------------------------------------ why should it be different for Evan Parker or Mick Jagger? Can't we just say Brotzmann is a great free-jazz stylist and his style is popular? ------------------------------------ Well, that's kind of funny to say free-jazz is popular, but in the avant-garde listening community the "newness" (which still must remain acceptable somehow though- say with lots of apparent forethought and not a bit of whimsy or humor) can count more than the quality. In that sense appearance is just as important there as it is in the mainstream. So some might be missing that Brotzmann is playing better than he ever has (and I'm not sure that's true, just an example) because we've tagged him and his kind with their importance being something other than just well-played music. Just like in the big money music where image can obscure the music, there's a bunch of people who might not really be listening due to some surface distraction. And some of the artists aren't really playing up to snuff either due to similar factors, but that's a different issue. But the idea that we may not really be listening and they might not really be playing and the truth of the whole thing is sidelined by shallower concerns, just sounds awful. But this happens a lot in life I guess. -----Ryan Novak __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
on 6/28/02 12:29 PM, Ryan Novak at ryan_novak@yahoo.com wrote: ------------------------------
Well, that's kind of funny to say free-jazz is popular,
It does, however, have as much a star pecking order as any other music has.
but in the avant-garde listening community the "newness" (which still must remain acceptable somehow though- say with lots of apparent forethought and not a bit of whimsy or humor) can count more than the quality.
Not a good sign. It's like saying the sales pitch is as important as the product.
In that sense appearance is just as important there as it is in the mainstream.
And just as honest.
Just like in the big money music where image can obscure the music, there's a bunch of people who might not really be listening due to some surface distraction.
You don't think these guys get paid good? Festivals, grants, and $ up front recording sessions might not be Rolling stones money, but they add up to more than what cops, teachers, and office workers make.
And some of the artists aren't really playing up to snuff either due to similar factors, but that's a different issue. But the idea that we may not really be listening and they might not really be playing and the truth of the whole thing is sidelined by shallower concerns, just sounds awful. But this happens a lot in life I guess.
-----Ryan Novak
You have just voiced every objection I have to the alleged superioity of the avant-garde world. sh
You don't think these guys get paid good? Festivals, grants, and $ up front recording sessions might not be Rolling stones money, but they add up to more than what cops, teachers, and office workers make.
I've never been sure actually- I guess I always assumed most could not play music full time. But the ones who can have got to be really big shit to make it... well I guess proportionally it's all the same- there are tons of rock and pop acts not getting anywhere. Well, then that's why some free-jazz improv sucks then I guess. And that's it- success (at whatever level suits them) makes them conservative, not age.
You have just voiced every objection I have to the alleged superioity of the avant-garde world.
Yeah there really is no superiority- it's just the other side of the same coin. There's no genre that has the energy to always stay vital, only individuals. ----------Ryan Novak __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
on 6/28/02 5:09 PM, Ryan Novak at ryan_novak@yahoo.com wrote:
I've never been sure actually- I guess I always assumed most could not play music full time. But the ones who can have got to be really big shit to make it...
Well, that's truer of someone like Dave or Uri than of someone like david Murray, who doesn't have the kind of technical skill to which I think you're referring
well I guess proportionally it's all the same- there are tons of rock and pop acts not getting anywhere. Well, then that's why some free-jazz improv sucks then I guess.
I think a lot of why anything sucks is that the proportionate number of gifted and original practitioners in any medium is always real slim. otherwise there'd be ten Thelonious Monk's.
And that's it- success (at whatever level suits them) makes them conservative, not age.
Depends on who. Max Roach is still Max Roach. Issac Hayes is still Issac hayes. sh
What I meant was that within the world of free-jazz fans Brotzmann is "popular." It's all relative to the genre someone is working in. I do agree that he is doing some of his best playing recently. But hey, I like a lot of those Ramones records too. Rob Quoting Ryan Novak <ryan_novak@yahoo.com>:
------------------------------------ why should it be different for Evan Parker or Mick Jagger? Can't we just say Brotzmann is a great free-jazz stylist and his style is popular? ------------------------------------
Well, that's kind of funny to say free-jazz is popular, but in the avant-garde listening community the "newness" (which still must remain acceptable somehow though- say with lots of apparent forethought and not a bit of whimsy or humor) can count more than the quality.
well-played music. Just like in the big money music where image can obscure the music, there's a bunch of people who might not really be listening due to some surface distraction. If this surface distraction consists of other artists doing great music, I won't miss a Peter Brotzmann show for a sec. There's just so much cool stuff out there.
factors, but that's a different issue. But the idea that we may not really be listening and they might not really be playing and the truth of the whole thing is sidelined by shallower concerns, just sounds awful. But this happens a lot in life I guess.
I can see your point, but I feel it's a bit polarized from your side. The poor choices we all have to make in order to save time, have to be in balance with the stuff that we *do* invest our time in. And I can't see ANY problem in choosing an Evan Parker or Anthony Braxton show over a Brotzmann gig, even when judgement is poor. And I am not shy to admit that there were many cool concerts where I didn't "really" listen that well to all geniuses displayed. For instance, the period right after my sister-in-law died at age 18. All music I listened to in that period made me drift away for miles... Back to Brotzmann: I can't even feel bad about attending a recent Dead Kennedy's show without Jello Biafra over Brotzmann: I didn't go, but it would have helped making my point about different levels of open-mindedness in music. What makes you more open: go and check Brotz, or check how the Kennedy's are really doing, in a tour they should never have begun in the first place? To me, it all comes down to the fact that there's only 24-hours in one day. then you choose, and you make mistakes. All the time. But believe me, I will go and see Brotzmann the next time he's in Holland, to check out how he's doing. Regards, Remco Takken
participants (4)
-
Remco Takken -
Robert Pleshar -
Ryan Novak -
skip Heller