

- -

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:18:28 -0800
From: skip Heller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: john cage - floodgates part II

on 3/26/02 2:42 PM, Zachary Steiner at [e-mail] wrote:

> So are there musicians that put form (means of composition) before the
> function (the overall sound) of their music?  Do these artists deserve
> the same attention as artists that use the standard form follows
> function means of composing music?  Is it a different attention?  Do we
> only look at the novel means by which their music is created and ignore
> the fact that we don't want to listen to the music all that much?


These are some pretty serious questions, especially when you consider how
much fraudulent wheedling passes itself as "experimental".  Ever notice that
these questions tend to be levelled more at the work of media-savvy hipsters
like Cage rather than at composers like Varese, whose work is certainly no
less experimental.  Varese, when asked about "experimental" music said the
experiment is whether or not the composition will work.  He didn't run a
whole lot of shit down.  He did music, and he did it really good.

I think if you wanna be a pedagogue, that's one job.  I think that composers
who resort to that kind of approach to self-promotion are begging that we
make our assessment of their work based on novel means rather than whether
or not we found it interesting or moving as a piece of music.  That we don't
want to listen to their music all that much is a natural human instinct.
It's generally not fun to hear.  You can prove all the scientific/sonic
theorums you like, but, in the end, it's the sound of numbers (often enough
mixed with a little performance art, termed "multi-discilinary" for good PR
effect).  Not that there aren't experimental composers doing actual musical
music with all that information.  But they're not as adept at manipulating
the press and the foundations who give big grants, so you don't hear about
them as much.

> I just find it interesting that many zorn-listers are quick to exalt
> music created with experimental or novel means, but will always go back
> to music that "sounds good" (or sounds comfortable) when all is said and
> done.

Wonderful point and beautifully made.  You could have even gone further.  A
lot of us are living through some sort of reaction against anything we
percieve as somehow provincial, as if to do so makes us agents of something
more forward-looking.  But, at the end of the day, Miles Davis seems to win
out on most turntables in these parts.

> These have been questions that challenge me both as a musician
> and a listener as long as I've been pursuing experimental/out there
> music.

Maybe the key is to disregard the questions and just do what's in your
heart.  Trust your own musical judgement and make what you like.

skip h


- -

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:23:13 -0600
From: "John Thomas"<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: john cage - floodgates part II

The prepared and toy piano pieces as performed
by Margaret Leng Tan.

http://www.newalbion.com/artists/tanml/

- -

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:27:09 +0000
From: "Kurt Gottschalk" <[e-mail]>
Subject: cagey

not trying to disparage anyone or their opinions, but...

for years, years, i went around saying 'cage is a philosopher, not a
composer.' i don't know that he'd be bothered by that, either. but recently
it has started to click for me. some i don't care for (the mesozoics, yeah,
i know, that's not really what they're called). but some of it is just
beautiful.

starting point is DEFINITELY sonatas and interludes for prepared piano.
freakin beauty, that.

kg
nr: the roaring silence - john cage: a life by david revill

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com


- -

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:26:40 -0600
From: Joseph Zitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: john cage - floodgates part II

On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 05:42:16PM -0500, Zachary Steiner wrote:
> So are there musicians that put form (means of composition) before the
> function (the overall sound) of their music?  Do these artists deserve
> the same attention as artists that use the standard form follows
> function means of composing music?  Is it a different attention?  Do we
> only look at the novel means by which their music is created and ignore
> the fact that we don't want to listen to the music all that much?

Well, I don't think not listening to a piece all that much is necessary
relative to its worth. Some music rewards full-attention listening and
frustrates low-attention listening, so that I wouldn't, for example,
pop it in the CD player when online. While I probably listen to, say,
Ricky Martin more than Robert Ashley, it doesn't mean much as to which is
better music.

I also wouldn't connect "function" with "the overall sound" -- I would
think of the function of a CD as involving the situations and ways in
which one would choose to listen to it.

What is the function of the Parachute Years game pieces?

Also, in many cases, the sound that is on a CD is not the same as the
piece that is being played. This is true of the game pieces (which is
why there are several released recordings), almost all opera (which
was created with an essential visual component), jazz standards (no
recording of "Cherokee" is absolutely the piece itself) and much of
Cage's work. (He didn't find much of a use for recordings of his music
himself, though he appreciated and helped in recording it for the
purpose of documentation.)

There's a common misconception that, throughout his career, Cage
didn't care what his pieces sounded like. Recent writings on how
closely related his early percussion works were to the specific set of
instruments on which they were composed, as well as his late comments
on the process of working out his "Hyms and Variations" for chorus
showed that he did care, in many instances, what it sounded like, and
worked hard to make it work.

(I find the more haphazardly abstract work, such as "Theatre Piece"
(which I've performed) and the Variations series (which I haven't)
less interesting. But that was one period of his work, and other areas
of it are more to my taste, more specific and more interesting. It was
interesting to see how, in his last years, he became very precise in
specifying what a piece involved, and in seeing which parameters could
be specified or left out.)

> I just find it interesting that many zorn-listers are quick to exalt
> music created with experimental or novel means, but will always go back
> to music that "sounds good" (or sounds comfortable) when all is said and
> done.  These have been questions that challenge me both as a musician
> and a listener as long as I've been pursuing experimental/out there
> music.

