From: owner-zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (Zorn List Digest) To: zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: Zorn List Digest V3 #424 Reply-To: zorn-list Sender: owner-zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-zorn-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Zorn List Digest Monday, May 14 2001 Volume 03 : Number 424 In this issue: - Re: Fusion/Free Jazz burning cds/rec stores in berlin (non zorn ) Re: more fag stuff RE: more fag stuff RE: more fag stuff Re: Zorn List Digest V3 #423 Re: Fusion/Free Jazz ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 23:01:52 -0400 From: "&c." Subject: Re: Fusion/Free Jazz I said I was sorry for the naivety of my question. Zach - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 20:58:07 -0700 (PDT) From: aaron chua Subject: burning cds/rec stores in berlin (non zorn ) apologies fr off topic post on a related note re Nero; can anyone give me any clues as to why it is that a recent cd burnt using nero resulted in total digital distortion (pretty much white noise all the way thru..) never had such a problem previously. also i have a friend in berlin at the moment. i was hoping to get me some cds over there esp the feldman all piano set. any recommendations as to good cd stores over there that might stock this and other "out" music? please reply off-list as appropriate. apologies again/ rgrds, aaron __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:10:13 -0700 From: Skip Heller Subject: Re: more fag stuff > I appreciate your point, and yes, of course, music (and all other art > besides) does not exist in a vacuum. It's great to discuss context. But at > a certain point, I think there's a danger when a > writer/scholar/critic/whatever imposes his or her own "take" on the intended > meaning of a work. It's one thing to infer the hidden messages in > Shostakovich as regards Stalinism or the secret agenda behind Berg's Lyric > Suite, because we have plenty of contemporary historical insight into the > contexts for those inferences. We *know* that Shostakovich was operating in > an oppressive atmosphere. We *know* that Berg was coding an illicit and > star-crossed love affair into his composition. > > But to take into consideration, once again, the Mingus/Dolphy example, there > is absolutely no precedent or context, historical or otherwise, for making > that leap. We *do* know that in at least one example there is an almost > explicitly vocalized duo passage between the two that "re-enacts" the moment > that Dolphy told Mingus that he was leaving the band - that's part of the > historical record, and it's easy to hear. But what is the point of making > the further leap that there was some kind of sublimated sexual content? > What does it serve? On what foundation is it based? In that case, it's > speculative and specious. Much the same could be said of the whole "Miles > as Pimp" essay in today's Times - holding the "pimp" up as an iconic part of > American black experience, and then arguing that this was the exemplar of > what Miles was trying to achieve. It's degrading and ultimately worthless. > > It's vital to consider the authorial context in considering a work of art > deeply. But what's the point of inventing a context to suit an agenda? Who > benefits? What do we learn by such suppositions and leaps of logic and > fact? We could sit here all day and make sweeping pronouncements about the > quality of Zorn's character as reflected by the various unpleasant and > unsavory aspects of his art and the way in which he packages it. We could > make claims that he's into bondage and pedophilia, and we could probably > even support it with concrete musical examples with which we can seeimgly > illustrate our every assertion. But unless we have the facts to back up > such suppositions, what point would it serve? > > Steve Smith > ssmith36@sprynet.com > NP - Peter Maxwell Davies, 'Time and the Raven,' Royal Phil/Maxwell Davies > (Collins) > > > - > There comes a point with this is nothing more than a hipster version of The E! True Hollywood Story. As for it being vital to take authorial context into account, I agree, except for one thing -- that so many artists devise a context after the music/art commodity has been made. When you go back and read a lot of the free jazz reportage fr the 60s, it's obvious that certain players were in the position of having to say, "Gee, that was badly played, ill-conceived, and sounds horrible. I'd better devise an elaborate philosophical system to explain. This way, I'll still look really bitchin.'" Artists are not above creating these profiles for themselves. Glenn Gould, for instance, called Streisand the "greatest singing actress since Schwartzkopf" (sp). Years after GG's death, an interview was being conducted with a friend of his, who said, "You're seriously interviewing me about whether Glenn liked Barbra Streisand. You're naive if you don't think that was exactly the kind of question he engineered by coming out as a fan of hers." This is a great deal less fraudulent than a lot of what goes on in the free jazz community, but it's the same thing -- self-profiling. And, unfortunately, it provides a smokescreen through which it is often really difficult to clearly examine art and context in a sensible way. skip h np: woody shaw -- setting standards (actually, a really great album) - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 05:21:10 -0000 From: "Bill Ashline" Subject: RE: more fag stuff I'm sympathetic to a great extent to academics attempting to do service to gender politics. I have no particular problem with a person who wants to see sublimated sexuality in a horn solo. Music is abstract enough to perhaps speak to a listener on a number of levels. That's fine. No problem. But it doesn't always make for very interesting theory to project one's own private desire on to another's practice when one is attempting to write about someone else and not oneself. Perhaps Dolphy and Mingus were closeted even to themselves. Perhaps not. If the writer is writing about his/her own private desire to locate sexuality in such a musical exchange, that's fine (I don't find it particularly interesting, I'm