ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v03.n866

Internet Message Format | 2002-03-27 | 20KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V3 #866
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest       Thursday, March 28 2002       Volume 03 : Number 866



In this issue:
-
       Re: white trash
       Re: music defined (indeterminacy)
       Re: music defined (indeterminacy)
       Re: music defined (indeterminacy)
       purchasing an au pairs album
       Re: music defined (indeterminacy)
       Re: music defined (indeterminacy)
       Re: music defined (indeterminacy)
       Re: music defined (indeterminacy)
       Re: music defined (indeterminacy)
       Re: music defined (indeterminacy)
       Re: music defined (indeterminacy)
       Re: music defined (indeterminacy)

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:57:04 +0100
From: duncan youngerman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: white trash

Remco Takken a =E9crit :

> > >>
> > >> PS: "White trash" is an American specialty, right?
> > >>
> > >> -
> Mhm, in the present days of Le Pen, Haider and recently in my country
> Fortuyn, 'White Thrash' seems to be spread over europe too=2E
> Remco Takken
> -

White trash is a strictly American sociological thing, going back a
century at least=2E
It just means lower class whites, often from the South, in close contact
with blacks and therefore infused with much black musical culture=2E
Most of Rock'n roll was invented by white trash=2E Elvis, Cochran, Buddy
Holly, Everly bros=2E, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc=2E=2E
Artists as diverse as Johnny Winter, the Allman bros=2E, Springsteen, Dr
John, Jaco Pastorius, Stevie Ray Vaughan, the Ramones, Eminem have white
trash roots=2E
Some white trash might of course be racist or extreme rightist, but
probably a small minority=2E

D=2E




- -

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:12:33 -0800
From: "Patrice L. Roussel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: music defined (indeterminacy)

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:15:10 +0200  Oger wrote:
>
> Yes and no.
>
> As you said before, it is cultural loaded.
> What do you call organized sounds ? Harmony ? AABA ?
>
> I like very much listening to some sounds : for instance I know a
> place near the river Rhone (in France) where you can listen to a lot
> of sounds at the same time : water, people talking in remote places,
> animal sounds, train,.... For me it is music. I never heard that
> anywhere else, and of course not by musicians.
> The most amazing for me is during the night outside in summer (in
> southern France).
>
> Maybe many musicians, at the beginning, wanted to imitate the sounds
> they heard in nature.
> Think of people in african forests listening in the night. Musique concrete.
> Think of Beethoven with his 5th symphony. Abstract music. In that
> case, what is the composer's purpose ?

I think that we just disagree on the vocabulary. For me sounds, as pleasing
as they can be, are sounds and only become music when organized/processed.

Anyway, I don't believe that nature is a composer, maybe why I have a hard
time to deal with New Age people or other "mother nature" ones :-).

An another silly example, you can buy a video tape of a log burning in a
fireplace. I don't call that a movie.

    Patrice.

- -

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:07:36 -0600
From: Joseph Zitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: music defined (indeterminacy)

On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 12:12:33PM -0800, Patrice L. Roussel wrote:

> An another silly example, you can buy a video tape of a log burning in a
> fireplace. I don't call that a movie.

What would it take to make it a movie? At least one change of camera
angle?

- --
| [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: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:18:53 -0800
From: "s~Z" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: music defined (indeterminacy)

>Art that is created
> with more attention to its audience ends of timebound and
> ephemeral.

>>>I disagree.  Look at Curtis Mayfield, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley,
Charles Mingus
etc.<<<

In my book you just listed several artists who transcend their
genres and put much less emphasis on audience then other artists
in their respective genres. Take Bob Dylan. His art transcends
whatever genre you pick, popular or folk, for example. He has
ended up with a sizeable audience but not because his voice, his
lyrics, or his music are composed with the audience reaction as a
high priority. And I don't have to pay $505 per ticket to see him,
like I would have to if I wanted to see the Who this summer.

>>>Which is why you have to giuve a lot of leeway (and time) to
the listenship.<<<

Right. Because the art requires something of the listener, and its
merits are often ahead of the audience's ability to appreciate it.

