Yeah, right- it ain't "new" so it's no good.
Please, find someone who can teach you to read and interpret texts. Your letter before this was based on a misunderstood notion, and now you completely misunderstand my reaction on the Ayler/ Vandermark. In order not to go too far off-topic, I reply to you off-list BTW. If something is not new, it can still be good, ofcourse, you are completely right. But, by its nature (of non-newness), it can NEVER be 'avantgarde'. Because that means you're setting new standards, good or bad. 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. Didn't
we have a recent discussion based around this little obsession? Sometimes some nerd who runs a sine-wave for an hour gets more kudos than someone who can actually play, just because it's the new thing. I am very sorry for you, nowhere in my letter I have said stuff that could be linked with above notion. I feel free to criticize an overrated saxofonist whenever I hear one, that's the only thing I did. The quality is what matters to me, the voice, and if it comes with newness- great. But sometimes someone just playing from their heart is rare enough to look "new".
Let me tell you, Albert Ayler's power was not in how new his music was. I have not discussed Ayler's power, I have only argued Vandermarks own voice.
If you want to know more about my views on A. Ayler, please read my liner notes in some of Albert Ayler's ESP Disk cd's. If you want to know where I stand, especially BELLS. You can find it somewhere on the net, on the Ayler page which has the word 'Supanet' in its title. Just type my and ayler's name in your search machine. Record company butchered my text on SPIRITS REJOICE, so bad, that there's nothing there anymore. Regards, Remco Takken