afraid. And I don't find it very intellectual either--not that I'm trying to separate the mind from the body once again). Why not? Because if one can find such things in such a solo, then one can find pretty much anything there, even confirmation of Levi-Strauss' discussion of table manners in various cultures. If one can find sublimated sexuality there, then one can find it just about everywhere else since it will always be assumed it will be most prevalent in the places where it's least likely to be apparent. And if sexuality and everything else is always and already everywhere, then in fact it can be nowhere at all, for when we come to truly notice it somewhere in particular (Bob Ostertag's or Terre Thaemlitz's discussions of their work for example), then such a noticing will have no significance whatsoever. I don't like these theoretical "extravagances" not because they aren't "true" but because they distract from the areas and ways in which theory can be productively applied to art and music. They make potentially sympathetic "ears" unavailable to such productive applications, and they engender oppositional "extravagances" of the worst sort, ones that become anti-intellectual while starting out as anti-academic or some such thing. So in the end, I think Steve is too formalistic in his argument, though I agree with him completely about the cases he's cited. I think Ben is more right in saying that the network of relationships has to be expanded from musicians simply playing and inventing with one another to other cultural issues and developments. I agree with Scott about the necessity of speculation, as long as we limit some of its worst extravagances. And I see Thomas' point about the crude essentialism of one of his colleagues as an example of the worst excesses of this sort. There are smart theorists of music out there, though not enough, and I'll maintain that music continues to be worth talking and thinking about, even while I'll never agree that it's a kind of "god" unto its own that is beyond the pall of language. And back to Jeton's original question. Am I a homophobe? Yes, of course. I'm also sexist, racist, classist, and other abominable things as well. I'm trying hard not to be, but not hard enough. Unfortunately, it's probably the best I can do. And while I don't begrudge Mr. Zorn his right to express himself freely in his work, and while I think that many criticisms of his self-expression are overly one-dimensional and naive, I sometimes wish he'd give these fetishes a rest and grow up a little to the realities of the world, particularly the so-called "third world," where international trafficking of women and children has become one of the consequences of "globalization." It becomes hard after awhile to disassociate these facts from these images. B. Ashline "Intellectual alienation is a creation of middle class society. What I call middle-class society is any society that becomes rigidified in predetermined forms, forbidding all evolution, all gains, all progress, all discovery. I call middle class a closed society in which life has no taste, in which the air is tainted, in which ideas and men are corrupt....I am not a prisoner of history. I should not seek there for the meaning of my destiny. I should constantly remind myself that the real "leap" consists of introducing invention into existence. In the world through which I travel, I am endlessly creating myself."--Frantz Fanon _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 05:21:10 -0000 From: "Bill Ashline" Subject: RE: more fag stuff I'm sympathetic to a great extent to academics attempting to do service to gender politics. I have no particular problem with a person who wants to see sublimated sexuality in a horn solo. Music is abstract enough to perhaps speak to a listener on a number of levels. That's fine. No problem. But it doesn't always make for very interesting theory to project one's own private desire on to another's practice when one is attempting to write about someone else and not oneself. Perhaps Dolphy and Mingus were closeted even to themselves. Perhaps not. If the writer is writing about his/her own private desire to locate sexuality in such a musical exchange, that's fine (I don't find it particularly interesting, I'm afraid. And I don't find it very intellectual either--not that I'm trying to separate the mind from the body once again). Why not? Because if one can find such things in such a solo, then one can find pretty much anything there, even confirmation of Levi-Strauss' discussion of table manners in various cultures. If one can find sublimated sexuality there, then one can find it just about everywhere else since it will always be assumed it will be most prevalent in the places where it's least likely to be apparent. And if sexuality and everything else is always and already everywhere, then in fact it can be nowhere at all, for when we come to truly notice it somewhere in particular (Bob Ostertag's or Terre Thaemlitz's discussions of their work for example), then such a noticing will have no significance whatsoever. I don't like these theoretical "extravagances" not because they aren't "true" but because they distract from the areas and ways in which theory can be productively applied to art and music. They make potentially sympathetic "ears" unavailable to such productive applications, and they engender oppositional "extravagances" of the worst sort, ones that become anti-intellectual while starting out as anti-academic or some such thing. So in the end, I think Steve is too formalistic in his argument, though I agree with him completely about the cases he's cited. I think Ben is more right in saying that the network of relationships has to be expanded from musicians simply playing and inventing with one another to other cultural issues and developments. I agree with Scott about the necessity of speculation, as long as we limit some of its worst extravagances. And I see Thomas' point about the crude essentialism of one of his colleagues as an example of the worst excesses of this sort. There are smart theorists of music out there, though not enough, and I'll maintain that music continues to be worth talking and thinking