why do free jazz groups have pee-pee-go-poo-poo-silly-names?
I love Zorn's work, and much of the Tzadik catalogue, but I'm not as interested in the other players in the free jazz/modern improv scene. Still, by virtue of being on this list and perusing mags like "signal to noise" and other media sources, I've noticed this trend- many (most) of the artists and ensembles that work in the free jazz/modern improv/avant garde/modern classical/etc. mode gravitate toward silly/stupid names for their ensembles and records- why? Why is it that the most brilliant composers and players put out records with names like "The baby-rape arkestra" and "Tiny Elephant go poo poo", and other equally silly/stupid things? There's no question that Zappa was a brillaint composer and writer- yet why did the majority of his catalogue have song titles and content so "south park" that they make Weird Al's lyrics and song titles look like Cole Porter? Here's my .02- I think that because these artists know that they're doing highbrow, high-concept, academic music, they feel that they have to (over)compensate by using novelty names and silly-stupid record titles. If Chris Speed's new record is a collection of modal excercises and pretentious, academic skronk-funk, he'll feel that calling it something equally academic like "fluxus/nexus diaspora" would be too pretentious, so he tried to "lighten it up" by coming up with a name like "My colostomy sandwhich" or something. Thoughts?
There's no question that Zappa was a brillaint composer and writer- yet why did the majority of his catalogue have song titles and content so "south park" that they make Weird Al's lyrics and song titles look like Cole Porter? i don't disagree with the stupidity of many bandnames (or titles of works), but to claim that the "majority" of zappa's catalogue has "titles and content so 'south park'" betrays a passing knowledge of zappa's music, at best. that being said, he certainly had his scatalogical moments, but it's by no means the majority of his work.
on 6/23/03 2:10 PM, ahorton at ahorton@vt.edu wrote:
Here's my .02- I think that because these artists know that they're doing highbrow, high-concept, academic music, they feel that they have to (over)compensate by using novelty names and silly-stupid record titles. If Chris Speed's new record is a collection of modal excercises and pretentious, academic skronk-funk, he'll feel that calling it something equally academic like "fluxus/nexus diaspora" would be too pretentious, so he tried to "lighten it up" by coming up with a name like "My colostomy sandwhich" or something.
Thoughts?
Much of the time, when you're dealing with a certain kind of journalist, it's best not to go out there procliaming your own importance. Journalists do not like musicians who make it a point to trot out their own specialness. Frankly, neither do most people. If you call your live album I HEARD THEY SUCK IN CONCERT, you don't look so arrogant. On the other hand, if you become "Mr Clever Funny Title", people get a bee in their bonnet that you've being cute and precious all the time. In the event that there's a Dave Douglas backlash, watch what the contrary journalists trot out as proof that Dave deserves to be grilled -- it will be his album titles and things he says in interviews that gets hiim negative mention. He's so far unassailable on matters of content. In all fairness, the jazz world has long been weighed down by pretentious album titles that it's nice to see a little humor in there. There's historically been such a lack of it, especially in the titles. Carla Bley probably deserves mad props for bringing humor to the party. (That and being really brilliant.) sh
participants (3)
-
ahorton -
Sean Westergaard -
skip Heller