Luciano Pavarotti, dead at 71

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

There were oceans of different influences that went into the development of New Orleans jazz. No doubt those musicians who were involved over a longer period of time than we know about from recordings liked a lot of different stuff.

But do you need to be a fan of military band music in order to appreciate New Orleans jazz? Or a fan of Spirituals? Or a fan of various kinds of African-descended music sourced from the traditional musics of the Wolof, Mandinke, Bambara and Serahule peoples that, in their contemporary, late nineteenth century form, we can never hear?

MG

[Larry Kart]

I grasp the influence of Ronald Reagan quite well, but I'm not a fan. Should I be, in order to grasp it even better?

But Reagan's influence/zone of being was that of political and social power, while opera's is in the (or "a") zone of potential aesthetic pleasure. Thus, it would seem to me, getting what Reagan was about and being a fan of Reagan is not very comparable to getting what opera was/is about and being a fan of opera. Different strokes, of course, when it comes to what one finds pleasurable; you can't enjoy what you don't enjoy. On the other hand, and this is certainly understandable, some people who don't like opera (or musicals or cabaret -- not these are at all the same kind of thing) do so for reasons that are analogous in part to why you and I might not like Ronald Reagan. That is, there are social issues and auras and histories of groups winning and losing involved; if an art form reeks of a crowd or attitudes that you rightly can't take (given who each of us -- rightly for ourselves -- are), then that is likely to be the end of it.

As for MG's: "But do you need to be a fan of military band music in order to appreciate New Orleans jazz? Or a fan of Spirituals? Or a fan of various kinds of African-descended music sourced from the traditional musics of the Wolof, Mandinke, Bambara and Serahule peoples that, in their contemporary, late nineteenth century form, we can never hear?"

No you don't need to IMO, but if you do run across good examples of some or all of that stuff, it's not unlikely, if you're a curious, broadminded jazz fan, that you'll find yourself enjoying yourself some. It ain't just anthropology/musicology, nor is it sauerkraut juice.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Larry Kart

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I grasp the influence of Ronald Reagan quite well, but I'm not a fan. Should I be, in order to grasp it even better?

But Reagan's influence/zone of being was that of political and social power, while opera's is in the (or "a") zone of potential aesthetic pleasure. Thus, it would seem to me, getting what Reagan was about and being a fan of Reagan is not very comparable to getting what opera was/is about and being a fan of opera. Different strokes, of course, when it comes to what one finds pleasurable; you can't enjoy what you don't enjoy. On the other hand, and this is certainly understandable, some people who don't like opera (or musicals or cabaret -- not these are at all the same kind of thing) do so for reasons that are analogous in part to why you and I might not like Ronald Reagan. That is, there are social issues and auras and histories of groups winning and losing involved; if an art form reeks of a crowd or attitudes that you rightly can't take (given who each of us -- rightly for ourselves -- are), then that is likely to be the end of it.

As for MG's: "But do you need to be a fan of military band music in order to appreciate New Orleans jazz? Or a fan of Spirituals? Or a fan of various kinds of African-descended music sourced from the traditional musics of the Wolof, Mandinke, Bambara and Serahule peoples that, in their contemporary, late nineteenth century form, we can never hear?"

No you don't need to IMO, but if you do run across good examples of some or all of that stuff, it's not unlikely, if you're a curious, broadminded jazz fan, that you'll find yourself enjoying yourself some. It ain't just anthropology/musicology, nor is it sauerkraut juice.

I mostly agree with that (though I'm not sure how an amateur, accidentally running across examples, would know whether they're good, bad or indifferent). But it's not what you said earlier, Larry.

If you're a non-fan of opera, you won't get a fair bit of where Armstrong and Bechet in particular were coming from.

MG

[Larry Kart]

I mostly agree with that (though I'm not sure how an amateur, accidentally running across examples, would know whether they're good, bad or indifferent). But it's not what you said earlier, Larry.

If you're a non-fan of opera, you won't get a fair bit of where Armstrong and Bechet in particular were coming from.

