Guest Chaney

Free / Avant-Garde Jazz Forum

Would the Big 'O' be improved with the addition of a forum dedicated to free / avant-garde jazz?   87 members have voted

  1. 1. Would the Big 'O' be improved with the addition of a forum dedicated to free / avant-garde jazz?

    • Yes
      39
    • No
      31

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

132 posts in this topic

Interesting points, Jim.

And related to why I've never posted in Funny Rat! That happens to be the only place on Organissimo where there has been mention of a CD that I actually played on...

Really now...

Can I buy it at Downtown Music Gallery?

Is it bigger than a bread box? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And related to why I've never posted in Funny Rat! That happens to be the only place on Organissimo where there has been mention of a CD that I actually played on...

Now, this is curious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And related to why I've never posted in Funny Rat!  That happens to be the only place on Organissimo where there has been mention of a CD that I actually played on...

Now, this is curious!

I'm guessing that "maren" is actually none other than Herr Brotzmann himself. Welcoe, Peter!

Seriously, though. I'd love to know what disc it was. Are you willing to let us know or will we have to go back and search through each page?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it reviewed in the Wire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And related to why I've never posted in Funny Rat!  That happens to be the only place on Organissimo where there has been mention of a CD that I actually played on...

Now, this is curious!

I'm guessing that "maren" is actually none other than Herr Brotzmann himself. Welcoe, Peter!

Seriously, though. I'd love to know what disc it was. Are you willing to let us know or will we have to go back and search through each page?

I suspect maren is Ms. Judy Dunaway, the balloon player.

Edited by Д.Д.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect maren is Ms. Judy Dunaway, the balloon player.

Are you serious or joking?

I'm on something Judy recorded along with a million other people! And she once told me that a song of hers was a composition exercise she set for herself based on a song of mine...

Yikes, if my actual name is Google-able on the board, I'll feel so inhibited from now on! Seriously. I'll have to take Paxil or something. AND go crawl in a hole.

But I don't really mean to be coy either. The CD on Funny Rat is the Tom Cora posthumous compilation "It's a Brand New Day" (Knitting Factory).

Edited by maren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you also played with Kenny Wollesen. Are there any recordings w/you and Amy Denio available?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you also played with Kenny Wollesen. Are there any recordings w/you and Amy Denio available?

Sorry, don't bother. I found it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you also played with Kenny Wollesen. Are there any recordings w/you and Amy Denio available?

Sorry, don't bother. I found it.

Oh -- so I don't need to bring that one with me when I finally arrive for lunch in Vienna! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you also played with Kenny Wollesen. Are there any recordings w/you and Amy Denio available?

Sorry, don't bother. I found it.

Oh -- so I don't need to bring that one with me when I finally arrive for lunch in Vienna! :)

Good idea! That would save me the shipping cost. Please put a band together (preferably with Amy Denio) and tour Austria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather see separate discussion threads, "Corners" for major artists and more specific topics.

Same here.

That concept behind the terms "traditional", "swing", "bop", "cool", "hard bop" etc. is simplistically evolutionistic - but today all these styles coexist. I'd rather read a thread in the artists or new releases forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few comments on the "new since my last visit" posts...

1) Nothing to do with the "should it or shouldn't it" nature of the subject at hand, but please let's not make the mistake of judging a thread by how many regular posters it has. Going by this line of thought and the list of who's posted how many times on the FR thread can only lead you to the conclusion that I hate it. Only four posts on it? Hell, everyone knows I can make four idiotic posts on the subject of dust bunnies, particularly if it's a night when insomnia hits! Yet, it's actually one of my favorite threads here. In fact, there's a lot of areas here where I post very little, yet I'd miss them a hell of a lot more than I'd miss the Political Forum, where I post a lot. It's just that most of my posts in such areas would only be along the lines of "yeah, keep talking; you have an audience!" The threads in which I keep my mouth shut and read what more knowledgable posters have to say are the reason I'm here. If all we had was the threads I actually post in, I probably wouldn't be here, you know?

2) Eric/Dr. Rat: Personally, I think the reception of your Esthetics thread had more to do with the nature of "cliquey" internet bulletin boards than the subject at hand. I honestly think your topic fell prey to the "Bialek Factor"; if you had brought up the subject now rather than then, I'll bet you would have seen a lot less of the snippy responses. That says something about us as a group I don't really want to hear, so let's hope I'm full of shit on this one...

