Dr. Rat

One of my programmers is desperate for it! Only 1 item on Gemm, wondered if anyone might be willing to sell, --eric

Myself, after having been around the block with this sort of argument over many times--over literature and music--I just don't give any weight whatsoever to arguments that seem to assume some sort of absolute opposition between money and art. To me this sort of argument actually denies the distinction between the two things. I think art and money are two different things. Art can make money. Art can be made with the intention of making money. Art can be made by people who are far more immediately concerned with money than with art. Why? Because art and money are two separate things. Can they conflict? Yes. Must they? No. People who deny this, I find, are more concerned with money than art. Though these folks can still make art, they make very shallow and uninteresting arguments about art. I am also always deeply suspicious of aesthetic arguments based on notions of purity or authenticity. My own notion is that art is generally impure and in some sense inauthentic by its very nature. Though it'd take a lot of arguing to show why I think that, I'd start by just saying that it is no coincidence that our forebears often used the word/concept "art" interchangibly with "artifice" which is the word behind artificial.

I've heard and played over the air most of the stuff they've put out over the past six years or so, and there's something just tired about their whole concept of jazz, if you asked me. There are solid and respectable releases, but a LOT of the mainstream and "progressive" releases really just seem to be musicians going through the paces. To me, the non-jazz releases sometimes come as a relief from that. On the other hand, the label and the jazz musicians working for it don't seem to be inspired by the strange company, so there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of good in it for jazz fans. It almost seems as if the label has split in two--jazz musicians playing for other jazz musicians (which is about as interesting as writers writing for other writers) and pop musicians playing for all and sundry. The right road, it would seem to me, would be a middle one between these two, but I don't know if there's actually a road there or not. --eric

In the U.S. libraries are covered in the copyright law. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...08----000-.html There's a short list of exemptions, like reproduction for the blind, exemptions for classroom teachers, fair use, etc. On the question of whether authors are harmed by library lending, they are harmed more when libraries deem their works unworthy of being collected and preserved for public use. My broader point is had RIAA and others been around, libraries would never have gotten established in the first place and thus won a place (or exemption) in copyright law. You're absolutely right: the position favoring the dissemination of knowledge (vs. the ownership rights) is FAR weaker today than it was. No money behind it, I suppose, and not enough public interest. The balance has gone all the other way vis-a-vis the law. Though practice is another matter entirely. --eric

Well, the whole notion of copyright is that someone else owns the right to copy and distribute the thing you copy, so if you copy something and distribute it to other people, or make material available for such copying, you are infringing on someone's copyright. You aren't "sharing" because what you are giving away belongs to someone else (the right to copy). Sharing would be letting somebody have the legit edition you've got and NOT copying it. (Though even THIS is illegal in some places.) Copyright is an odd notion compared to, say, owning a car, but the simple fact of the matter is that making copies from/for friends is against the law and it's morally more than a little gray. Not that I'm not gray myself, but let's not tell ourselves it's all OK because our friends are happy to receive the stolen property. --eric edit: the site I mentioned in another thread Copyright and Culture about the arguments made when copyright laws were first adopted may be of interest.

