Dr. Rat

Howdy- I am GM at a public station playing music in the far reaches of Northern Michigan. We've got a potential audience of 150,000 (and that'd probably be on the high side) we need to pay our own way, so we need a fair number of those folks to listen and give for the station to stay on the air. Research indicates that in order to get people to give, you need for them to listen to you a lot (average weekly time spent listening for successful stations generally runs about 8 hours). So, in order for the station to really get on its feet we've got to keep growing both our total listenership and our time spent listening. Our public radio "competition" is: an NPR classical station, an NPR news station, and a mixed classical/news/jazz NPR station, as well as a religious station. Right now we do a jazz mix (wide spectrum of jazz--though no AG), with a bit of folk, blues & world) in the day and mostly alt. rock at night. But, I'm always interested inhearing from musically knowledgable and curious folks about a) what would be cool to have in the jazz mix? b) what other things we ought to be getting to at night? c) is there anything else you have in mind that would be "mission fulfilling" (education and cultural enrichment) and viable withing the confines I outline above. Anyhow, I'd be interested in reading your thoughts if you cared to trouble yourself, --eric

I think there was a detail or a reworking of the posted Eric Drooker piece on the cover of Arturo Sandoval's last cd. --eric

Somewhere or other I've written a bit on this collection, too and I noted something akin to what Geoff observes about the way Nichols works in the trio format. My opinion was that Nichols and his compositions genrally sound better with the, um, more sensitive(?) Max Roach on board than with Blakey. With Blakey, Nichols seems to leave a lot of the transitional passages to the drummer and I don't think Blakey really was up to contributing at this level in Nichols's work, at least not on this date. I'd have to go back and listen closely again to give a better sense of what I mean. But what do other people think in terms of presenting Nichols's vision? Also: if you can't afford this set at the moment, Nichols's Bethlehem session "Love, Gloom, Cash, Love" is probably available at a decent price, and is also a good intro to Nichols. On technical stuff in reveiws: I'm a non-musician, but since I'm some kind of nut I've done things like get a rudimentary reading knowledge of music (since lost through disuse) in order to better understand Gunther Schuller. But I'd say whatever you write ought to be able to stand without the technical stuff (this is certainly true of Schuller's work). On the other hand, attention to detail and a vocabulary to talk about it are essential to good music writing. There is an old review of Schuller's Early Jazz in the Hudson Review by William Youngren which talks about these issues pretty intelligently, I think. I don't think this is available on the internet, but a decent academic library should have a copy. --eric

Just wanted to follow up on this I am certainly on board with Chuck on this one. Jurgen Habermas wrote some very good stuff on the economic crisis of the seventies/early eighties, Legitimation Crisis, I think, is one where he gets serious into the interaction between the sputtering of the economic system and ideological and cultural issues. Definitely worth checking out.

Randy- I will definitely make a point of it. And now I've gotta go because I said I was in this archived public forum. See you there, --eric PS: Again, thanks for that push on the Chown record: just what the doctor ordered.

I think JSngry and I have either discovered we agree or have agreed to respectfully disagree about all possible issues here. (?) Unless someone wants to propose another way into this (in which case I suppose I can still counterpuch), I think I'm out of words (beleive it or not) Thanks to all you Oragnissimites? Orangatangs? (especially to JSngry) for the tolerance and the "frank exchange of viewpoints." I think I wasn't careful and that I learned something. Hope this all wasn't just plain tiresome. If so, an extra helping of gratitude and a free beer if you ever end up at this end of the earth. --eric

I made two animated gifs (inspired by this thread) and mirrored them. You stared at that for 15 minutes? Respect! What were you staring at when your photo was taken? At the prospect of a future of true socialism, of mutual respect and an end to alienation . . . Actually, at a fire extinguisher outlet in the ceiling which I was imagining sprinkling water onto the brand new board which cost us 10K. --eric

we are at wnmc.org. All kinds of kooks from way up north play music from all over the damned place. That's our tagline. --eric

How do you do that ball thing? I stared at that for 15 minutes. --eric PS: OK, I'll break down and admit smilies have their uses.

It was an accident

Stanley Dance: Now that mention it, yes . . . I think at elast some of all this is a reprise of an essay by Dance I read in an old Da Capo anthology I've got. I'll see if I can't find it. Thanks for the tip, Stanley probably said it all quicker and easier and more elegantly than me. --eric

