Now, if _anyone_ knows how to get hold of these japanese-only
CDs with Tom (or any japanese only downtown-related music!),
make sure to let us know!
St=E9phane
- -
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 07:35:55 -0400
From: Poisonhead@aol.com
Subject: Don Cherry "Actions"
I recently picked up the Intuition remastered (24bit) version of "Actions". I also own the Wergo "Pre-release" version. I haven't had time to pick apart the two, but from what I have heard so far the sound seems to be pretty clear. It sounds really nice.
Andrew
- -
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 12:24:54 +0000
From: "Arthur Gadney" <a_gadney@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Don Cherry "Actions" + new surprise topic!!!!!!!!
Hello.
>I recently picked up the Intuition remastered (24bit) version of "Actions".
>I also own the Wergo "Pre-release" version. I haven't had time to pick
>apart the two, but from what I have heard so far the sound seems to be
>pretty clear. It sounds really nice.
Actually, I think the sounds is great, the only thing that bother's me is
that apparantly they got Linda Mccartney sing, waaaay in front. At least on
the old vinyl I have. Maybe one day Bill Laswell will make new "mix
translation" and give this incredible piece the form it deserves.
Oh, this might lead to a good discussion. Biggest mistakes in music history!
What really makes upset? What would have been soooo great, but just didn't
faal in place. And does it concern Zorn whatsoever?
Actually, Zorn seem to have made alot of amazing thing possible, which might
as well never have, and could have been such a moment. Lets forever thank
him for introducing Derek Bailey and Ruins to eachother, and for *forcing*
Misha Mengelberg, to make not just one, but two CD of piano trios.
Another of my big regrets is that Mengelberg didn't piano on "Machine Gun".
If he had, it might well deserve the status it today have. Now, it's merely
amazing.
And again, that singing on "Actions", what a shame....
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
- -
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 09:13:32 EDT
From: Widebeat@aol.com
Subject: Re: Zorn List Digest V3 #900
- --part1_113.112d12cb.2a0a7e7c_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Crowley as surrealist? That's an interesting angle. That was illuminating
to put him into the context of his time. Someone else brought up Harry
Smith as a counterpart and there is something to that. Never thought about
it but haven't read about Crowley in 15 years.
Regarding the work of Crowley, anybody who is interested in Jungian
pshchology would do well to read Crowley as a way to understand the dark side
of the Self, the Shadow. If read in this context, then the teeth of the
supernatural evaporates and all that is left is a whole lot of fear and over
emphasis on the dark side of the superego. Quite convoluted mushy thinking
and not very helpful. Though Crowley's philosophy does energize nonetheless.
my beans - Roy
In a message dated 5/7/2002 9:37:44 AM Central Standard Time,
owner-zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com writes:
> Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 18:53:08 -0700
> From: florid oratory <connah@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Waits on Letterman
>
> supposedly wednesday of this week: may 8th
>
> some bay area musicians, among others:
> ara anderson--trumpet? or drums?
> colin stetson--confident reeds
> matt sperry--bass
>
> - --GC
>
> "Arthur Gadney" <a_gadney@hotmail.com> asked:
>
> > I understand that Tom will be performing on the David Letterman show next
> > week. Anybody know who he might be using as backup. it's always fun to
> see
> > who pops up on these shows from time to time. I saw Cyro Baptista the
> other
> > day. He was tearing it up, in some other ways ultra lame pop song.
>
>
> - -
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 22:59:04 +0100
> From: Matthew Moffett <fkmoffet@erols.com>
> Subject: Re: AW: satanism
>
> First off, Crowley is not to be taken seriously. He was a poet with a
> sense of the bizarre, and loved to shock the uptight literati of
> England. Those who take him too seriously only serve to display their
> own ignorance (ie Jimmy Page). If born a generation later, Crowley
> probably would have been a minor surrealist.
>
> Second, under what premise do you associate Crowley with the Satanic
> Church? Any association is tangential at best. It would be like
> calling Duke Ellington free jazz.
>
> Third, most music billed as "satanic" has more to do with Tolkien and
> Dungeons and Dragons than anything with LeVey or his religion. If a
> satanic form of music really existed, it would more likely be poppy to
> bring more people into the fold. It might be an interesting dichotomy
> to explore as a musician, though.
>
> Now back to Zorn. Does anyone know of a stated purpose behind this
> project, or what it sounds like? If nothing else, I'm sure he'd be
> amused on some level by this debate. Shrouding his music behind lines
> of transgression is often his method, and I'm sure it's in part just to
> shake things up a bit.
>
> Thorsten Kr=E4mer wrote:
> > =
>
> > Hello Arthur,
> > =
>
> > thanks for your advice.
> > =
>
> > >Read the sources, not the tabloids.
> >
>
> - -
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 23:11:46 -0400
> From: "Steve Smith" <ssmith36@sprynet.com>
> Subject: RE: AW: satanism
>
> Given that I thought much of 'IAO' sounded rather like film music, it
> wouldn't surprise me a bit if the true influence was less Crowley, more
> filmmaker Kenneth Anger (listed on the disc's obi strip as a Crowley
> "disciple").
- --part1_113.112d12cb.2a0a7e7c_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>Crowley as surrealist? That's an interesting angle. That was illuminating to put him into the context of his time. Someone else brought up Harry Smith as a counterpart and there is something to that. Never thought about it but haven't read about Crowley in 15 years. <BR>
<BR>
Regarding the work of Crowley, anybody who is interested in Jungian pshchology would do well to read Crowley as a way to understand the dark side of the Self, the Shadow. If read in this context, then the teeth of the supernatural evaporates and all that is left is a whole lot of fear and over emphasis on the dark side of the superego. Quite convoluted mushy thinking and not very helpful. Though Crowley's philosophy does energize nonetheless. <BR>
<BR>
my beans - Roy<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 5/7/2002 9:37:44 AM Central Standard Time, owner-zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com writes:<BR>
