Free / Avant-Garde Jazz Forum

[JSngry]

Dude, when you fight a fight long enough, and are convinced enough, and see that your "opponent" is never, ever, going to see things your way, you finally decide that it's more productive to just move on, create your own "parallel universe" where you can go about your business the way you see fit, and just in general roll your eyes and shrug your shoulders whenever anybody wants to fight the same old fights.

For you they may seem new and valid, but for somebody who's "heard it all before", it really is the same old same old. Just as is, I'm sure, the need to be dismissive of the "attacks" are to those who make them.

But I can tell you this, sincerely and not directed at anybody in particular (you, McDonough, Crouch, ANYBODY) - the notion that there needs to be a "burden of proof" placed on any creative endeavor is somewhat insidious if carried too lfar and too loud. People need to be free to create, and people need to be free to respond, all without some self-appointed, "outside looking in" "ideological police" hovering over the whole process who, far more often than not, have some kind of socio-political agenda driving their cutural one. When the NEED to stifle reas it's ugly head, it's best to kill it before it spreads. And how often does a "want" turn into a "need"? Less tha always, but more than never.

Of course, artists will have their agendas, the public will have theirs, and critics will definitely have theirs. That much is inevitable, and healthy, as long as the entire process stays "organic" (insert your definition of that word here ). But theere comes a point where it can all get bogged sown in thinking, not doing, and that is the point where the wise ones just say "fuck it" and get on with the business at hand, which is most assuredly NOT getting drawn into the "same old same old" (much like I'm doing now. ).

Bottom line, as I see it - if something works for you, and continues to work for you over time, stay with it. If it doesn't, leave it be and go with what does. Simple as that.

[Dr. Rat]

Dude, when you fight a fight long enough, and are convinced enough, and see that your "opponent" is never, ever, going to see things your way, you finally decide that it's more productive to just move on, create your own "parallel universe" where you can go about your business the way you see fit, and just in general roll your eyes and shrug your shoulders whenever anybody wants to fight the same old fights.

For you they may seem new and valid, but for somebody who's "heard it all before", it really is the same old same old. Just as is, I'm sure, the need to be dismissive of the "attacks" are to those who make them.

But I can tell you this, sincerely and not directed at anybody in particular (you, McDonough, Crouch, ANYBODY) - the notion that there needs to be a "burden of proof" placed on any creative endeavor is somewhat insidious if carried too lfar and too loud. People need to be free to create, and people need to be free to respond, all without some self-appointed, "outside looking in" "ideological police" hovering over the whole process who, far more often than not, have some kind of socio-political agenda driving their cutural one. When the NEED to stifle reas it's ugly head, it's best to kill it before it spreads. And how often does a "want" turn into a "need"? Less tha always, but more than never.

Of course, artists will have their agendas, the public will have theirs, and critics will definitely have theirs. That much is inevitable, and healthy, as long as the entire process stays "organic" (insert your definition of that word here ). But theere comes a point where it can all get bogged sown in thinking, not doing, and that is the point where the wise ones just say "fuck it" and get on with the business at hand, which is most assuredly NOT getting drawn into the "same old same old" (much like I'm doing now. ).

Bottom line, as I see it - if something works for you, and continues to work for you over time, stay with it. If it doesn't, leave it be and go with what does. Simple as that.

Well, yes, I can see your point about creating and thinking about creating, and how the thinking about has just gotta be put aside at some point.

I know what you mean about being free to create and free to appreciate. An artist ahs got a lot of his/herself hanging out there, and that merits respect.

My point in pursuing some of these points in general is that I really, truly worry about what I consider to be the good stuff in our culture, stuff that's richer and/or more complex than pop culture usually turns out.

One of these is what we all call jazz. And my sense is that in a lot of different ways, the "structural" end of the music--venues, record labels, the terms commonly used amongst critics and fans, the contexts in which the music gets consumed, etc.--a lot of these structures are sick (organically dysfunctional?).

You've thought about a lot of this stuff, I know, because you beat me to the punch on some of my complaints in a couple of these threads.