> If the listener
> is the final arbiter of what constitutes excellence, the
composer
> will have to compose at a level beneath his or her talents and
> expertise to make sure the listener gets it.

>>>I disagree.  the composer will, on the other hand, have to
acknowedge that
maybe what he's doing is not for a big audience.<<<

And what is it about his or her art that will make him or her
aware that it will not have a big audience?
And why does s/he create art knowing only a few will appreciate
it?


- -

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:38:48 -0800
From: "carlos torres" <[e-mail]>
Subject: purchasing an au pairs album

does anyone know where i can purchase the au pairs "playing with a different
sex" cd. note i want the cd version with the extra tracks, not the Lp.
please contact me off-list. Many thanks for your help.

- -ct

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


- -

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:34:10 -0600
From: Joseph Zitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: music defined (indeterminacy)

On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 12:18:53PM -0800, s~Z wrote:

> In my book you just listed several artists who transcend their
> genres and put much less emphasis on audience then other artists
> in their respective genres. Take Bob Dylan. His art transcends
> whatever genre you pick, popular or folk, for example. He has
> ended up with a sizeable audience but not because his voice, his
> lyrics, or his music are composed with the audience reaction as a
> high priority. And I don't have to pay $505 per ticket to see him,
> like I would have to if I wanted to see the Who this summer.

Are you suggesting that the Who compose more for the audience than
Dylan does? On what basis?

- --
| [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: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:22:03 -0800
From: skip Heller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: music defined (indeterminacy)

on 3/28/02 12:18 PM, s~Z at [e-mail] wrote:

>> Art that is created
>> with more attention to its audience ends of timebound and
>> ephemeral.
>
>>>> I disagree.  Look at Curtis Mayfield, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley,
> Charles Mingus
> etc.<<<
>
> In my book you just listed several artists who transcend their
> genres and put much less emphasis on audience then other artists
> in their respective genres. Take Bob Dylan. His art transcends
> whatever genre you pick, popular or folk, for example. He has
> ended up with a sizeable audience but not because his voice, his
> lyrics, or his music are composed with the audience reaction as a
> high priority. And I don't have to pay $505 per ticket to see him,
> like I would have to if I wanted to see the Who this summer.

I really have to disagree with "less emphasis on audience".  "The Times They
Are A-Changin'", "You Gotta Serve Somebody" etc are obviously written to
send up a clear signal to an audience.  So are "Keep On Pushin'",
"Trenchtown Rock", and "Free Cell Block F".

>>>> Which is why you have to giuve a lot of leeway (and time) to
> the listenship.<<<
>
> Right. Because the art requires something of the listener, and its
> merits are often ahead of the audience's ability to appreciate it.

Which is why so many things do not reveal themselves as art in the most
timely fashion.


> And what is it about his or her art that will make him or her
> aware that it will not have a big audience?
> And why does s/he create art knowing only a few will appreciate
> it?

That can be a lot of things.  Some (but not all) examples : Extended
emphasis on atonality, length of the piece, instrumentation, lack of vocals,
structure.  If you're doing things that are not already accepted by a large
audience, you're likely not going to appeal to a large audience.  That's the
choice people make when they go into the creative business.  A handul of
people have been able to get a sizable commercial audience for music that
doesn't work the norms -- Dylan, Phillip Glass, Zappa et al -- but they're
really exceptional to the point where you know better than to factor that
kind of commercial success into your plans.

As for why you do it, I only know why *I* do it, and I don't really speak
for anyone else.

skip h


- -

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:20:32 -0800
From: "s~Z" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: music defined (indeterminacy)

>>>Are you suggesting that the Who compose more for the audience
than
Dylan does? On what basis?<<<

No, I'm suggesting if I want to see the Who this summer they
charge me $505
to get a decent seat, while I saw Dylan recently for $50. That's
all.


