July 2002 - zorn-list - mailman.xmission.com

Re: things I just don't get
by thesubtlebody 07 Jul '02

07 Jul '02

Skip Heller wrote: >-- being able to play means being able to > project your ideas on you > >instrument, and having enough tecvhnique to do it > cleanly and consistently....you're > either doing it real good or not. It's more like > arranging, and there's a > lot of technique involved in arranging....Assembling music is not easy....You need precision..... > Constant precision -- > regardless of media -- is chops. > It's about hitting your mark > reliably, and nobody ever > had a better batting average for this than the > Ramones, who I think had the > perfect technique for all time. Skip, I don't like the way you've overdetermined what constitutes "technique", it's like you're courting predictability or manageability of aesthetics. Reliable? Who wants music that is "reliably" "precise", in just about _any_ sense of that word? I personally don't need more than a short tape of Ramones precisely because they were so, um, "reliable". Nothing is wrong with an artist basically doing one thing, workkking with one vocabulary, and even then with a vocabulary that she didn't invent, but refining is refining, and the examples Biill gave (SachikoM and John Wall) would seem to me to be pretty far from refining, more about defining. As they define what can be done with their chosen materials, they are establishing the very grounds of what is "good" and what "isn't". Aren't you saying that something is done well or it isn't, and pretty much falls on the spectrum, from the get-go, from the moment someone's ears receive it? I don't think it's decided like that. Gene Ammons was good because of the tradition he was working within, and the way his abundant personality just burst its walls in hurry to get out of that horn; John Hartford and Bill Evans were wonderful because of the way they made acceptable and even natural the "unnatural" way they bumped up against the inner membrane walls of their respective genres, allowed for cross-pollination from other places. SachikoM and John Wall work very similarly, with very few important differances, but among those differences, the implicit call for listeners to walk to tightrope, with little to hold on to. It's confrontation in a way, where the initial, natural response of the listener is, "I don't even know if this is music or not, much less whether it is good. By the way, what is "good"? What do I mean by that?" Then, of course, it's a short jump to "What does ANYONE mean by 'good'?" The effect, at its best, for me at least, is the euphoria of independence, it's that punk-ass feeling: total freedom to listen, clean ears, a form of baptism, taking that first breath back above the surface. Really bad experimental music (IMHO) makes me feel like I'm being lectured. Speaking of which, I'll shut up now, albeit with the last parting thought: I'm bothered by your view (as I received it) that in order to appreciate something's "precision", "reliability",and quality, in the context of it's technique, then something NEEDS to be codified from the get go. There is plenty of music that is interesting to listeners, esp. critical listeners, BECAUSE of its total lack of constancy in precision and unreliability in terms of cleanness. Furthermore, how on earth are we to know whether a person's ideas are effectively, much less cleanly and precisely, being comunicated in their music? We can't read their minds. Interference happens along the way, certainly between instrument and listener, btu also between perfromer and instrument. But you never actually said that music had to have technique. It just seems that when the T-word is used, it applies to widely-understood and codified systems of _techniques_. When we say "technique", we aren't just referring to a specific type of motion/approach/attack, we are speaking of a general body of such motions, we are referring to a person's entire method as judged against predetermined standards. But I'm pretty with your comments on arranging. They apply crucially to experimental composers like Bernhard Guenter, even more than they would to someone like Duke Ellington (whose experiments have had much longer to soak into our collective thinking). -----scott np: Edward Ka-Spel, KHATACLIMICI CHINA DOLL __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com

3 4

technique
by Acousticlv＠aol.com 07 Jul '02

07 Jul '02

In a message dated 7/7/02 2:45:02 PM, zorn-list-request(a)mailman.xmission.com writes: << Skip, I don't like the way you've overdetermined what constitutes "technique", it's like you're courting predictability or manageability of aesthetics. >> dear scott, i wont pretend to speak for skip, but usually what technique means is mastery of one's instrument or skill; this provides the _means_ to accomplish what your intentions are, even if your intention is aleatory. luck is nice, but the skills to back it up are necessary. yrs steve koenig n.p.:lauren newton.patrick scheyder