MG

I said two different things: What you quote above, and this ("...if you do run across good examples of some or all of that stuff, it's not unlikely, if you're a curious, broadminded jazz fan, that you'll find yourself enjoying yourself some. It ain't just anthropology/musicology, nor is it sauerkraut juice"). I believe that both these things are true and don't see how they're incompatible.

As for "I'm not sure how an amateur, accidentally running across examples, would know whether they're good, bad or indifferent"), first, there are as in all things degrees of amatuerish-ness; one tries to learn some and listen some at the same time, and even if you're not making a conscious effort to learn, with increased exposure you often do. Second, while some musics are so damn different from other musics that one is clueless without hardcore tutelage, I think that in the case of the musics were talking about, some basic musicality on the part of the listener will carry him or her a good ways in the right directions.

[JSngry]

I don't buy the notion that I, as an "in general" non-fan of opera who nevertheless is quite aware of it and it's overall essence, won't (a word that conveys an absoluteness of certainty) "get a fair bit of where Armstrong and Bechet in particular were coming from." That is ludicrous.

You could say that if somebody did not know opera that they might not "get a fair bit of where Armstrong and Bechet in particular were coming from", sure, but even then, is it really necessary to understand everything about where anybody is coming from to feel/appreciate where they are now and/or what they are saying at this moment? In degree, yeah, probably, but if we're going to play the Province Of Understanding Entitlement game, then let's start with the basics - if you don't know what it means to be Black (or in Bechet's case, Creole) in turn-of-the-century New Orleans, then how much of any of this will (another word that conveys an absoluteness of certainty) you get? Now, where's that line, and who among us is standing in it?

I will agree that I do not "get" that portion of Armstron/Bechet that presents operatic influences in the same way as somebody who has an affinity with opera. That's the old sympathy vs empathy trip, and I'll cop to that up front. But to say that I won't get it is to say that I don't get it at all, and that is simply not the case. Similarly, there are parts of Ornette's playing that I, by virtue of being a rural-gone-urban-Texan-social/musical-outsider, will "get" in a way that many of you all won't. But that doesn't mean that y'all don't get them at all, nor does it mean that the way that I get Ornette is more "complete" than the way y'all do. Any artist that can be brought down to one thing for all people is above all else a utilitarian product. Not that there's not a useful and pleasant place/need for that. But...

I mean, my god, I totally understand the influence of opera on classic Sinatra's phrasing (and I totally dig classic Sinatra's phrasing) while still remaining a staunch non-fan of opera in general. According to the logic expressed, this should not be possible. What is possible is that I dig it - the results of the influence - for different reasons than the fact of the influence itself, and from there it follows that there is more to the source of the influence that one can or can not "respond to" than the mere mechanics/esthetics of said source. And the use of a word like "won't" seems to rule out this possibility. Oink oink, said the pig.

Indeed, this whole thing seems to me to be predicated on a perhaps latent assumption that to know opera, really know it, is to love it, that there is an absolute "greatness" there that is only not "gotten" if one has either not explored deeply enough or else if one is too inferior/lazy/whatever to surrender one's soul to its Absolute Grandeur. To which I can only say that some dreams die harder than others, and that if this is indeed not the case, then one should perhaps be more considered in one's usage of words of absolutism such as "won't", and that the answer to the question "Baby, Baby, don't you need a man like me?" is not always going to eventually be yes, no matter how insistently and repeatedly it is asked .

Edited September 7, 2007 by JSngry

[BruceH]

Slightly surprised that he was only 71; somehow I thought he was older.

[JSngry]

...some people who don't like opera (or musicals or cabaret -- not these are at all the same kind of thing)...

I think that at this point in time, as the particulars of their individual immediacies inevitably fades to reveal the permanence of their intents (that is to say, all human behavior ultimately comes down to a handful of "types" of actions, although the ways they get acted out are seemingly infinite), that they are far more alike than not.

[7/4]

Slightly surprised that he was only 71; somehow I thought he was older.

Maybe it was the weight.