- -

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:30:13 -0800
From: "s~Z" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: music defined (indeterminacy)

>>>I really have to disagree with "less emphasis on audience".
"The Times They
Are A-Changin'", "You Gotta Serve Somebody" etc are obviously
written to
send up a clear signal to an audience.  So are "Keep On Pushin'",
"Trenchtown Rock", and "Free Cell Block F".<<<

So, if you disagree that Dylan places less emphasis on audience
than others in the singer/songwriter genre, who are you thinking
of that places less than Dylan. If I haven't already discovered
them, I want to find them soon. And if you think Dylan is sending
clear signals to an audience you haven't read many Dylan
interviews, nor discussed his lyrics with a number of people.
Clarity of signal is not his hallmark.

>>>As for why you do it, I only know why *I* do it, and I don't
really speak
for anyone else.<<<

Then you're the perfect person to answer the question. Why do you
do it?
What gratification comes from creating music that doesn't appeal
to a wide
audience, and you know that up front.


- -

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:53:09 -0600
From: William Crump <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: music defined (indeterminacy)

Joseph Zitt wrote:

>>Take Bob Dylan. His art transcends
>>whatever genre you pick, popular or folk, for example. He has
>>ended up with a sizeable audience but not because his voice, his
>>lyrics, or his music are composed with the audience reaction as a
>>high priority. And I don't have to pay $505 per ticket to see him,
>>like I would have to if I wanted to see the Who this summer.
>>
>
>Are you suggesting that the Who compose more for the audience than
>Dylan does? On what basis?
>
Yeah, erm, this doesn't ring true for me either. I saw Dylan's show in
Tupelo a week before the Grammies and I felt he was as mindful of the
audience as any concert performer I've ever seen before, even though he
never spoke a word to the audience between songs. There's this thing the
band does before they leave the stage: they take off their guitars and
stand quietly on stage facing the audience for probably 20-30 seconds.
No hugging or congratulating each other on a good show, no grabassing
around, not even really smiling, just presenting themselves with a
slight bow, then "exeunt". This struck me as slightly unusual, so I was
glad they played two encores, and there it was again both times. Dylan
is the ultimate travelling troubadour, and this was a stronger thank-you
to, and appreciation of, the audience than anything else I could have
imagined. Certainly better than "thank you good night, nobody rocks like
Springfield!" etc.

I suspect that Dylan doesn't give two shits about an audience's
ADULATION, but I think it would be way off base to think that the
audience's ATTENTION is not important to him. I think there's a very
clear distinction there.

And I think it's cool that he's played bumfu -- uh, Tupelo --
Mississippi twice now in his career. Ohyeah, the tickets were $30 for
center floor.

William Crump



- -

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:11:16 -0800
From: skip Heller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: music defined (indeterminacy)

on 3/28/02 1:30 PM, s~Z at [e-mail] wrote:

>>>> I really have to disagree with "less emphasis on audience".
> "The Times They
> Are A-Changin'", "You Gotta Serve Somebody" etc are obviously
> written to
> send up a clear signal to an audience.  So are "Keep On Pushin'",
> "Trenchtown Rock", and "Free Cell Block F".<<<
>
> So, if you disagree that Dylan places less emphasis on audience
> than others in the singer/songwriter genre, who are you thinking
> of that places less than Dylan. If I haven't already discovered
> them, I want to find them soon. And if you think Dylan is sending
> clear signals to an audience you haven't read many Dylan
> interviews, nor discussed his lyrics with a number of people.
> Clarity of signal is not his hallmark.

Clarity in interviews, no -- and I never got the feeling he really wanted to
bear his soul to an interviewer.  As for how much Dylan I've played,
discussed, and listened to, I'm in pretty good shape.

As to clarity within his lyric data, How could you be clearer than "Masters
Of War", "Jokerman", "Blind Willie McTell" etc? The guy definitely came out
of the Woody Guthrie tradition and has never gotten entirely away from it
(and bless him for that).  He can employ it devisely at will, play with it,
often enough ignore it, but he's very clear often enough that it's safe to
say he's clear as a bell when he wants to be.