On Hamilton and Vache: I think that their reception is the sort of "disfunctionality" in the community that I'm talking about. It would be very cool if guys like this would just be absorbed into the scene, playing with a lot of different kinds of musicians. But instead, perhaps through their preferences or because of the way their careers immediately became divisive issues, their careers seem to be marginalized or boxed in. I'm interested in some of the stuff Nagel-Hayer has done lately (and folks like Andy Biskin and Ted Nash) to create a music that, I think, is thoroughly its own thing and employing the past without the usual thick overlay of (essentially cowardly) irony. I think efforts like these might be a beginning of a truly open, respectful ecelcticism in jazz. But I think, in spite of what musicians might say about being tolerant, that this situation is exceptional. You are right about the sort of disfunctionality I'm talking about being multi-faceted and having a long history, I emphasize the AG facet perhaps because I am relatively young and there are few 35-year-olds anxiously awaiting the new Ben Webster. But I really do think that from an "ideological" standpoint, the avant-garde guys have the aesthetic highground at the moment. On young players not "sounding like themselves": I think this has really become a shibboleth, too, and a harmful one. As a young writer I would have hated to have been obliged to sound like myself--to have a voice uniquely my own (and therefore in its own way completely new)--right from the get-go or even soon after I got rolling. I think expecting this from young musicians can be nothing but paralyzing. Imitation is part of finding your voice, and artistic maturity can come quite late. I think it would be better to tell young players to "keep growing," not "sound like yourself." My own aesthetic values a well-done reprise with a promise of more over (what I see as) usually empty novelty. (Making me a neo-classicist to your romantic).

I admit it. When did I deny it? I think I've been pretty careful throughout this thread to acknowledge that just because I don't like it doesn't mean that other people can't (you can look back if you like). I think what I started trying to argue was that McDonough does have a point, asshole that he might be. What I have tried to argue following on that is that there is a certain "culture," a certain set of standards and expectations build around the aesthetic (or perceived aesthetic) of late Coltrane (most prominently) and other sixties innovators that has outlived its usefulness as a general standard to be applied to the music at large, and is in fact harmful to it. Lastly, I'd like to argue that that culture ought to become the object of opprobrium, not the supposed "old-fashionedness" or "conservatism" of anyone trying to make their way outside of it.

Dude, I say this with much love, but... WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN???? Seriously, much love. But I just GOT to ask. This, by the way, was not a veiled reference to anyone in particular. Certainly not our hosts, whose record we played the hell out of, btw. Thanks, guys, and please make more. We get lots of B3 recordings. The reference was generic, Organissimo is definitely NOT. Now you might wonder what world I'm living in, BUT I do have the opportunity to talk to a fair number of musicians, and I find Jim's unambiguous enthusiasm for the greasy, dirty and direct is not usual amongst younger jazz musicians (anyone less than 60, say). What I usually here about what I'll call "direct" music is that it pays the bills, or is an interesting thing to throw in to set you up for the real meat. I do not get the impression that young jazz musicians consider "direct" music they play to be art, even when they can do it pretty well. They seem sheepish about it. A thought experiment: Imagine two young trumpeters, both equally skilled, both equally inspired. One whose style most directly reminds you of, say, a young Braff. Another whose style reminds you of say, Lester Bowie. Do these folks get the same sort of feedback from their peers, fellow musicians, and the jazz cognoscenti? Of course not. As Jsngy points out, styles change and every style change has been more or less "enforced" by musicians and "hip" fans. But when was the last time jazz style had a revolutionary change? Forty years ago? I don't think the current idea of what constitutes jazz "art" has anything to do with the zeitgeist anymore. It's just an arbitrary taste. I think its time we stopped thinking of being current a la 196-something as some sort of necessity for young jazz musicians to become artists. I propose we should be looking at that as one path amongst many, not the sine qua non of contemporary jazz art. True, open stylistic eclecticism. With an acknowledgement that "art" can be reached by many paths at any time. (Jazz after all isn't like science. It isn't progressive--It isn't going anywhere. there's no unified field theory of music over the horizon. There is just difference. The likes of Coltrane are to be praised for finding new, viable ways, but for us each way ought to be equally possible and laudible.) We hear talk like this sometimes from musicians and jazz fans, but that isn't the operative ethic. Usually what you hear is Marsalisites utterly repudiating this way or that, or avant-gardists making it perfectly clear that they consider anyone not now working their forty-year-old patch to be nothing more than a hidebound entertainment technician. And this is what the kid who sounds like Braff is likely to be told. I think its time the AG folk acknowledged that they are not the wave of the future and that being difficult to like does not confer aesthetic superiority. --eric