1 0

Final comments on Keiji Haino
by Arthur Gadney 07 Jul '02

07 Jul '02

>I read the interview -- yes, Patrice, I periodically buy a WIRE ;-) -- and >found it more jingoistic than racist, statistics aside. Didn't leave a bad >taste in my mouth, Well, you can call me old fashioned, but I always get a bad taste in my mouth when people talk about wanting the people to "wake up" and realise the ongoing "invasion" which is threatening their "race". Racist? Well perhaps not. It's not really a big part of the interview so he doesn't dig too much into it, but I think from what he is saying there is certainly not very far to saying that the "pure" japanese race is supirior to the new "westernised" version, which would be racism, right? Of course, I will give him the benifit of doubt becuase of the language thing and possible mistakes in the translation. But I also remember the Japanese "tradition" of racism and supiriority feelings. >Haino's remarks must certainly be seen in the proper context. As far as I >can tell, >he is a strong advocate of tradition; (...) His lyrics are not even in >contemporary >Japanese. He must feel that a culture which he loves is disappearing, and >that what >replaces is is often not very worthwhile. What if he was an American country singer who was a "strong advocate of tradition" and were singing songs in an old hilbilly dialect about the good old days when you could call black people niggers without anybody complaining. Would you also be so kind to him and say "He must feel that a culture which he loves is disappearing, and that what replaces is is often not very worthwhile."? If Haino was just talking about culture, I'd say, okay fine. I'd probably even agree with him. But he said "race", which is what worried me. >Furthermore, it is definitely true to some extent that the Japanese have >changed even physically from these cultural influences. Okay, I obviously didn't explain myself very well, because this has also been picked up elsewhere. I didn't mean to say that the Japanese have not changed in the last years. They certainly have, and somebody posted the following link which has some background information on it: http://www.sumitomo.gr.jp/english/discoveries/special/84_03.html It's ridiculous in my opinion, because why does it matter if they change a couple of centimeters? Races change. It's just how biology works, as far as I'm concerned. >(as George Bush thinks, but his remarks about this are >carefully filtered out the news reports in the US, as when he recently >asked >the Brazilian president if they "also had blacks in Brazil?"). I don't know how carefully they are actually filtered. I saw his entire 4. of July speech on CNN and it certainly had a fair share of his "remarks". I almost swallowed my tongue when he talked about the vicitms of September 11. and claimed that "all of them were American". Not exactly "racist", but still mindnumbingly ignorant and offensive. Certainly far more worrying than anything from Haino's mouth. >On the subject of Haino's supposed racism, you would be surprised to find >out just how many people outside of the USA feel that their culture has >been >invaded by the USA - Surprised? Why? We have pretty good statistics on this, for example Gallup International. It's no secret. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

1 0

Re: Artist sued over silence
by Arthur Gadney 07 Jul '02

07 Jul '02

Sorry, is this a joke!? >From: Samerivertwice(a)aol.com >To: zorn-list(a)mailman.xmission.com >Subject: Artist sued over silence >Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 07:50:38 EDT > >from http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=307449 > >Big noises at odds over the sound of silence >By David Lister Media and Culture Editor >21 June 2002 >'The Sound of Silence' may have prompted engaging harmonies from Simon >and >Garfunkel but a more literal appreciation of the absence of noise >has >prompted one of the more curious copyright disputes of modern times. > >Mike Batt, the man behind the Wombles and Vanessa Mae, has put a silent >60-second track on the album of his latest classical chart-topping >protégés, >the Planets. This has enraged representatives of the avant-garde, >experimentalist composer John Cage, who died in 1992. The silence on his > >group's album clearly sounds uncannily like 4'33", the silence composed >by >Cage in his prime. > >Batt said last night: "I've received a letter on behalf of John Cage's >music >publishers. I was in hysterics when I read their letter. > >"As my mother said when I told her, 'which part of the silence are they >claiming you nicked?'. They say they are claiming copyright on a piece >of >mine called 'One Minute's Silence' on the Planets' album, which I credit > >Batt/Cage just for a laugh. But my silence is original silence, not a >quotation from his silence." > > >_______________________________________________ >zorn-list mailing list >zorn-list(a)mailman.xmission.com >To UNSUBSCRIBE or Change Your Subscription Options, go to the webpage below >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/zorn-list _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Re: Things I just don't get
by Fastian＠aol.com 07 Jul '02