As for songwriters who place less emphasis on direct communication, Terry
Allen leaps to mind (and is fantastic if you haven't checked him out),
certain periods of Joni Mitchell's work are definitely in that category
("Paprika Plains" is a gorgeous example of that), mid-80s Tom Waits often
has that quality, Captian Beefheart definitely, a goodly portion of John
Lennon, Stan Ridgway, John Doe & Exene Cervenka...
>
>>>> As for why you do it, I only know why *I* do it, and I don't
> really speak
> for anyone else.<<<
>
> Then you're the perfect person to answer the question. Why do you
> do it?
> What gratification comes from creating music that doesn't appeal
> to a wide
> audience, and you know that up front.

Remember, you asked.  Here are my own general reasons:

I like having an idea and seeing what happens when I chase it down.  It's
actually relaxing to me, the way crossword puzzles are for some people.

I like doing stuff I'm good at.  This leaves out building furniture.  I'm
good at music, and I am not above the satisfaction of a job well-done (nor
above beating myself up when I didn;t do the job as well I had intended).

Doing music is my taste, just as being a doctor might be someone else's.  My
father loves -- dearly -- doing mechanical things.  He likes engines.  I
like harmonies and rhythms.  When I hear the parts I wrote getting played
correctly, it's like hearing something come to life for me.

People pay me to do it and it beats people paying me to xerox things at
Kinko's.  I don't really have any other skills that could generate a decent
income.  Also, the size of the audience varies.  If I'm doing some music for
Dexter's Laboratory, there's a lot of people encoutering the music.  I'd
don't really interact with the audience, so the only satisfaction comes from
me and everyone else involved in putting the thing together liking the
music, and the paycheck.  I also really like doing music for animation.
It's a really satisfying challenge both as a composer and an ensemble
leader, and any job that gives you satisfaction consistently is a good job.
When a contemporary music ensemble calls me up and says "please write
something for this instrumentation", it's not for my group or anything else
of mine.  It's a commission, and I'm certainly honored to be asked.  But
it's first and foremost a job I accept in good faith and I do my best to
give them something they'll enjoy playing and that the audience will enjoy
hearing.


Bottom line -- in my heart of hearts, I enjoy it immensely, it gives me
great satisfaction more often than not, the rewards outweight the rewards
I'd find in any  other line of work I know how to do.  I don't really
address the questions of art because I have enough on my plate just trying
to get the music to sound good enough to satisfy my own taste.

skip h


- -

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:18:11 -0800
From: "s~Z" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: music defined (indeterminacy)

>>>Bottom line -- in my heart of hearts, I enjoy it immensely, it
gives me
great satisfaction more often than not, the rewards outweight the
rewards
I'd find in any  other line of work I know how to do.  I don't
really
address the questions of art because I have enough on my plate
just trying
to get the music to sound good enough to satisfy my own taste.<<<

And the artists I enjoy the most talk like this. When I look
over my CD and record collections, the one common denominator
I find to the varied music, is that the artists are putting their
inner muse
as a higher priority than audience reception. And as much as I
love
Bob Dylan, I'll take Tom Waits over Bobby any day. And as much
as I love Tom Waits, I'll take Beefheart over Tom any day. And as
much as I love Beefheart, I'll take Schwitters over the Captain
any day.
And the choice is not because of anything other than the pleasure
I
feel when I hear what they do. But, when I look at that common
denominator, I find that the music that brings me the most
pleasure
is the music that isn't being made to please me.

Will you punch me out if I show up at your gig Sunday?




- -

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:20:09 -0800
From: "s~Z" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: music defined (indeterminacy)

>>>Yeah, erm, this doesn't ring true for me either. I saw Dylan's
show in
Tupelo a week before the Grammies and I felt he was as mindful of
the
audience as any concert performer I've ever seen before, even
though he
never spoke a word to the audience between songs.<<<

But compared to The Who?

Just asking.


- -

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

End of Zorn List Digest V3 #866
*******************************


 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]