Efrén del Valle <efrendv@yahoo.es> wrote:

Hi,

First of all, probably my English doesn't allow me to express myself as I'd like to and that can lead to some misunderstandings.

The issues are not entirely clear even for those of us who are native speakers of American English, so don't worry about this. As you note there is no clearly stated editorial policy for any of the series released as part of Tzadik's program. I don't have as much of a problem with this as you seem to (I may just be less interested in the categories used to split up music in various ways) which may have made it more difficult for me to understand your points in this discussion. For me, the fact that, say, discs by Elliott Sharp or Alvin Curran are part of the Composer series rather than RJC (or, for that matter, that discs by Yuji Takahashi or Mamura Fujieda are in the Composer Series rather than New Japan) makes the distinctions a little more clear rather than more problematic. It might help if you were to think of each of the various series that Tzadik releases as sort of self-defining; the aggregate of the discs released clarifies the focus of the series.

If Zorn has planned the series without preconceptions as someone said, then the fact of publishing some musicians on the Composer Series and some others on the RJC Series would also be pointless. There must be some kind of guidelines or criteria for him to stablish such a division in those particular cases. A division that isn't clear to me at all for the same reasons I mentioned in previous e-mails. What makes Shrek or the Selfhaters more likely to be included in the RJC than, say, Elliot Sharp's string quartets?

It seems to me that composer-selected content is a key here. Ribot & Coleman do think of their projects as being related to Jewish culture. Sharp's string quartet's DO have cultural content (math theory for one thing) but this content is not specifically related to Judaism.

And above all, if the term "Radical" is not related to politics at all (which is something I agree with), then what makes Tim Sparks so artistically radical? Of course, by saying "purity" I wasn't implying that "radical" is a synonymous term at all but they're supposed to take off from the roots of Jewish folklore to create something new that makes the music "radical" in some way or another. What's so radical in "Klezmer Madness" or "Diaspora Soul", I don't know.

As I wrote earlier, the aesthetic radicality of any particular musical item is a matter of taste & prior knowledge more than anything else. Looking at the actual releases of the RJC series, it's clear that taking "off from the roots of Jewish folklore" is only part of it. The autobiographical details of the CDs by Shelley Hirsch or Kramer for instance, aren't exactly folklore.

Besides that, and considering what the current political panorama is like, I think that a good choice of words is really welcome in these cases.

Two simple things. The political panorama in the US is quite different from the panorama in Spain. &, as far as the series of CDs goes, after 70 releases it's too late to change the name.

Not that you have to be in favor of political correctness, but a newcomer reading "Radical Jewish Culture" does not immediately think of "a new form of music created by Jewish people". When I think of "Radical" not only Merzbow comes to my mind but also some other negative connotations that are not necessarily related to culture despite the inclusion of that word in the categorization.

This is one of the "roots" of the difference we're having here. & it does have to do, in part, with your English. In American English "radical" is often used to describe a kind of change from, rather than a kind of continuity with, some form of tradition. Although, the etymology of the word could imply the latter, the common usage of the word frequently is not meant in that way.

An example that I've lived closer to: The Basque country "issue". There is some sort of "radical musical movement" there and and when you refer to that musical expression, you can only think about the message (support to terrorism, etc...) because the music itself is not exactly edgy or difficult or radical, imho. It's more about what it implies and perhaps that's why my vision of the RJC is a bit distorted or influenced by movements like the aforementioned. And when you're included in such a group you cannot expect to avoid controversy unless you're ready to give clear explanations about what you really want to say.

Understood. But Jews in the US are not Basques in Spain. There are few Jewish separatists running around the US with guns and bombs, & fewer still who also listen to recordings released by Tzadik. Looking back at your interview with Dave Douglas: you might find it helpful to look at his notes to the Witness CD, he talks some about his views of how music and politics can interrelate. -- Herb Levy P O Box 9369 Fort Worth, TX 76147 herb@eskimo.com