John Zorn is not a human jukebox. That idiot has no more right to deliver a blow-by-blow commentary than he has to tell John what tunes to play. It is not the right of the any supervisor to make the task difficult for the employee at hand.
Sometimes I think the reason why some "difficult" music doesn't reach more people isn't because the average person can't understand it but rather the average person picks up on the snottiness and self-importance that radiates from SOME of the music/performers.
Making a good record is insanely hard work, even before you've played a note. Find a time when the musicians, engineer, and studio are all available is contracting work at its most basic, and is no fun. If you want to see how easy it is to make records, come down to my place next time I go to the studio. For your own safety, bring a whip, a chair, a gun, some Valium, Tagamit, and a cell phone.
Skip, these statements seem a little whiny, no offense. If it's such hard work, then don't do it. There are many people who are working pretty damn hard just to play music without many of Mr. Zorn's benefits who would give up their soul (and are doing so) if they could perform in Europe, Japan, etc. What amount of hard work justifies getting to act like a certified asshole? --davy _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
At 9:08 PM -0800 11/11/02, D Dvb wrote:
What amount of hard work justifies getting to act like a certified asshole?
Just out of curiosity, is there a certifying body for assholery now? Or is it under the auspices of the ISO, and if so, what's the ISO number? Happy that this stuff's being standardized, M NP: La Monte Young/The Forever Bad Blues Band, _Just Stompin'_ -- Maurice Rickard http://mauricerickard.com/
on 11/11/02 9:08 PM, D Dvb at d_dvb@hotmail.com wrote:
Sometimes I think the reason why some "difficult" music doesn't reach more people isn't because the average person can't understand it but rather the average person picks up on the snottiness and self-importance that radiates from SOME of the music/performers.
I'd agree with that point if the audience was filled with more people who had not been exposed to that artist before. I think the reason it doesn;t reach more people is because it doesn't get on the radio. Besides, being self-obsessed hasn't hurt Lou Reed. And he's all about snotty and self-important (or has been when I've seen him).
Making a good record is insanely hard work, even before you've played a note. Find a time when the musicians, engineer, and studio are all available is contracting work at its most basic, and is no fun. If you want to see how easy it is to make records, come down to my place next time I go to the studio. For your own safety, bring a whip, a chair, a gun, some Valium, Tagamit, and a cell phone.
Skip, these statements seem a little whiny, no offense. If it's such hard work, then don't do it. There are many people who are working pretty damn hard just to play music without many of Mr. Zorn's benefits who would give up their soul (and are doing so) if they could perform in Europe, Japan, etc.
Making a record IS hard work. It's not whiny -- it's a reality. It's a hard job to do well, like any other skilled construction task. It's no different in that respect than getting the requisite personnel and building a bathroom. But nobody pins "requisite glamour" on guys who build bathrooms. Also, if I had a marketable skill other than to do music, I might have opted for it. I do what I know how to do. For all the considerable headaches, it beats my alternatives (like asking someone if they "want that Supersized"). That "requisite glamour notion" (as if music ain;t hard work) is worse than a myth. Except instead of foremen and supervisors, you have producers and A&R men on your ass. It' still someone you have to answer to who doesn;t generally know as much about what you're doing as you know about what you're doing. I think people take the term "playing music" to mean we;re having fun all the time. While the actual moments when you're doing music are great, all the stuff that goes along with it -- being a payroll clerk, contractor, site supervisor, teacher, and then some -- can be pretty tense. It deserves as much respect as any job gives. If John had a bad reaction to an asshole, hasn't everyone blown up at work at some point because some idiot wasn;t letting him do his job in peace? Or are musicians not allowed that same slack/respect? Just like the guy who builds bathrooms or sells me food, Zorn -- or any artist -- deserves the right to be treated as a professional. That's manners. And guys who come to a public gathering sans manners are probably best treated like guys who don;t understand what manners are. "Shut up" is likely a good start. As for guys who would give up their soul to play in different countries, that's their business, and I understand it to a certain point. But there's a lot less pressure on you when you're relatively unknown and doing a van tour (trust me on this) than there is pressure on someone like Zorn, who really has to meet a payroll and deal with things on a larger scale than four guys in a van.
What amount of hard work justifies getting to act like a certified asshole?
I don't think John behaved like one. To me, the certified asshole is the guy who thinks the price of a ticket grants him the right to be avant garde music's Howard Cosell for the night. sh
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 21:44:38 -0800 skip Heller wrote:
on 11/11/02 9:08 PM, D Dvb at d_dvb@hotmail.com wrote:
Sometimes I think the reason why some "difficult" music doesn't reach more people isn't because the average person can't understand it but rather the average person picks up on the snottiness and self-importance that radiates from SOME of the music/performers.