I've stayed away for a while. BUT in I find these snippets from your posts to be ugly/arrogant for someone trying to open a discussion. You could have generated a discussion about the topic without the following quotes which I find insulting. My interpretation of these messages reflect an unhelpful and egotistical "academic" stance. That's where the "drunken dorm" image was hatched. Here are the quotes: “My own suspicion is that a lot of jazz fans and even musicians are pretty naive on the subject of aesthetics. What I've heard a lot of is "this is good" or "this is cool"….” “The trouble with the attitude of "he's got his world, I've got mine and there's no point in discussing it" is that it drastically reduces the importance of music itself.” “It's kind of funny that when people discuss totally inane things badly, no one seems to care, but trying to disuss anything serious (well or badly) always inspires someone to compare the discussion to a late-night dorm-room conversation.” “Anyhow, ignoring John McDonough is one thing. Saying that a disagreement you have with him is of no real significance is another.” “I can ignore McDonough because he's an idiot and can't see the truth I can see; the truth which I might then relate to thee.” ‘Saying we have opposite views and that both those views are all well and good says something about the object of the disagreement. It says it is insignificant.” “We can avoid the dorm-room problem by a) not being drunk yet; and having a bit of care in writing and interpreting.” Have a nice life. With respect, I find absolutely nothing offensive in any of your snippets. I frankly can't imagine what makes you think this collection of snippets is an indictment. Do they look academic? I suppose they might. Egotistical? On what basis? That they express a point of view? Should I be usuing more euphenism? Should I be endlessly qualifying what I say? Should I just agree with whatever you tell me to think? What would make these snippets less offensive for you? Do you want me to acknowledge that other opinions exist? I think that's a given. Do you want me to reassure you that I don't think you are a moron? Consider yourself reassured, because I don't. I do think you are being unfair and unreasonable

It's out to radio. Just got it. First impression: very Frisell-ish (with the wideopen music landscape thing going through much of it).

And I bet they are! I'm not saying that jazz musicians don't listen to other stuff, but that the aesthetic standards are influenced to what I would say is too great an extent by those created in the 1960s and by the direct inheritors of the 1960s giants (e.g. Zorn). So that someone who puts out a good organ trio record seems ready to apologize for it ("At home, I listen to Stockhausen" or "We'd like to play Ornette Coleman, but . . ." or "What we'd really like to do is play so loud that people's ears would bleed and OSHA would come shut us down (if there still was an OSHA), but then they wouldn't give us this gig anymore) and claim allegience to something more challenging and "artistic." --eric

Hey, we ain't got money, but we got plenty of jazz (53 hours!) --eric

First (full disclosure), I think I'm biased in favor of "social realist" style interpretations, even if they are (as is the case with the Hopper painting, apparently) a misinterpretation. This because I was raised a socialist and I'll probably always prefer social explanations for everything. (God help me! As you might imagine, I am a difficult man to live with: "you're only saying that because . . .") Second, these sorts of misinterpretations seem to have very little "feedback" effect on artists. Hopper's response seems to be pretty typical. He just doesn't care about this "academic BS" and I doubt it had any effect on his work. (Though I might be wrong, knowing little about Hopper.) If we lived in the old Soviet Union, I suppose this sort of misinterpretation would be much more dangerous. People with guns might have made Hopper paint "about" boring suburbia. On the other hand, I think the Coltrane phenomenon has had a lot of effect on how jazz gets created. I think a taste for "advanced" forms of jazz gets encouraged amongst musicians, that musicians who attempt to play "advanced" kinds of jazz get more respect than musicians who, say, try to improvise in the style of Lester Young; and that an important part of the validation for this way of thinking is the at least somewhat questionable reverence given to the late work of John Coltrane by musicians and fans. In our discussion earlier the point being urged on me was that the taste for late Coltrane was like any other taste, you either have it or you don't, it isn't provable that Coltrane is good or bad and we move on. But the jazz world is not a world where the taste for Coltrane is on an equal footing with other tastes. I think it is very much an inculcated taste, a priviliged taste, while other tastes are generally looked upon with contempt. My idea is that this is bad rather than good for the music over the long run. The preceding are impressions. I have placed no wagers on the truth of any of these statements, nor will I. They were written in a normal tone of voice, though I may have been talking too fast--I did drink another coffee since having been warned off caffeine. One thing I just can't take is good advice. --eric

Anxious to see the Herbie Nichols review. He's probably best known now for not being recognized enough rather than for his music. But anyhow, please do carry on. Things will sort out, I suppose. But as a former editor, let me suggest: dictionary definitions as a last resort only. --eric

Sorry, not a cover, just uses a basic Wild Magnolias riff as a loop to build on, BUT, if you don't have the two Wild Magnolias French Polydor releases, by all means run off and buy. The self-titled album is definitely worth full-price admission. "They Call Us Wild" is a bit derivative and over-produced, but still good stuff. --eric

Yeah. This is tasty. MMW-ish with a bit of New Orleans flavor. This got lots of action here when it was current. Think I'll pull that bad boy out on Friday. The Wild Magnolia's piece (Fallin' off the Floor) used to light up the phones pretty dependably. --eric

And I thought the "Let's put on a show" thing was Mickey Rooney! We Irish got to keep claim to our cultural contributions too, you know.

Hmm. Why am I sympathetic to the one kind of "misinterpretation" but not the other? I will mull this while I add cds to rotation. --eric

First let's talk about the way CPB subsidizes some stations but not others. Then we'll talk about how much budget I have to try such an experiment. Though if you wanted to try deeds not words, I'd be glad to try it with Blue Lake guaranteeing the artists' fee. But I don't suppose you are THAT interested.