[Larry Kart]

I don't buy the notion that I, as an "in general" non-fan of opera who nevertheless is quite aware of it and it's overall essence, won't (a word that conveys an absoluteness of certainty) "get a fair bit of where Armstrong and Bechet in particular were coming from." That is ludicrous.

You could say that if somebody did not know opera that they might not "get a fair bit of where Armstrong and Bechet in particular were coming from", sure, but even then, is it really necessary to understand everything about where anybody is coming from to feel/appreciate where they are now and/or what they are saying at this moment? In degree, yeah, probably, but if we're going to play the Province Of Understanding Entitlement game, then let's start with the basics - if you don't know what it means to be Black (or in Bechet's case, Creole) in turn-of-the-century New Orleans, then how much of any of this will (another word that conveys an absoluteness of certainty) you get? Now, where's that line, and who among us is standing in it?

I will agree that I do not "get" that portion of Armstron/Bechet that presents operatic influences in the same way as somebody who has an affinity with opera. That's the old sympathy vs empathy trip, and I'll cop to that up front. But to say that I won't get it is to say that I don't get it at all, and that is simply not the case. Similarly, there are parts of Ornette's playing that I, by virtue of being a rural-gone-urban-Texan-social/musical-outsider, will "get" in a way that many of you all won't. But that doesn't mean that y'all don't get them at all, nor does it mean that the way that I get Ornette is more "complete" than the way y'all do. Any artist that can be brought down to one thing for all people is above all else a utilitarian product. Not that there's not a useful and pleasant place/need for that. But...

I mean, my god, I totally understand the influence of opera on classic Sinatra's phrasing (and I totally dig classic Sinatra's phrasing) while still remaining a staunch non-fan of opera in general. According to the logic expressed, this should not be possible. What is possible is that I dig it - the results of the influence - for different reasons than the fact of the influence itself, and from there it follows that there is more to the source of the influence that one can or can not "respond to" than the mere mechanics/esthetics of said source. And the use of a word like "won't" seems to rule out this possibility. Oink oink, said the pig.

Indeed, this whole thing seems to me to be predicated on a perhaps latent assumption that to know opera, really know it, is to love it, that there is an absolute "greatness" there that is only not "gotten" if one has either not explored deeply enough or else if one is too inferior/lazy/whatever to surrender one's soul to its Absolute Grandeur. To which I can only say that some dreams die harder than others, and that if this is indeed not the case, then one should perhaps be more considered in one's usage of words of absolutism such as "won't", and that the answer to the question "Baby, Baby, don't you need a man like me?" is not always going to eventually be yes, no matter how insistently and repeatedly it is asked .

Whoa -- When I wrote "If you're a non-fan of opera, you won't get a fair bit of where Armstrong and Bechet in particular were coming from," I was under the impression that you (and I didn't mean you in particular as much as I meant "one," as in "anyone of us") had in your life pretty much avoided the stuff on the "fat loud tenors, shrieky sopranos" principle . Since then you've explained that that's not the case at all. Fine; I understand. But I didn't feel the need in the light of that info to then formally retract what I'd first said, not realizing that we were in court of law or something. Also, my "won't get a fair bit of" point was based on my own experience; I didn't get that aspect of Armstrong and Bechet until someone pointed it out to me, played some of the pertinent records, noting resemblances, and showed me some of the texts that made it clear how much opera Armstrong and Bechet been exposed to in their youth in New Orleans.

[Larry Kart]

...some people who don't like opera (or musicals or cabaret -- not these are at all the same kind of thing)...

I think that at this point in time, as the particulars of their individual immediacies inevitably fades to reveal the permanence of their intents (that is to say, all human behavior ultimately comes down to a handful of "types" of actions, although the ways they get acted out are seemingly infinite), that they are far more alike than not.

Sounds interesting, but, on second thought, I don't know what you mean here. I'm not pulling your chain, but please amplify if possible.

[JSngry]

...not realizing that we were in court of law...

Well yeah dude, DUH!

[JSngry]

...some people who don't like opera (or musicals or cabaret -- not these are at all the same kind of thing)...