07 Jul '02

Remco, who I often agree with, said: << By comparing 'Witches and Devils' by Vandermark, to Spirits Rejoice by Ayler, makes it perfectly, and even painfully clear to these ears, that Vandermark is no good. It has nothing to do with originality: Vandermark is a bad copyist IMHO. >> When Remco previously said Vandermark was just copying Ayler (or something to that effect) I was wondering what the hell that premise was based on. Here Remco provides the answer. It sounds like you know a lot more about Ayler than you do about Vandermark. The guy's got like 30 cds out or so. Many different projects and many different styles of playing. He does not always play energy music. Less and less lately it seems. "Witches and Devils" is an Ayler tribute of mainly Ayler compositions. The only problem I have with this release is that it is badly recorded from a live performance. Yes he does copy the head or composed part(not that it is unusual), but to assert he's copying the solos is ridiculous. I don't think he could if he wanted to, it's like copying a Brotzmann solo. This cd is colead by Mars Williams so you're often hearing him as well. Don't dismiss him based on 1 cd. Check out some Vandermark 5, School Days, or Expansion Slang cds to hear other facets of Vandermarks work. We often like the same artists so I don't think you'll be disappointed. Cheers, John Threadgould

2 1

Re: Things I just don't get
by Bill Ashline 07 Jul '02

07 Jul '02

>From: Ryan Novak <ryan_novak(a)yahoo.com> >Subject: Re: Things I just don't get >To: zorn-list(a)mailman.xmission.com > >In general, the electronic field does not speak to me- >if they could turn their knobs and hit the keyboard in >a way that did- I'd say they are as virtuoso as anyone >with a more traditional instrument- but they don't. >For me. Maybe you can recommend someone that does >this kind of thing with an obvious passion- the Ayler >of laptops! :~) That's perfectly OK. Not every music is going to appeal to everybody. Several years ago I listened exclusively to free jazz and got rid of most of my old rock records, which I still don't miss. At that time, I doubt seriously than any electronic experimental music would have done much for me. That said, the one e/a artist who I find most exciting and interesting is Otomo Yoshihide, who we often discuss in these parts. This guy's catalogue is as diverse as they come and his music is simply inspired to say the least. If there's an Ayler of laptops, I'd say it's him. >I guess I should have just said I don't care if he's >avant-garde or not, I thought I did though. If we do away with the word altogether, that's fine by me. It's lost almost any capacity to describe anything anymore. It only describes what cannot be described and what few people are capable of listening to. >The point >is the term means little to me- you and Remco can >define it up and down, tell us who fits in it and >doesn't- and it still won't. That term sounded like >some kind of a blessing you give an artist, hence I >got the impression you were interested more in >innovation. I am interested in innovation, and I find the most innovative stuff in e/a improv. That isn't to say that I still don't love free jazz. I still buy it. I cut my teeth on it, and I still appreciate its history. But for me, the best stuff in the area has past. I'm not as excited by many of the newer artists working in this "genre." It doesn't offer very many surprises anymore--to me at least. >So now we've spent several exchanges figuring out that >Vandermark isn't avant-garde, and it hasn't changed >anything, because no one really said Vandermark isn't >avant-garde, but they LIKE him. So I'll say it- >Vandermark is not avant-garde, and I like him. Maybe >we're all happy now. Well hopefully it at least clarified what was meant in the previous discussion. Since the term "avant-garde" has a history and a specific, precise meaning, it's important to see it in its proper sense. Jackson Pollack was once avant-garde. Abstract expressionism was once avant-garde. But a contemporary artist who works in the prevalent styles of abstract expressionism, no matter the salient quality of his work, is not avant-garde. He or she is simply working within a particular trope that has become familiar. The same goes for free improv in jazz--show me an artist who's doing something truly avant-garde in jazz. I've heard most and they're all working within a particular category and even a style. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