These are far from contradictory (though I think equating "sounds
good" with "sounds comfortable" might lead to that confusion). I find
much of the music that I most enjoy *both* was created in interesting
ways and results in sounds that i find pleasing. Think of it as
JiffyPop: as much fun to make as it is to eat :-)

- --
| [e-mail]           http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt |
| New book: Surprise Me with Beauty: the Music of Human Systems        |
|                            http://www.metatronpress.com/nj/smwb.html |
| Latest CDs: Collaborations/ All Souls  http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt |
| Comma: Voices of New Music    Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |


- -

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:32:52 -0500
From: "Caleb T. Deupree" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: john cage - floodgates part II

At 12:56 PM 3/26/02 EST, [e-mail] wrote:
>if i wanted a few highlights of john cage's various works, what would you
>recommend?

In my younger days, I spent a lot of time playing Cage's early piano music,
including some of the prepared piano pieces.  I'd recommend these as a good
introduction, although I don't have any specific recordings to recommend.
Starting from Music of Changes, his piano music got a lot harder to play,
and after I stopped playing and started working for a living instead, I
stopped listening to Cage's music, feeling the way a lot of people have
stated here, that his music was more interesting as a concept than as a
listening experience.

What changed my mind on his music was the number pieces (which he hadn't
even written when I was playing piano).  The number pieces are so called
because the title is the number of performers (so all the ones called
'Four' are for four performers) and the superscript is which one he wrote
chronologically.  I won't go into the technical aspect of what makes them
different, but as a series they are the last pieces he wrote.

I think the first one I heard was Ulrich Kreiger's overdubbed version of
Four^5 on his OODisc release Walls of Sound.  The long, sustained sounds
were revelation after the pointillistic Music of Changes and the fairly
primitive early piano pieces.  I'd still recommend this release highly, and
I've gone on to find other number pieces, many of which I've really liked
too.  Fourteen, for bowed piano and ensemble, is available on a couple of
different releases, both excellent (and one of them by the previously
mentioned Stephen Drury on bowed piano), both highly recommended.  And
there's a beautiful solo piano piece (called -- wait for it -- One), and
Louis Goldstein performs it paired with Morton Feldman's Triadic Memories
in a superb release on Offseason.


- --

Caleb Deupree
[e-mail]

- -

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:35:34 -0600
From: Joseph Zitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: john cage - floodgates part II

On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 03:18:28PM -0800, skip Heller wrote:

> These are some pretty serious questions, especially when you consider how
> much fraudulent wheedling passes itself as "experimental".  Ever notice that
> these questions tend to be levelled more at the work of media-savvy hipsters
> like Cage rather than at composers like Varese, whose work is certainly no
> less experimental.  Varese, when asked about "experimental" music said the
> experiment is whether or not the composition will work.  He didn't run a
> whole lot of shit down.  He did music, and he did it really good.

Good points, as always. Though I don't think being media-savvy is at all
a bad thing.

> That we don't
> want to listen to their music all that much is a natural human instinct.
> It's generally not fun to hear.

But what is, in the general abstract, "fun to hear"? You can find people
who can't stand any genre you like. Remember that a poll of what most
people find fun to hear would rank Britney Spears much higher than
"Leng T'che". (I like both.)

> You can prove all the scientific/sonic
> theorums you like, but, in the end, it's the sound of numbers (often enough
> mixed with a little performance art, termed "multi-discilinary" for good PR
> effect).  Not that there aren't experimental composers doing actual musical
> music with all that information.  But they're not as adept at manipulating
> the press and the foundations who give big grants, so you don't hear about
> them as much.

Thus showing that being media-savvy is a skill well worth learning.

> > These have been questions that challenge me both as a musician
> > and a listener as long as I've been pursuing experimental/out there
> > music.
>
> Maybe the key is to disregard the questions and just do what's in your
> heart.  Trust your own musical judgement and make what you like.

Definitely.

n.p. Us and Them: Symphonic Pink Floyd

- --
| [e-mail]           http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt |
| New book: Surprise Me with Beauty: the Music of Human Systems        |
|                            http://www.metatronpress.com/nj/smwb.html |
| Latest CDs: Collaborations/ All Souls  http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt |
| Comma: Voices of New Music    Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |


- -

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:00:09 -0800
From: Jim Flannery <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: john cage - floodgates part II

Zachary Steiner wrote:
>=20
> Do these artists deserve the same attention as artists that use the
> standard form follows function means of composing music?  Is it a
> different attention?

Well. I think they *demand* a different attention, but I'm using the
"pay attention" differently ;^> ... not how renowned they are, but how
you organize the auditory stimuli when you're in the room with their
work.

I don't think you necessarily listen to them (pay attention to them) in
the same way -- that's really what Cage's writing is centered on, the
injunction to listen to the *sounds*, rather than listening to the
*process*. You *don't* listen to some aleatory process that you read
about in a book, the way you listen to thematic development in a Mahler
symphony; the process is a means to make it more possible for you to
concentrate on the sounds, in the *absence* of compositional
manipulation. Cage is as far from what Skip calls "the sound of numbers"
as you can get; it's the sound of sound.

It's kind of pointless to listen to the mature Cage in the same way you
listen to Mahler (unless you're making a discipline out of learning
pointlessness); it can, however, be rewarding to listen to Mahler in the
way you listen to Cage :-).

- --=20
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Flannery                                           [e-mail]

         "When I say =91no=92 I=92m always right and when I say =91yes=92=
=20
          I=92m almost always wrong."
                                           -- Dwight Macdonald

np: stupid Fisherman's Wharf Fire Truck lady, outside my window
nr: George P. Pelecanos, _The Big Blowdown_

- -

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

End of Zorn List Digest V3 #856
*******************************


 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]