From: Ryan Novak <ryan_novak@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Things I just don't get To: zorn-list@mailman.xmission.com

In general, the electronic field does not speak to me- if they could turn their knobs and hit the keyboard in a way that did- I'd say they are as virtuoso as anyone with a more traditional instrument- but they don't. For me. Maybe you can recommend someone that does this kind of thing with an obvious passion- the Ayler of laptops! :~)

That's perfectly OK. Not every music is going to appeal to everybody. Several years ago I listened exclusively to free jazz and got rid of most of my old rock records, which I still don't miss. At that time, I doubt seriously than any electronic experimental music would have done much for me. That said, the one e/a artist who I find most exciting and interesting is Otomo Yoshihide, who we often discuss in these parts. This guy's catalogue is as diverse as they come and his music is simply inspired to say the least. If there's an Ayler of laptops, I'd say it's him.

I guess I should have just said I don't care if he's avant-garde or not, I thought I did though.

If we do away with the word altogether, that's fine by me. It's lost almost any capacity to describe anything anymore. It only describes what cannot be described and what few people are capable of listening to.

The point is the term means little to me- you and Remco can define it up and down, tell us who fits in it and doesn't- and it still won't. That term sounded like some kind of a blessing you give an artist, hence I got the impression you were interested more in innovation.

I am interested in innovation, and I find the most innovative stuff in e/a improv. That isn't to say that I still don't love free jazz. I still buy it. I cut my teeth on it, and I still appreciate its history. But for me, the best stuff in the area has past. I'm not as excited by many of the newer artists working in this "genre." It doesn't offer very many surprises anymore--to me at least.

So now we've spent several exchanges figuring out that Vandermark isn't avant-garde, and it hasn't changed anything, because no one really said Vandermark isn't avant-garde, but they LIKE him. So I'll say it- Vandermark is not avant-garde, and I like him. Maybe we're all happy now.

Well hopefully it at least clarified what was meant in the previous discussion. Since the term "avant-garde" has a history and a specific, precise meaning, it's important to see it in its proper sense. Jackson Pollack was once avant-garde. Abstract expressionism was once avant-garde. But a contemporary artist who works in the prevalent styles of abstract expressionism, no matter the salient quality of his work, is not avant-garde. He or she is simply working within a particular trope that has become familiar. The same goes for free improv in jazz--show me an artist who's doing something truly avant-garde in jazz. I've heard most and they're all working within a particular category and even a style. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com