I think that at this point in time, as the particulars of their individual immediacies inevitably fades to reveal the permanence of their intents (that is to say, all human behavior ultimately comes down to a handful of "types" of actions, although the ways they get acted out are seemingly infinite), that they are far more alike than not.

Sounds interesting, but, on second thought, I don't know what you mean here. I'm not pulling your chain, but please amplify if possible.

Simple. You know, the "seven (or five or how many ever) basic themes of literature" thing extrapolated to human behavior.

People, individually & collectively, don't really do that many different things. They just don't. That's why there's only seven (or five or how many ever, I've got it down to one uber myself) themse to write about, because that's really all we do.

The "interesting" part is in the ways we do it. Studying that shit'll have you working nights and weekends. But that 's the how. The what, that all comes down to few.

And what opera, musicals, and cabaret (ususally) are is stories told with one too many layer of signification and one too many layer of I'm supposed to find this "deeper" (or something) than the stories found in real life. It;s not that it's not real, it's that it's presented to me with an implicit assumption that I'm going to like this better than reality because this is "special" or something. Like if I don't sit there and be dazzled/charmed/transported/whatever that it's my fault/problem. Opera, musicals, cabaret, are ultimately - for me - different ways of getting your ass in a chair to be convinced that what you're seeing is "magic", that the people doing it are "special", and that because I buy into their illusion, I am "sophisitcated". No matter how artfully it's done (and hell yeah, there's been enormous artfulness in all three), it's in the service of that vision (which is surely a tangent of one of the seven or five or one great themes...), and that's a vision that does not interest me at all.

If I want "magic", I'll take it in, like 2-5 minute doses at a street fair and then move the hell on. And if I want real magic, hell, reality (as in unscripted real reality) has more than enough to offer, good, bad, funny, scary, and real surprise endings a fair amount of the time.

And if I want MAGIC, shit, I've had a voodoo curse placed on me (for real), and how that played out has let me know in no uncertain terms that I most assuredly don't.

[JSngry]

I didn't get that aspect of Armstrong and Bechet until someone pointed it out to me, played some of the pertinent records, noting resemblances, and showed me some of the texts that made it clear how much opera Armstrong and Bechet been exposed to in their youth in New Orleans.

Wasn't the Italian population in New Orleans as large a % of the city's overall population as in many larger Eastern seabvoard cities?

And as a result, wasn't opera then very much a "civilized pastime" for many New Orleans residents, with some very high quality companies and facitlities at the local's disposal? And weren't Creoles well represented in the operatic orchestras of New Orleans until the Jim Crow crackdown?

What I don't know off the top of my head is if Bechet actually played in an operatic orchestra. Don't think so, but I do think he studied with players who did, at one time.

But yeah, the Jim Crow crackdown, and the resultant throwing together of two cultures that had previously kinda intnetionally avoided each other is justone of the many cultural cross-pollinations that made New Orleans the unique olio (I refuse to say "gumbo" due to Marsailispathy) that it was that allowed it to produce what it did how it did.

[Chuck Nessa]

I didn't get that aspect of Armstrong and Bechet until someone pointed it out to me, played some of the pertinent records, noting resemblances, and showed me some of the texts that made it clear how much opera Armstrong and Bechet been exposed to in their youth in New Orleans.

Wasn't the Italian population in New Orleans as large a % of the city's overall population as in many larger Eastern seabvoard cities?

And as a result, wasn't opera then very much a "civilized pastime" for many New Orleans residents, with some very high quality companies and facitlities at the local's disposal? And weren't Creoles well represented in the operatic orchestras of New Orleans until the Jim Crow crackdown?

What I don't know off the top of my head is if Bechet actually played in an operatic orchestra. Don't think so, but I do think he studied with players who did, at one time.

But yeah, the Jim Crow crackdown, and the resultant throwing together of two cultures that had previously kinda intnetionally avoided each other is justone of the many cultural cross-pollinations that made New Orleans the unique olio (I refuse to say "gumbo" due to Marsailispathy) that it was that allowed it to produce what it did how it did.