Well of course he is, silly. He was governor of California then! So the X-ers are still pissed at the Boomers. I'm shcoked, shocked I tell you, at this revelation! Hell. I'm a Boomer, and I'm pissed at the Boomers, so what does that mean? So much self-congratulation going on at "discovering" the wrongs that somehow actually righting them kinda got lost in the shuffle.... I would think, however, that an attempt by somebody like Feather to co-opt Ellington in exactly that same spirit of essentially self-congratulatory "entitlement" would be more the reaction of a pissed-off X-er. Surely such a lad would be able to see it for what it is (if not intentionally, then certainly in effect) - an attempt to alter the American Cultural Iconography for entirely self-serving ends. Quite the Boomer-esque gesture, don't you think? I'd disagree. Boomer-esque, I think is judging the music on the basis of the fact that Feather doesn't proclaim the correct allegiances rather than on the basis of it's effect, which, let's face it, is practically nothing. One can like her adaptions or not, but I see no evidence whatsoever that they have any effect on Ellington's status in our culture. Duke, unfortunately, hasn't a right to a damn thing: he's dead. All we've got is self-proclaimed protectors of his legacy. Frankly, I'm a lot more comfortable with the fickle winds of current use than a am with folks who think they have some inside scoop on who Ellington really was. To me, the main legacy is the music, and so long as it's available, nobody can trump that. Will the msuic get used and re-used and adapted and taken out of context: absolutely, that's what it means to be a cultural icon Your distinction between claiming the music and allowing it to claim you seems to me to be pure fantasy. A distinction that sounds good so long as you get to make it, but which always boils down to nothing more than giving your aesthetic reactions the force of law. Now there's an Archetypical Boomer Power Play in action. Well, it wasn't I who dragged in Mr. Reagan. But I don't think it's irrelevant. As to the specific: No, I don't like the Feather adaptions, but I what I dislike even more is the attempt to give the offense (not being particularly good) a valence and a scale it quite simply doesn't have. And the tendency to do this HAS had some significant bad effects: it tends to poison or squelch discussion. To call Feather's work what it is: it's a set of free adaptations. And Ellington is a composer who's work has been and will continue to be freely adapted. And we ought not cry rape and colonialism when we don't like it any more than we should cry "Nazi" or anti-semite when we don't like an adaptation of klezmer music. --eric

Finally, on the Reagan/Marsalis parallel: There's a lot to this, but from my historical perspective: GenX raised by an Old-Left-inluenced Social Democrat, I can't say that I have many tears to shed for the passing of 1960s/New Left cultural and political paradigms in the 1980s. I look on them as being largely responsible for this long sojourn into nutty religious right conservatism we're (hopefully) starting to emerge from now. The Old Left's critiques of the new: that it was irrspeonsible, self-indulgent, irrationalist, arrogant, quietly elitist, and dominated by style over substance--al this from my perspective seem right on. And another thing that's "no coincidence" in my book is that many of the same folks who enjoyed the ride in the sixties are the folks who cashed in during the Reagan years. Folks who grew up during one of the biggest economic expansions this country has ever had; folks who came to feel entitled to that cash-in, and who figured a few years off fooling around spouting high-seeming (though perhaps non-sensical) ideals would do no harm to their prospects. They were luckily right on the economic front, but quite wrong on the political front. The New Left's use for all the cultural capital they managed to get ahold of was to pave the way for the Reagan right. But in the end, it didn't really make a whole lot of difference anyway: the cultural hegemony of the left bore the same relation to it's high ideals as Tom DeLay does to a seriously reflective spiritual approach to life. That is, it mostly invloved a put-on style, just a different syle than Marsalis's--as denim reflected a different style than the nicely-tailored suits. I can't really say I have much sympathy for either faction or their closed-minded, ideologically-driven judgements of music; or the ad hominem attacks that inevitably seem to follow close on the heels of aesthetic disapprobation. From my perspective Reagan is part and parcel of the sixties legacy, as is, I suppose, Marsalis. --eric

On the whole copyright/intellectual property/cultural ownership issue, check this out, which give a balanced view of an old, old debate: Copyright and Culture

My own feeling is that the "problem" we're seeing here is also that so much focus gets put on the few artist with major label deals. Folks like Kurt Rosenwinkel and Greg Osby (good as they may be) get focussed on to the exclusion of everything else. And for me the really interesting stuff is happening on independent and self-produced releases. --eric

Damn. Never had the pleasure, but he ran a damn good folk/roots label, one of the best in the country. --eric

Well, of course you're right, but if you don't see what difference it makes (or why it might matter that it does make a difference), then you're also clueless. So go on ahead and be right! and from elsewhere: My whole thing is that I don't buy the concept of cultural ownership. When it comes to copyright and when it comes to ethnic groups laying claims to a style or mode of expression, I think cultural ownership needs to be VERY limited. Does it matter whether folks recognize the history/context/meaning of stuff they borrow? Sure, but that doesn't mean that that sort of recognition is absolutely necessary. Ex cathedra "does toos" don't change that. --eric

