Hi, I somehow see Skip's point here, but there's some tendency to turn "classic" albums into Holy Grails, which I always found a stupid attitude. "Free Jazz" is obviously an important recording and I guess Skip is not denying its historical weight, but instead states his distaste towards that album, which is OK with me, specially considering that he's giving details as to why. I tried to do the same with "Freak In" and, needless to say, the album is not a classic and it will hardly ever be. Thus, I don't understand why I should be more respectful with Douglas than with any other musicians, be it Miles or Ornette or Danny Zamir or whoever. It's all about personal taste, regardless of the objective trascendence of this or that album in music history. And with regards to those proposed ways of listening, I entirley disagree. My opinion is that the listening process, which is after all, enjoying music or not, is something more simple that shouldn't be related to any intellectual patterns, imho, and that's very related to an article I'm currently preparing (in English). I hope this opinion hasn't changed once I've finished it, which is what it should be about in fact. Best, Efrén del Valle n.p: DD "Freak In" (still trying) on 3/17/03 12:17 AM, Julian at germ@iinet.net.au wrote:

I'm still a little unclear on what's the difference between you saying 'Free Jazz' is a bad record, and someone else saying something else (say, 'Freak In') is a bad record. And in that I am not being argumentative, but simply curious on what you're thinking.

I mean, your comment about making a 'better' (what the hell does that mean, anyway) record than 'Freak In' was a rather odd one, and your response to the 'Free Jazz' comment similarly puzzling...

Julian.

Without getting into a whole Ornette discussion again, I don't think FJ was well-concieved or executed at all. To my ear, things on that record take far too long to develop, I don't hear what I'd call rotary formation, which an eight piece band cries out for or everything starts to get thick (rotary formation is when there's a kind of organized "you play"here, "you don't play here" scheme that changes the size of the group and what instrument is really directing the traffic. The "lay out/play " events of the record seem more dictated by what the players felt they should do, and I don't think that served the idea very well. The end effect, to me, is of all one material, and that material all of one thickness. I have the same problems with Sun Ra's 60s stuff, before he really started writing certain kinds of events into the music that could be improvised around. If your asking me what free jazz records of that period I think served the concept well, I'd say the early Cecil Taylor stuff with Lacy, later sixties Sun Ra, Paul Bley's FOOTLOOSE (which some don't think of as free, but it sounds pretty free to me), and Coltrane LIVE IN SEATTLE (which, although it gets cluttered at times, you can hear everything in it enough to get past it since the band's not stomping all over each other). And for those of you wondering if there's ANY Ornette Coleman in which I find value (aside from every solo Don Cherry ever took), THIS IS OUR MUSIC is the one that has tunes on it I actually like, espec "Poise", "Humpty Dumpty", and "Blues Connotation". -- skip h http://www.skipheller.com _______________________________________________ zorn-list mailing list zorn-list@mailman.xmission.com To UNSUBSCRIBE or Change Your Subscription Options, go to the webpage below http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/zorn-list ___________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Nueva versión GRATIS Super Webcam, voz, caritas animadas, y más... http://messenger.yahoo.es

on 3/17/03 9:38 AM, Efrén del Valle at efrendv@yahoo.es wrote:

It's all about personal taste, regardless of the objective trascendence of this or that album in music history.

I agree with that, pretty much. You don't give props to REVOLVER because it was a great record "for its time". You give props to REVOLVER cuz it's a great record at ANY time. The history part can't make a bad record into a great one. You can say things like "this record introduced heretofore unheard of techniques" -- ie Tristano's groundbreaking but not altogether convincing free jazz stuff, which predates Ornette's forays by nearly a decade -- but all that means is someone brought some new tools to the box. Not a bad thing, but a different thing than making great work that stands up regardless of what techniques went into it. Unfortunately, the artifical pressures to "innovate" have created pedestals for things that, while full of new techniques and ersatz bravery, have not held up so good over time.

And with regards to those proposed ways of listening, I entirley disagree. My opinion is that the listening process, which is after all, enjoying music or not, is something more simple that shouldn't be related to any intellectual patterns, imho, and that's very related to an article I'm currently preparing (in English). I hope this opinion hasn't changed once I've finished it, which is what it should be about in fact.

To me records are like people (since they're generally idealized manifestations of people), and you don't choose your various friends all for the same reasons. There are some guys whose company you seek out because they're funny, there are some because they love to get up and go do really active stuff, some because they're great conversationists, others because they're just such damn nice people, and some just because you've known them for so long. It's not an intellectual thing, but rather what personality best fits the moment at hand. The mood of your ear when you reach for a Dead Kennedys album is likely different than if your natural inclinataion at a given moments would be to put on, say, IN A SILENT WAY, and your expectations as to what will make that record do its job are gonna be different. They each require a different ear-set on the part of the listener. Again, it's not an intellectual thing. It's all about a given record and being receptive given the mood of the moment. Intellectualism has given us more substandard music that succeeds by academic rules, and as a result is best kept out of the visceral world. But your moods aren't intellectual excercises. There are very few artists I can listen to no matter what my mood. Ray Charles is the only one who springs to mind (lately, anyway).

Best,

Efrén del Valle n.p: DD "Freak In" (still trying)

Now you're talkin' -- skip h http://www.skipheller.com

hear one each. Does any one have familiarity with this album that could shed some light on it?

Nope but a couple of years ago an old roommate of mine found a 45 of the Batman theme from this in a thrift store in southern Georgia and bought it without having any idea about the Sun Ra connection. Makes me wonder what else is floating around but I never find anything interesting myself in thrift stores. LT