But when I look at this situation, I see one hope for salvation: the artists starting to ask some probing questions about the reigning assumptions about what jazz is, who it's for, and how it gets listened to.

You might say "Well artists have been doing that this whole time!"

What I'd say is Jazz has been very strongly concerned with things like legitimizing itself as "art" at just the time that the HMS Art hit the iceberg. So now, just when society seems to have decided that art as opposed to entertainment is just a lot of guff, jazz has finally won its long battle to be seen as art.

There were good reasons for the struggle to be accepted as art, but now I see the victory as a pyrrhic (sp.?) one.

Now the "free" you speak of is essentially a freedom not to question one's assumptions--it isn't a freedom from assumptions. It isn't making one's mind empty and hailing up Jesus on the Mainline.

In a lot of cases, the assumptions are outdated and non-viable. It's not a time when we can afford just let our assumptions be free. We gotta change them. I'd prefer if artists and people who really care about this sort of music participated actively in that process rather than letting it be done to them as the audience (which is quite old) begins to die off, as the arts center gigs dry up, as "jazz" increasingly becomes synonymous with "stuffy," and/or "pretentious."

Old battles they may be, but I'll make the statement more strongly: JMc may be an asshole, but I have yet to see the response to him that doesn't boil down to "JMc is an asshole." People generally may have fought over this issue, but I'm afraid they haven't thought over this issue a whole lot. Someone complimented you on your comments at the end of the aesthetics thread--it wasn't because you were repeating stuff he'd read a thousand times before.

I think this is a pretty serious topic. I say let's have a look.

[JSngry]

I say let's all get out of the house more.

That would fix a lot of stuff right there.

Nothing wrong with the music(s) that getting it and its fans (and potential fans) in the same room together in a bout of old-fashioned money(or goods)-for-services-rendered won't go a long way towards fixing.

If that can't or won't happen, then whatever happens as a result is probably the right thing(s) to have happen.

[Leeway]

I can't begin to figure out the various conflicts discussed in this thread, but if the original question was, "Should we have a free jazz forum?" I was wondering what the answer is. Wouldn't B3-er have to agree to add another forum? Anyway, now that all the issues have been aired and the poll taken, what next?

[Michael Fitzgerald]

You seem to be under the impression that this board is a democracy (and even then, are things decided by simple majority or do they require 2/3 approval to pass, must it be unanimous, etc.).

However, I believe that the board would be more accurately described as a benevolent dictatorship. And I have no problem with that.

Mike

Edited October 8, 2004 by Michael Fitzgerald

[Lazaro Vega]

Where did the McDonough b.s. come up again? What thread is Chuck referring to regarding Rat?

For Chuck this is old news. For young people it isn't and they want to revisit the same issue from the distance of the present, i.e. they haven't lived it.

More than an "avant-garde" thread, a thread dedicated to "The Tradition" and all that implies should have a space. Point me to a place and I'll be happy to put up some thoughts about it. See, all jazz is avant-garde, thats the tradition of jazz.

How's that for an opening salvo? Lemme know where we should start it.

[Dr. Rat]

Where did the McDonough b.s. come up again? What thread is Chuck referring to regarding Rat?

For Chuck this is old news. For young people it isn't and they want to revisit the same issue from the distance of the present, i.e. they haven't lived it.

More than an "avant-garde" thread, a thread dedicated to "The Tradition" and all that implies should have a space. Point me to a place and I'll be happy to put up some thoughts about it. See, all jazz is avant-garde, thats the tradition of jazz.

How's that for an opening salvo? Lemme know where we should start it.

OOOOOH,

I guess if you read the whole thread you'll see that it kinda came around to talking about different dysfunctionalities of the board in general, and then I hijacked that slight turn to make a point about something that had been bothering me, amply demonstrating that you can post anything anywhere and not worry of there's actually a forum for it or if you're in it.

So it was sort of a performative argument that we don't need a proliferation of fora.

The foregoing was facetious. and I hope I've spelled that right,

--eric