You meant before 1965, right? Ah, thanks! Amazing what you can fail to see! --eric

Sorry, I guess you're seeing something I'm not seeing. Can you let me in on it? --eric

from the ArtsJournal Artful Manager blog: --eric

Just thought I'd write, partially at least to put in a word for a fellow radio person. Top 10 lists, across the board, are put together with "political," "fairness," or "balance" considerations in mind. Not to mention "public image" sort of considerations. In terms of aesthetic pleasure or intellectual stimulation, does the Coltrane/Monk cd deserve to be on the top of so many lists? I doubt it. It's a good set of music, but frankly, I don't think it's all that and I doubt a lot of the people who have listed it on Top 10s think so, either. They list it for its "historic" importance and to declare allegience to this newly discovered piece from the classic era of jazz. (We'll leave the other Coltrane record to the side because I am no judge of its merits.) Similarly, if your radio station plays a fair deal of swing music, you look to put some on your Top 10. Just one of the many "outside" consderations that come into play in all Top 10s. So, looking for a swing disc to add isn't any shame. On Lorraine Feather in particular: I personally didn't like the record as much as her Waller one. Waller's music, I think, suited her partiular methods pretty well. Not so Ellington, I thought. "Rape" and "colonialism," though, are words that speak of a lack of appreciation for scale. Lorraine Feather can't rape Ellington, any more than a rat can rape a blue whale. And people who dredge up words like "colonialism" "racism" and "imperialism" to put an exclamation point on their judgements of taste are really practicing the same sort of aesthetic absolutism Wynton Marsalis is always accused of practicing. There's a name for the sort of shameless and promiscuos borrowing and combining: it's called culture, not "colonialism." It's always been going on, and it'll always be going on and it often pays little attention to "understanding" the source, just using it. In fact, a lot of times the borrowing is based on ridiculous & lazy misunderstandings of the source. And it's not all bad, at that. Welcome to the Human Race. I was thinking about the musician job market, and it'd seem to me that "image and attitude" were exactly what people were always buying when people hired musicians--even before 1985. That's why the transition could be made so easily to some new "image and attitude"--it was just a change in fashion, and few recognized the decline in musical quality because hardly anyone ever gave a damn about it anyway. Musicians who thought otherwise critically misjudged their market. On the other hand, I'm sure there are plenty of older old-timers who were complaining in 1980 (or 1970 or 1960) that a lot of the working musicians were unqualified and were hired exclsuively for their, rather different, "image and attitude." Anyhow, I was looking over some of my favorites from last year or so (below). This is a raw list derived from spins, so there are things here I would exclude from a Top 10 because they don't make me look sophisticated enough (or whatever cheap motive) and other stuff I'd dig up that were more private pleasures (that I din't spin on the radio much). But I look at this list, and I feel pretty good about jazz. Maybe that's my own inability to appreciate scale, but I think there's some pretty good music here. Historic? maybe not, but maybe all the better not. modern traditions ensemble new old music adventure hornheads fat lip bone 2 b wild tim ries the rolling stones project concord/cmg frank & joe show 66 2/3 hyena ebony & ivory red hot gilpin publishing bebo valdes bebo de cuba calle 54 Ted Nash: La Espada de la Noche BUJO Kevin Jones: Tenth World Ron Blake - Sonic Tonic Javon Jackson - Have You Heard jazz jamaica all-stars massive dune omar sosa mulatos lonnie smith too damn hot mike frost nothing smooth about it tom collier mallet jazz trio mundo rides again organissimo this is the place scott robinson jazz ambassador psalmthing blue third inversion micahel wolff dangerous vision lea delaria double standards skaesho we want you to say . . . mozayik haitian creole jazz dave weckl multiplicity mingus big band, etc. I am three will calhoun: native lands beth custer ensemble: respect as a religion myanna: one never knows oregon prime

Thank you, Dr. Funkenstein! Where can we find out more about rhythm cells? --eric