about, even while I'll never agree that it's a kind of "god" unto its own that is beyond the pall of language. And back to Jeton's original question. Am I a homophobe? Yes, of course. I'm also sexist, racist, classist, and other abominable things as well. I'm trying hard not to be, but not hard enough. Unfortunately, it's probably the best I can do. And while I don't begrudge Mr. Zorn his right to express himself freely in his work, and while I think that many criticisms of his self-expression are overly one-dimensional and naive, I sometimes wish he'd give these fetishes a rest and grow up a little to the realities of the world, particularly the so-called "third world," where international trafficking of women and children has become one of the consequences of "globalization." It becomes hard after awhile to disassociate these facts from these images. B. Ashline "Intellectual alienation is a creation of middle class society. What I call middle-class society is any society that becomes rigidified in predetermined forms, forbidding all evolution, all gains, all progress, all discovery. I call middle class a closed society in which life has no taste, in which the air is tainted, in which ideas and men are corrupt....I am not a prisoner of history. I should not seek there for the meaning of my destiny. I should constantly remind myself that the real "leap" consists of introducing invention into existence. In the world through which I travel, I am endlessly creating myself."--Frantz Fanon _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 04:14:35 -0400 From: "Jeton Ademaj" Subject: Re: Zorn List Digest V3 #423 >People can make such pointless speculations all day long, for all I >care, >but it doesn't tell us a damn thing about the music. And the mixture of >ignorance and arrogance with which many of these theories are posited is >frankly embarassing, or should be, anyway. >Enough outta me. But Jeton, your allusions to homophobia in the >exchange >between Bill and myself are off-base, and unwelcome. Steve, I commented on what you chose to post. Your pomo Seinfeld reference winks out "hey, ain't got nuttin against gays, but Dolphy n Mingus? C'mon, enuff's enuff!" (some may remember it's context in that particular episode-- the unspoken rejoinder to "-not that there's anything wrong with that" was an implicit ", AS LONG AS IT'S NOT ME!!!"). I don't think any pc-police will be breaking down your door anytime soon, so you probably need not get bent out of shape that I noticed your obviously freudian slip. and as for hostility: >But to take into consideration, once again, the Mingus/Dolphy example, > >there >is absolutely no precedent or context, historical or otherwise, for >making >that leap. We *do* know that in at least one example there is an almost >explicitly vocalized duo passage between the two that "re-enacts" the > >moment >that Dolphy told Mingus that he was leaving the band - that's part of >the >historical record, and it's easy to hear. But what is the point of >making >the further leap that there was some kind of sublimated sexual content? >What does it serve? On what foundation is it based? In that case, it's >speculative and specious. Much the same could be said of the >whole "Miles >as Pimp" essay in today's Times - holding the "pimp" up as an iconic >part >of >American black experience, and then arguing that this was the exemplar >of >what Miles was trying to achieve. It's degrading and ultimately > >worthless. >It's vital to consider the authorial context in considering a work of >art >deeply. But what's the point of inventing a context to suit an >agenda? >Who >benefits? What do we learn by such suppositions and leaps of logic and >fact? We could sit here all day and make sweeping pronouncements about > >the >quality of Zorn's character as reflected by the various unpleasant and >unsavory aspects of his art and the way in which he packages it. We >could >make claims that he's into bondage and pedophilia, and we could probably >even support it with concrete musical examples with which we can >seeimgly >illustrate our every assertion. But unless we have the facts to back up >such suppositions, what point would it serve? >Steve Smith >ssmith36@sprynet.com So basically most people's answer has been "it's not about the sex, mannn" and/or "whatever it was *really* about is subjective and/or unknowable". I find both positions about one-quarter correct because sex is to a lesser or greater extant a plainly universal concern, moreso than race/gender/class, and because the all growth of knowledge is based on the implicit or explicit faith that reality is to some extant knowable. That still doesn't answer the question of hostility- who cares if someone speculates about Dolphy n Mingus being hot for each other? History benefits from truth and truth benefits from inquiry, so the better question is, who loses when truth gets out? Or even when it gets mucked(?) with in some tiny context in some ivory tower somewhere? Who's afraid of the bigbadpomofemgay"'"'"'jazz'"'"'" scholar? _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 10:44:04 +0200 From: Jeroen de Boer Subject: Re: Fusion/Free Jazz > > >>> I heard a band on the radio the other day that had a free jazz vibe and a >>> fusion rhythm thing going on under it. It wasn't very good, but it got me >>> thinking. Are there recordings and/or groups that effectively do this? Allan Holdsworth soloing? - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeroen de Boer content director Cyberslag Content Providing Damsterdiep 15 9711SG Groningen The Netherlands t +31(0)503115496 m +31 (0)624814506 f +31(0)503632209 jeroen@cyberslag.nl www.cyberslag.nl - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of Zorn List Digest V3 #424 ******************************* To unsubscribe from zorn-list-digest, send an email to "majordomo@lists.xmission.com" with "unsubscribe zorn-list-digest" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "zorn-list-digest" in the commands above with "zorn-list". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.xmission.com, in pub/lists/zorn-list/archive. These are organized by date. Problems? Email the list owner at zorn-list-owner@lists.xmission.com