IIRC, the opera house of note in NO at the time was French. Beyond the "Frenchy" influence, a large number of early phonograph records (anywhere in the world at the time) were classical - solo piano pieces and vocals (song and aria). These records had influence on "jazz" musicians all over the country. The piano records had a large influence on the NY stride players in the early days. If one is really interested in early jazz, attention paid to these recordings pay rewards.

[Larry Kart]

...some people who don't like opera (or musicals or cabaret -- not these are at all the same kind of thing)...

I think that at this point in time, as the particulars of their individual immediacies inevitably fades to reveal the permanence of their intents (that is to say, all human behavior ultimately comes down to a handful of "types" of actions, although the ways they get acted out are seemingly infinite), that they are far more alike than not.

Sounds interesting, but, on second thought, I don't know what you mean here. I'm not pulling your chain, but please amplify if possible.

Simple. You know, the "seven (or five or how many ever) basic themes of literature" thing extrapolated to human behavior.

People, individually & collectively, don't really do that many different things. They just don't. That's why there's only seven (or five or how many ever, I've got it down to one uber myself) themse to write about, because that's really all we do.

The "interesting" part is in the ways we do it. Studying that shit'll have you working nights and weekends. But that 's the how. The what, that all comes down to few.

And what opera, musicals, and cabaret (ususally) are is stories told with one too many layer of signification and one too many layer of I'm supposed to find this "deeper" (or something) than the stories found in real life. It;s not that it's not real, it's that it's presented to me with an implicit assumption that I'm going to like this better than reality because this is "special" or something. Like if I don't sit there and be dazzled/charmed/transported/whatever that it's my fault/problem. Opera, musicals, cabaret, are ultimately - for me - different ways of getting your ass in a chair to be convinced that what you're seeing is "magic", that the people doing it are "special", and that because I buy into their illusion, I am "sophisitcated". No matter how artfully it's done (and hell yeah, there's been enormous artfulness in all three), it's in the service of that vision (which is surely a tangent of one of the seven or five or one great themes...), and that's a vision that does not interest me at all.

If I want "magic", I'll take it in, like 2-5 minute doses at a street fair and then move the hell on. And if I want real magic, hell, reality (as in unscripted real reality) has more than enough to offer, good, bad, funny, scary, and real surprise endings a fair amount of the time.

And if I want MAGIC, shit, I've had a voodoo curse placed on me (for real), and how that played out has let me know in no uncertain terms that I most assuredly don't.

OK, now I understand much better what you're saying, but about good parts of it, I couldn't disagree more. In particular, all or most of this:

"And what opera, musicals, and cabaret (ususally) are is stories told with one too many layer of signification and one too many layer of I'm supposed to find this "deeper" (or something) than the stories found in real life. It;s not that it's not real, it's that it's presented to me with an implicit assumption that I'm going to like this better than reality because this is "special" or something. Like if I don't sit there and be dazzled/charmed/transported/whatever that it's my fault/problem. Opera, musicals, cabaret, are ultimately - for me - different ways of getting your ass in a chair to be convinced that what you're seeing is "magic", that the people doing it are "special", and that because I buy into their illusion, I am "sophisitcated".

Sometimes it is that way -- "presented ... with an implicit assumption that I'm going to like this better than reality because this is 'special' or something..," especially in certain circles and/or late in the historical-social game -- but otherwise, that's a very grim way to remove all the fun and flatten all the meaning out of some stuff that never could have been created in the first place or lasted very long if it hadn't been a big source of pleasure and meaning to a lot of people who were concerned with something more than proving to themselves and to others how terrifically, righteously snotty they were.

Also, as far as "'the "seven (or five or how many ever) basic themes of literature' thing extrapolated to human behavior" goes, the more literature I read, the more music I hear, etc., the more I'm convinced of the detailed specificity of the work itself unto itself, and the artist himself/herself unto himself/herself, provided it and he/she are really good. To hell with "themes," basic or otherwise; school is out. Shirley Horn is Shirley Horn, Monday M. is Monday M., Billie Holiday is Billie H., Mozart is Mozart, Monk is Monk, etc., etc.