Mark Frauenfelder: ILikeJam has compiled a terrific list of unbelievably costly hi-fi equipment, such as $9000 speaker cables (be sure to "allow ample break in time") and $1500 power cords ("The Clairvoyant’s signature is engaging, energetic, and bristling with light and microdynamic life.") If you insist on paying $250 for a 32-inch x 20-inch wood panel, the fine people at Altmann Micro Machines could be persuaded to part with one of theirs ("treated both sides with a special blend of all-natural ingredients including - among a variety of oils and resins - fossil amber). My favorite is this $485 wooden volume knob, along with its fantastic advertising copy. Dynamics are better and overall naturalness is improved. Here is a test for all you Silver Rock owners. Try removing the bakelite knobs and listen. You will be shocked by this! The signature knobs will have an even greater effect…really amazing! The point here is the micro vibrations created by the volume pots and knobs find their way into the delicate signal path and cause degradation (Bad vibrations equal bad sound). With the signature knobs micro vibrations from the C37 concept of wood, bronze and the lacquer itself compensate for the volume pots and provide (Good Vibrations) our ear/brain combination like to hear…way better sound!! Link (via Backup Brain) --eric

Well, panhandlers are no real measure of the health of a city. I was in SF ten years ago and hated every minute on the sidewalk downtown because of the constant barrage of panhandling (not physically aggressive, but really, really persistent). And of course we know that in the ten years since property values in SF went through the floor. It just means that that's what they find they can get away with. Everything else in town might be fine. The fact that there are panhandlers is endemic to cities in this country. What the city does with them is the only difference. --eric

Big O is getting their second wind up here: WNMC Traverse City Top 10 jazz. # ARTIST Recording 1 ADA ROVATTI Airbop 2 ORGANISSIMO This Is The Place 3 RAY BARRETTO Time Was - Time Is 4 BUCKY PIZZARELLI AND FRANK VIGNOLA Moonglow 5 BUJO KEVIN JONES Tenth World 6 SONIDO ISLENO Vive Jazz 7 THELONIOUS MONK QUARTET/JOHN COLTRANE Live At Carnegie Hall 8 DICK JOHNSON AND THE NATURALS* Artie's Choice And The Naturalizer* 9 KENNY BARRON TRIO The Perfect Set: Live at Bradley's II 10 BILL MAYS TRIO Live At Jazz Standard You should be getting in our overall Top 10, as well. --eric

I've been listening mostly to the Bright side, so far. Have played the opening instrumental on-air a couple of times (don't know what it is) but also recognized Slick Rick, also one my favorites in the genre. Something about his ineffectual pose and his way with rhythm make him stand out immediately for me. I'll keep at it. --eric

How much promo budget got spent on Woody Shaw as opposed to Davis or Marsalis? --eric ← I remember that Woody seemed to be getting a pretty good push for his first three Columbia sides - good ads, in-store displays, ample airplay, etc. And then it seemed as if it all stopped with 1980's For Sure. Why, I have no idea. Maybe sales weren't in line with outlay, maybe Woody's personal situation make him less attarctive as a long-term investment, I don't know. But for those first three albums, Woody was as "hot" as a property of his leanings could be. ← Thanks. --eric

On the other hand Armstrong's hypocrisy would just be a byproduct of our own. I'm reminded of the marijuana issue with politicians back in the early 90s. They lie becasue we want them to lie, and then when we find out for damn sure they lied we get all moral. Or Monica Lewinsky. Public figures just reflect our own hypocrisy back to us. We want "increadible" perfromances from our athletes every time, and then we act surprised and dismayed when it turns out their rigging things to get them. --eric

How much promo budget got spent on Woody Shaw as opposed to Davis or Marsalis? --eric

Hoboken looks a long way from being entirely yuppified. --eric

Not my impression at all. There's a sense of humor, but what exactly cries out for the word "kitsch?" Heightened by a "very," yet. And not very Django-y to my ear, either (though it has its moments). I'd compare the mood to something like Hot Club of Cowtown, but with a lot more instrumental virtuosity (sometimes of the show-offy sort, but not to an offensive extent) --eric