I'd agree with that point if the audience was filled with more people who had not been exposed to that artist before. I think the reason it doesn;t reach more people is because it doesn't get on the radio.
The usual excuse... I have plenty of examples of friends dragged to concert of (allegedly) "difficult" music and who never came back on their own. And I won't talk about lending records, playing the music, talking about it, etc, with the naive expectation of creating some excitement (for artists I believed deserved more). Most of the artists I was listening to twenty years ago still have trouble to fill a small size room (even with hundreds of records in their discographies). You should expect that after so many records, so many concerts, articles, the word of mouth would work and some (relative) fame would come, no? Since that's not the case, maybe the problem is somewhere else. The problem of "difficult" music is the music itself. Once you say bye to melody and/or rhythm, you practically end up alone on the road... The second problem is the mass of music produced with the fragmentation of the genres that make practically any non-mainstream artist invisible on any radar screen. The offer of music has simply grown faster than the audience, and since so much of this music barely goes beyond the "interesting" category, this music simply reaches the member of the church and the rest of the world lives fine ignoring it (since the rest of the world does not have money to buy "interesting" records). Now I am a little bit confused about what people on this list call "difficult" music. The NYDS music of more than ten years ago was definitely in that category. But there is practically nobody in the NYDS these days who does "difficult music" (unless you identify sparce audiences with "difficult"). All I see is nice compositions, "a la maniere de", relectures of folk music, klezmer variations, etc. Which means that if the NYDS has visibility troubles, it is certainly not by being "difficult". Patrice.
I've had pretty good luck generating interest in "difficult music", although what we around here consider difficult is kind of to the left of anyone else's definition, so you're totally right in that respect.. If you attempt to swing somebody's sympathies to Zorn, SPY VS SPY -- no matter how much you may like it -- probably won't work. "The Sicilian Clan", on the other hand, has gotten people around me quite interested. As for the "excuse" about certain music not getting on the radio. Maybe it is an excuse, but I also think there are people who design and build their music without considering whether or not it's going to fit into an existing broadcast format. What radio format is set up for THE GIFT? That's some non-difficult stuff by any yardstick. But if you're not going to be on the radio (by your own design), you're not going to attract people the usual way. There are zillions of really compelling people who have a problem filling even a small space. So be it. If they care enough to make the music, and the audience doesn't care how how many people share their taste, that's fine too. If those artists really care that much about numbers, enough of them have the musicianship to be in Top 40 bands or whatever. But, thankfully, they care about the music they make, so they do that, even if it's in obscurity. You put up with a lot of crap to do music. You'd better love the music you do. sh on 11/12/02 11:34 AM, Patrice L. Roussel at proussel@ichips.intel.com wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 21:44:38 -0800 skip Heller wrote:
on 11/11/02 9:08 PM, D Dvb at d_dvb@hotmail.com wrote:
Sometimes I think the reason why some "difficult" music doesn't reach more people isn't because the average person can't understand it but rather the average person picks up on the snottiness and self-importance that radiates from SOME of the music/performers.
I'd agree with that point if the audience was filled with more people who had not been exposed to that artist before. I think the reason it doesn;t reach more people is because it doesn't get on the radio.
The usual excuse...
I have plenty of examples of friends dragged to concert of (allegedly) "difficult" music and who never came back on their own. And I won't talk about lending records, playing the music, talking about it, etc, with the naive expectation of creating some excitement (for artists I believed deserved more). Most of the artists I was listening to twenty years ago still have trouble to fill a small size room (even with hundreds of records in their discographies). You should expect that after so many records, so many concerts, articles, the word of mouth would work and some (relative) fame would come, no? Since that's not the case, maybe the problem is somewhere else.
The problem of "difficult" music is the music itself. Once you say bye to melody and/or rhythm, you practically end up alone on the road... The second problem is the mass of music produced with the fragmentation of the genres that make practically any non-mainstream artist invisible on any radar screen. The offer of music has simply grown faster than the audience, and since so much of this music barely goes beyond the "interesting" category, this music simply reaches the member of the church and the rest of the world lives fine ignoring it (since the rest of the world does not have money to buy "interesting" records).
Now I am a little bit confused about what people on this list call "difficult" music. The NYDS music of more than ten years ago was definitely in that category. But there is practically nobody in the NYDS these days who does "difficult music" (unless you identify sparce audiences with "difficult"). All I see is nice compositions, "a la maniere de", relectures of folk music, klezmer variations, etc. Which means that if the NYDS has visibility troubles, it is certainly not by being "difficult".
Patrice.
participants (4)
-
D Dvb -
Maurice Rickard -
Patrice L. Roussel -
skip Heller