3 2

Re: Things I just don't get
by Fastian＠aol.com 06 Jul '02

06 Jul '02

<< I guess I should have just said I don't care if he's avant-garde or not, I thought I did though. The point is the term means little to me- you and Remco can define it up and down, tell us who fits in it and doesn't- and it still won't. That term sounded like some kind of a blessing you give an artist, hence I got the impression you were interested more in innovation. >>(Ryan) This all started when I had the audacity to call Vandermark's work avant jazz. Not avant garde. That evidently got Remco's goat. I use this term more than any other because if you put this into any search engine, the artists I like the most turn up. So someone else must be using this term besides me. I never said his music was brand new. If someone told me an unknown artist's work was brand new, I figure here comes a new gimmick. Someone is going to nitpick any term you can come up with. The fact that so many people work in this field makes it a genre. Nothing to be ashamed of. I'm just using the above quote as a frame of reference, I'm not disagreeing here. Cheers, John Threadgould

1 0

Re: Things I just don't get
by Bill Ashline 06 Jul '02

06 Jul '02

>From: skip Heller <velaires(a)earthlink.net> >That's such an awkward semantic to throw out there that it begs a re-think. > >The instruments have changed enough that being able to play means something >different than it used to, although it really should boil down to the same >thing -- being able to play means being able to project your ideas on you >instrument, and having enough tecvhnique to do it cleanly and consistently. Yeah I was thinking of Sachiko M and John Wall when I wrote that stuff before. How can one say that Sachiko M has great technique and is a "fine" player of the sine wave generator? Or how do you account for the assemblages of Wall when he puts together snippets of Ryoji Ikeda and John Zorn into a new composition. The phrase "playing well" or "having technique" becomes a bit problematic in these areas. You end up saying something like "boy, that Sachiko M sure knows how to play that sine wave generator well." Somehow, misses the point. You need a new vocabulary. In Wall's case, you talk about the assemblage. In the case of Sachiko, you talk about her sensibility. Or some such vocabulary. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

2 1

Cecil Taylor's poetry
by Herb Levy 06 Jul '02

06 Jul '02

Chris Selvig wrote a few days back: Is there a single person on this list who likes Cecil Taylor's poems, or zanier still prefers them to the piano bits? Jazz guys doing poetry are right up there with actors deciding they want to make rock records. Or worse yet, blues records. I don't know if you're looking for a date or what, but even though I'm not single, I do like Cecil Taylor's poetry, a lot. It's not typical workshop poetry about how he felt when his mother died or when a lover left him, but it's well within a couple of strands of American avant garde poetic traditions. (Just as Taylor's music doesn't deal with standard song form, but has roots in various strands of avant garde musical traditions.) For those with an interest in an academic look at this, Aldon Nielsen has a very good book called Black Chants: Languages of African-American Postmodernism that discusses Taylor's writing (& Sun Ra's) in the context of contemporary Black poetry by writers like Russell Atkins, Amiri Baraka, Jayne Cortez, Stephen Jonas, Nathaniel Mackey, Norman Pritchard, AB Spellman & others. I'm not disagreeing with you about your general thesis on musicians and poetry, or actors and music, though frankly, I don't think much of a lot of music by musicians, poetry by poets, and/or acting by actors. (Feel free to put "irony" quotes on any verbs or nouns in that last sentence to make it more palatable to your own tastes.) -- Herb Levy P O Box 9369, Forth Wort, TX 76147 herb(a)eskimo.com

2 1

boredoms boots
by brian sullivan 06 Jul '02

06 Jul '02

hi everybody. i don't know if you're gonna get this or not because this isn't the computer i subscribed on but i was just wondering if anybody had any boredoms boots from vision creation... tour preferably videos. i don't have much to trade but i will pay. thanks a lot. brian _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

1 0