[JSngry]

Sometimes it is that way -- "presented ... with an implicit assumption that I'm going to like this better than reality because this is 'special' or something..," especially in certain circles and/or late in the historical-social game -- but otherwise, that's a very grim way to remove all the fun and flatten all the meaning out of some stuff that never could have been created in the first place or lasted very long if it hadn't been a big source of pleasure and meaning to a lot of people who were concerned with something more than proving to themselves and to others how terrifically, righteously snotty they were.

No doubt. But we are where we are, and I ain't got all day (or all night) any more. So some things have gotten the cut, opera being one of them. It's not like I feel a void as a result either.

Of course, that's all I was really saying in the first place, and would have been content to say. But then some guy pops up & tells me that because I'm not mesmerized to goosebumps by some Pavarotti video that I'm not getting Bechet & Armstrong. And to that, I, as the old folks say, take exception. :g

[JSngry]

Also, as far as "'the "seven (or five or how many ever) basic themes of literature' thing extrapolated to human behavior" goes, the more literature I read, the more music I hear, etc., the more I'm convinced of the detailed specificity of the work itself unto itself, and the artist himself/herself unto himself/herself, provided it and he/she are really good. To hell with "themes," basic or otherwise; school is out. Shirley Horn is Shirley Horn, Monday M. is Monday M., Billie Holiday is Billie H., Mozart is Mozart, Monk is Monk, etc., etc.

Well yes, of course they are.

But isn't it funny how each era/epoch/whatever produces these "types" (and yeah, "idiosyncratic genius who defies all categorization" is a type) in some form or fashion?

Individuals vs types = yin & yang, complimentary opposites that constitute the whole. Can't have one without the other, and vice-versa.

Makes sense to me.

[JSngry]

And I'd also like to go on record here as saying that finally, at long last, I really don't believe in Culture any more. All that does is imbue acts of creation w/a talisman-like effect that makes it too easy for somebody to not think or feel.

Smart people with good minds and great spiritis can (and do) find inspiration in any number and quality of material. Which is not to say that exploring beyond one's "here" to get to one's "there" is not a noble undertaking, because dammit, that is the most noble undertaking.

But "here" & "there" are in no way fixed quantities, and as a result who knows what's going to work how with whom. There ain't no magic Culture Elixir that is guaranteed to get you there.

I listen to Pavarotti, I feel stifled and want to go lie down. I listen to James Brown & my spirit & imagination soar, and my desire to be kinetically active & creative soars. (and yeah, I have seen the clip of them performing together...). Others will react in the opposite manner.

So much for the Approved Culture Path To Better Living.

Like I said, I don't feel a void.

[Free For All]

I remember really disliking opera when I had to study it as an undergraduate. I was very young and all I wanted to hear was jazz.

When the former Mrs. FFA started doing the Santa Fe Opera gig, I started going out there to visit every summer and I attended several operas each time.

I must say the SFO puts on a helluva show- the performers, orchestra, sets and the venue itself were absolutely first-rate. They also programmed a variety of operas- there were some new contemporary ones, old warhorses that could be counted on to put butts in the seats, and every year they did a Strauss opera. My favorites were the Strauss, mostly because the brass section usually had some big moment that allowed them to let it all out.

One of the things I really liked was having the libretto in English on a little screen on the seat in front of me- it really helps to be able to follow the plot.

What always struck me as funny was the way the "action" unfolded; it always seems to be:

"I've got a secret!"

("He's got a secret!")

"I've got a secret!"

("He's got a secret!")

"I'm going to tell!"

("He's going to tell")

"I'm going to tell!"

("He's going to tell")

"I'm telling you now!"

("He's telling us now")

"I'm telling you now!"

("He's telling us now")

"I told my secret!"

("He told his secret!")

"I told my secret!"

("He told his secret!")

.......etc., etc. Fortunately the slow disclosure of the plot allowed plent of time to check out the score w/o missing anything.

I'm glad I learned to enjoy opera, and although I don't attend many (now that I'm banned from Santa Fe ), I have a much greater appreciation of the genre.

And Pavarotti was a MF. Whatever his personal issues were, we were fortunate to have lived the same time as him. He had a serious gift. RIP.