3) I'm stunned to know that maren is on a CD I have on my shelves... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The threads in which I keep my mouth shut and read what more knowledgable posters have to say are the reason I'm here.

thanks Moose for describing perfectly my feelings about this great board

Marcus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few comments on the "new since my last visit" posts...

1) Nothing to do with the "should it or shouldn't it" nature of the subject at hand, but please let's not make the mistake of judging a thread by how many regular posters it has. Going by this line of thought and the list of who's posted how many times on the FR thread can only lead you to the conclusion that I hate it. Only four posts on it? Hell, everyone knows I can make four idiotic posts on the subject of dust bunnies, particularly if it's a night when insomnia hits! Yet, it's actually one of my favorite threads here. In fact, there's a lot of areas here where I post very little, yet I'd miss them a hell of a lot more than I'd miss the Political Forum, where I post a lot. It's just that most of my posts in such areas would only be along the lines of "yeah, keep talking; you have an audience!" The threads in which I keep my mouth shut and read what more knowledgable posters have to say are the reason I'm here. If all we had was the threads I actually post in, I probably wouldn't be here, you know?

2) Eric/Dr. Rat: Personally, I think the reception of your Esthetics thread had more to do with the nature of "cliquey" internet bulletin boards than the subject at hand. I honestly think your topic fell prey to the "Bialek Factor"; if you had brought up the subject now rather than then, I'll bet you would have seen a lot less of the snippy responses. That says something about us as a group I don't really want to hear, so let's hope I'm full of shit on this one...

3) I'm stunned to know that maren is on a CD I have on my shelves... :blink:

Moose-

Before we get too deep on this one, I'd like to make a few things clear: first, I like it here, I have a lot of fun here, I like the people here, and certainly I have never had any problems with any of the folks who regularly post to Funny Rat.

Like other, I recognize the value of hanging out and disussing things with folks with whom you share a great degree of "common ground."

That's what this entire board is, I figure, only with a bit more generality and a bit less "common ground."

I am trying to get at some sensitive issues here, I suppose, so my expression has been kinda awkward. I brought up my own thread because I think it brings certain tendencies to light. I am not looking for sympathy, and I wasn't scarred by the experience or anything. That thread was a lot of fun, and my thanks to those who particpated at the end was sincere.

BUT, I do think that occasionally folks try too hard to get at the people behind posts rather than deal with the words and ideas that get written.

"Bialek factor" as in the physicist William Bialek? Tell me more!

--eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric -

Not being an ex-BNer, you probably weren't aware that we had one poster there who delighted in trolling w/anti-"avant-garde" nonsense (I call it nonsense because all it came down to was "those guys don't know how to play their instruments". Period. Nothing more than that, which IS nonsense), and John McDonough was one of their favorite people to quote to begin stirring the pot. So that's why your initial posts were greeted w/scepticism (by me, anyway). It just seemed like "more of the same", especially when your initial responses to mine and others "well, some people like it just because they actually like it" was to (seemingly) claim that this was impossible. But the further along the thread went, the more that I saw that you weren't trolling, so I adjusted my input accordingly. I don't mind a serious discussion, but if I'm going to get into it with full seriousness, I have to A) have the time and energy to do so; B) see the the other guy is serious and intellegent, and is not just bullshitting with some closed-circuit buzzwords, or the ideological equivalent thereof; C) really, REALLY believe in the point I'm making.

Hope that explains something/anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric -

Not being an ex-BNer, you probably weren't aware that we had one poster there who delighted in trolling w/anti-"avant-garde" nonsense (I call it nonsense because all it came down to was "those guys don't know how to play their instruments". Period. Nothing more than that, which IS nonsense), and John McDonough was one of their favorite people to quote to begin stirring the pot. So that's why your initial posts were greeted w/scepticism (by me, anyway). It just seemed like "more of the same", especially when your initial responses to mine and others "well, some people like it just because they actually like it" was to (seemingly) claim that this was impossible. But the further along the thread went, the more that I saw that you weren't trolling, so I adjusted my input accordingly. I don't mind a serious discussion, but if I'm going to get into it with full seriousness, I have to A) have the time and energy to do so; B) see the the other guy is serious and intellegent, and is not just bullshitting with some closed-circuit buzzwords, or the ideological equivalent thereof; C) really, REALLY believe in the point I'm making.

Hope that explains something/anything.

Well, you and I have had a few back-and-forths that really got me thinking--including the Coltrane thread--so I owe you nothing but thanks.

I can see how my posts would have read very differently in the context you spell out.