[rostasi]

I have to say that I'm with brother Jim on much of what he says,

(I'd probably add "movies" to his list tho...and books of fiction...

and maybe a few other things as I give it some extra thought).

I feel manipulated in the midst of those areas - a feeling that I'm

not at liberty to have my own thoughts begin from a state of zero.

As for the video, I made it thru the first 3 minutes and that was

about all I could handle of it. I pretty much know what is coming...

soon...this manipulative overwrought crescendo that builds to a

finale while the manipulated audience responds accordingly with

wild, ecstatic clapping and cheers of "Bravo" (I may be wrong,

but it appears that's the mass reaction often with these kinds of things).

I'm not a fan of operatic trained voice anyway.

It does something rather vulgar to the voice (and it's sound)

that I find really annoying (re: T the K & 7/4's comment).

Give me Dave Burrell's version of La Boheme -

I've loved that recording for decades and I don't have to get sucked

into the high culture vortex while I listen.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

In the days when I used to listen to classical music, I was never really too interested in opera; give me a nice little oratorio like Delius' "Songs of sunset" or Elgar's "Dream of Gerontius" though...

What Jim and Rod have been hinting around is class politics - perhaps the English are better at identifying this than Americans. And opera is awash in class politics. It is - or at least has become (I believe it was different in Mozart's day) - the apogee of ruling class identification.

Back in the early seventies, when I was much less left wing than I am now, my wife and I, together with a couple of our mates, got cheap tickets from our friend who ran the record shop, for Glyndebourne; "Ariadne auf Naxos". In a sense, this wasn't anything special for us, because Glynde was only the next village to the one where my wife was born and where we lived when we were first married. But I do have to say that the very long intervals between the acts, during which one could have one's champagne picnic in the beautiful gardens (the weather was wonderful that afternoon - though we had no champagne, just a flask of tea) was the most pleasant part of it all, the opera itself being stupid beyond belief. But actually, I didn't mind that, because the whole thing was so much larger than just the opera; so much so that the opera itself became merely an unimportant element of an event.

Something's happened to the font! I can scarcely read this.

Anyway, I conclude that the music REALLY doesn't matter; the social milieu is all important and those who seek to promote a different view have a (not very well) hidden political agenda.

MG

Edited for typos once I'd got the font sorted.

Edited September 8, 2007 by The Magnificent Goldberg

[paul secor]

Perhaps Larry came on a bit strong in his initial post on the subject: "Jim - if you're a non-fan of opera, you won't get a fair bit of where Armstrong and Bechet in particular are coming from." I believe that he's toned things down a bit in following posts.

quote name='Chuck Nessa' date='Sep 7 2007, 09:09 PM' post='691125']

IIRC, the opera house of note in NO at the time was French. Beyond the "Frenchy" influence, a large number of early phonograph records (anywhere in the world at the time) were classical - solo piano pieces and vocals (song and aria). These records had influence on "jazz" musicians all over the country. The piano records had a large influence on the NY stride players in the early days. If one is really interested in early jazz, attention paid to these recordings pay rewards.

[JSngry]

I have to say that I'm with brother Jim on much of what he says,

(I'd probably add "movies" to his list tho...and books of fiction...

and maybe a few other things as I give it some extra thought).

I feel manipulated in the midst of those areas - a feeling that I'm

not at liberty to have my own thoughts begin from a state of zero.

As for the video, I made it thru the first 3 minutes and that was

about all I could handle of it. I pretty much know what is coming...

soon...this manipulative overwrought crescendo that builds to a

finale while the manipulated audience responds accordingly with

wild, ecstatic clapping and cheers of "Bravo" (I may be wrong,

but it appears that's the mass reaction often with these kinds of things).

I'm not a fan of operatic trained voice anyway.

It does something rather vulgar to the voice (and it's sound)

that I find really annoying (re: T the K & 7/4's comment).

Give me Dave Burrell's version of La Boheme -

I've loved that recording for decades and I don't have to get sucked

into the high culture vortex while I listen.

Movies.....I came this close to saying movies....but that's a wildly widely variable thing there....

MG, it's not really class politics that bugs me, although that's definitely in the mix. It's more, at root, the sense of manipulation that Rod mentions above. And yet..."storytelling" of any sort has manipulation as a fundamental part of it's m.o., even in it's most objective form (i.e. - if all I'm telling you is "just the facts" of a situation, what situations I do or do not tell you about represents a value judgement in and of itself as to what I think you do or don't want/need to hear)...so "manipulation" is a pretty much unavoidable/inescapable part of communication...

I guess it's more a question of scale and intent. I understand quite well that opera, Italian opera especially, was in its time, at root entertainment of a type not too terribly dissimilar from a Broadway musical.. People came for the show, not the "art", and much of the medium was constructed accordingly. Well, ok, it's only rock and roll, etc...but that was in its time, and that time is over and what do we have now? Just as we have a whole big lots bunch of jazzkids whose concept of "swinging" is totally devoid of any sense of dance impulse, so do we have a big lots bunch full of "classical" music culture for whom the "art" is rooted more a matter of stipulated existence rather than a need for ongoing proof. And as rooted in class politics as that so often is, it's really something beyond that, because that's a type behavior that you find at every level of human activity - the "type" of people who presuppose "specialness" & go about the business of creating things - all sorts of things - that have that presupposition as its raisin debtor. Keith Jarrett, anybody?

Now many, many times, as with Jarrett, and as with things operatic, there certainly is some meat there, some "art" that really is art outside of its presupposition of same, but the question for me, the free-willed consumer with at least some awareness of just how big a world it is and how many people are/were/will be doing how many different things that may or may not be relevant to my lifestyles, past present or future, is this - am I going to get something out of the experpience to either A) take me back for thoughtful reflection/reconsideration; B) Stop me dead in my tracks to look at right now in a different/better(?) way than I currently am; or C) Get me going towards a future that contains more awareness (of whatever) than I currently have AND - is this challenge/benefit going to come in a package that presents a beneficial time-emotion investment/benefit gained ratio?

And it's that ratio that's the dealbreaker for me in a lot of things. Not that "challenge" is to be avoided, of course not. Challenge is to be welcomed, courted, even. But challenge - and substance - comes in many, many forms. And there, as they say, is the rub...

All this to say that in my current estimation, "art" is as much a matter of final effect as it is initial intent (and has nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of hand-me-down "intrinsicality") and as such everybody concerned would be better served by assuming nothing, manipulating nothing, and by doing everything.

Edited September 8, 2007 by JSngry

[Teasing the Korean]

Anyway, I conclude that the music REALLY doesn't matter; the social milieu is all important and those who seek to promote a different view have a (not very well) hidden political agenda.

One could argue that this is also the case with going to orchestra concerts in the US. Not among everyone in the audience, of course, but a significant percentage.

[Larry Kart]

Anyway, I conclude that the music REALLY doesn't matter; the social milieu is all important and those who seek to promote a different view have a (not very well) hidden political agenda.

One could argue that this is also the case with going to orchestra concerts in the US. Not among everyone in the audience, of course, but a significant percentage.

The self-congratulatory smugness of the supposed anti-smugness here is something else.

As for Jim's "I understand quite well that opera, Italian opera especially, was in its time, at root entertainment of a type not too terribly dissimilar from a Broadway musical.. People came for the show, not the 'art', and much of the medium was constructed accordingly. Well, ok, it's only rock and roll, etc..." what then do we do when the opera -- as with much Mozart, Verdi, Handel, Gluck, Monteverdi, Wagner, etc. etc. -- is brimful of art, and art of a kind and quality that can't be found or is hard to find anywhere else in music? The history of music minus the history of opera would be a fairly weird, distorted thing. Jim is of course perfectly free to step away from it himself if it doesn't work for him, for the "Don't have the time or the taste for this" reasons he gives, and so is anyone else. But I and a whole lot of people who aren't at all culture vultures feel otherwise. And we haven't even mentioned ballet!

Edited September 8, 2007 by Larry Kart