But if I might suggest a different approach to that situation: directly bringing it up. My between-the-line reading was that there was some PMing going on about the thread (I don't know if this is true, just my own paranoia) and that the lack of (overused word, sorry) transparency was a problem.

Another thing I was thinking of was that all of the ballyhoo surrounding Deep and the false deep and the other guy who left when deep got canned . . . that this also made everybody a lot more attendent to "maintaining community" than to the thorny and sometimes not-well-written and always badly typed effusings of me.

--eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know anything about any PM-ing re:that Trane thread.

As for directly bringing it (the similarity to past instances, I assume?), yeah, but you gotta ask youself - What Would Sonny Stitt Do? :g:g:g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a major "pisser" on Rat's "intellectual" thread I should say something, I guess.

If it came up again I'd respond the same way. The reason is his choice of a JMc piece. I have known JMc since 1966 and think he's an idiot and a real jerk. I foolishly had this identical fight with John back then and it is really old news to see the same crap again. If I'd encountered the piece in the magazine I'd have ignored it, but read the letters to follow. :P

I think Rat made an unfortunate choice and paid the price.

I should also say I am suspicious of "intellectual discussions" which tend to have more words than ideas and a 40 year old fight fits that bill for me.

edit to correct the year I met JMc.

Edited by Chuck Nessa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine what John McDonough was like in high school (of this I have some direct experience): The only 17-year-old in America in 1960 whose dream it was to be George Frazier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be George Frazier the old Boston Herald columnist and contributor to Esquire who cultivated a piss-elegant, self-consciously cranky, Moldy Fig approach to jazz and life in general. An example of his work, "Homage to Bunny" (a Bunny Berigan obit), can be found in Robert Gottlieb's anthology "Reading Jazz." A classic instance of Frazier being Frazier (and prefiguring McDonough) can be found on the 'Net in a column he wrote in reaction to M.L. King's March on Washington. Plug in "George Frazier" and "Boston Herald" on Google and it crops up somewhere on the first or second page. If you can't find it, I'll find it again myself and post a link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like Joan Baez or Bob Dylan either, but THAT'S your next-day response to the March on Washington?

FWIW, I believe that after Frazier's death he was replaced by Mike Barnicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a major "pisser" on Rat's "intellectual" thread I should say something, I guess.

If it came up again I'd respond the same way. The reason is his choice of a JMc piece. I have known JMc since 1966 and think he's an idiot and a real jerk. I foolishly had this identical fight with John back then and it is really old news to see the same crap again. If I'd encountered the piece in the magazine I'd have ignored it, but read the letters to follow. :P

I think Rat made an unfortunate choice and paid the price.

I should also say I am suspicious of "intellectual discussions" which tend to have more words than ideas and a 40 year old fight fits that bill for me.

edit to correct the year I met JMc.

Ahh, one wonders why someone who felt this way would feel compelled to post to the thread in question? And to follow it up by visiting other threads and discouraging people from responding to what I posted and offering hostile commentary himself.

The explanation, I think, comes up a bit short.

And I repeat that I am not fishing for an apology or anything. But I would point to Chuck Nessa's behavior in regard to my posts as . . . searching for a word . . . problematic.

I think that there's a fundamental dishonesty when someone argues that this is a 35-year-old fight that's old and boring; while b) being unable to resist posting on those same subjects, actively discouraging others from engaging in discussion, and insulting the person who brought up the old, boring topic to begin with.

Personally when I run into something I think of as an old boring issue, I ignore it and move on to something I find more enlightening or more to my liking.

Clearly this 35-year-old fight is, at least for some people, far from over and far from being "old news" just yet.

Anyhow, as I explained in the initial post, the issue was interesting to me because though it had been fought over and over and I had read a lot of what people had to write on the topic, very little really got said.

And even if it had, is there something inherently wrong in rehashing a discussion that's already been had? Say, re-arguing Plato's points about the role of art.

I don't think there's any sin in it. And how often do you think anything here is all-new? Discussion is kinda like music--it inevitably involves a lot of repetition.

Chuck is obviously a man of strong feeling, and I respect that. He damn well hates John Mc. He pretty actively dislikes me. That's cool with me. I am a man with a different set of strong feelings and a completly different way of presenting them. That's alright, too. I being as I am could never have accomplished what Chuck has.

But differences exist in what people think and how they feel and that one of the reasons one has a discussion board is for these differences to have some play so long as no one gets hurt. I don't think the impulse to stamp out differences is one we ought to encourage or ignore.

The whole "old news" line is just not facing up to what really went on there.

--eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.