Simon Weil

Sure it has. Because the atmosphere we live in, the intellectual atmosphere anyway, is infused by attacks on the very conception of truth. Right, and the social atmosphere right now is, as above, infused by these attacks on the very 'project of finding "truth."' And, indeed, by putting "truth" in inverted commas, you yourself do something very representative of the social context of now. Au contraire, truth is out there and what you write might be truth, if you get lucky and are sufficiently competent and all that. And what I write is intended to be right, the truth. It may never rise above an interpretation, but damn I'm going to be displeased if that's all it is - or, in fact, that's what it mostly is. Or perhaps it's just going to be entirely interpretation - i.e. complete drivel. But I want to get it right. In the area I know about, being "a productive historian" gets you peer acceptance. If, as now, society doubts that there is such a thing as truth, that effectively undermines the search for truth. After all, there might not be such a thing as truth, so why bother. People decide, then, that they might just as well write their bullshit, sorry interpretation - because, as there's no truth, it's all going to be interpretation anyway. In that circumstance, the fact that one is writing tendentiously - and knowing that one is doing so - might in fact be seen to be a desirable form of honesty. For as there is no such thing as truth, one is being honest with oneself only when one knows one is lying. I think returning to a dedication to truth will allow us to absorb the useful elements of Post-Modernism, of which there are many, and lose the tendency to tendentiousness (above) that I see flowing from a questioning of the concept of truth. Speaking as a guy who loves deconstructing texts. Simon Weil

Absolutely (and I agree about Chris). The basic emphasis has to be on getting it right. That surely has to be one's prime discipline as a writer. And please don't anybody give me that Post-Modern drivel about there is no such thing as truth and everyone's point of view is valid and yada, yada, yada. And it does sound like turf wars, this thing (sorry Brownie). Simon Weil

It did sound a bit like that to me, though not exactly seriously meant. You know, 21st Century man's take on Christianity. It was "if you don't go through him" that made me go there, I think - The idea of going through provider x at the expense of all others, brought up Gates. (And I'm using a cross, of all things to illustrate my point). I (the atheist) was gently tweaking you (hopefully gentle, anyway.). Simon Weil

You're making him sound like a precursor of Bill Gates. Kind of spiritual monopoly capitalism or something. We need a law suit. Simon Weil

I think "Christ" means Messiah, so The Christ means the actual real Messiah, waited for by the Jews for centuries rather than one of the numerous false ones. Jesus is a variant on a common Jewish name, I think. Simon Weil

Gibson doesn't empathise with Jews at all. That's the message, to me, of his comments about the Holocaust recently. So then he's doing this subject which, over the centuries, has proved massively inflammatory of Jew-hate. No Jew in his right mind would not be concerned. Whether it has any long-lasting effect on antisemitism, I doubt. It doesn't feel to me like that, though I can't put my finger on why exactly. The line about "His blood be upon us" is still in the movie (in Aramaic), it just doesn't get translated. Like someone implied, the movie seems to be "Life of Brian" upside down. Instead of Life of Brian, Death of God. I predict long-lasting boredom. Simon Weil

Or maybe it's just onomatopoeia. Or both...Here's something I wrote in 1999: Have fun. Simon Weil

Well, nibble at a statue (unless it's made of something kind of edible) and you won't do your teeth any good. But... You're talking about his public presentation, his style - which was kind of outlaw chic, in a certain kind of way. Doubtless he knew what he was doing when he presented himself as one finger in the eyes of the whites. He could be nasty - in his treatment of the audiences and whatever - but I imagine he understood that a certain amount of rejection by him only made him more attractive, "dangerous". If you were going to say that his style pulled people in, but you don't hear anything in his music, that would be fine. It would just be a variant on "all style, no substance". But actually you said his style pulls people in and you're appalled by his playing. So I'm looking for an element of his personal style which appals some people - and wondering if you're picking that up in the music. "So What", as a title just about sums up the contemptuous attitude Miles was capable of. But then we'd be back to Miles and his personal demons. Yeah...So What...And...Thanks, Ubu. Simon Weil

I wasn't chewing. Just gently nibbling. Yeah, well, nibbling, Nibelung. I mean the guy was a romantic - kind of descending into an abyss, so how I can be over-Romatic in my take on him I ain't sure. Not to beat you over the head with this, force you into anything you don't want to do, but if you check out my linked article you'll find plenty of reason to think Miles did look at his fusion music anyway as reflective of the times. Yours Nibelungingly (aka overanalytically), Simon Weil

Available in "Setting the Tempo, Fifty Years of Great Jazz Liner Notes" ed. Tom Piazza. OOP and I'm not a big fan of Piazza's take on Jazz, but if you want sleevenotes... Simon Weil

Or maybe he was just making music. In other words, I can understand where you're coming from, but I find your response both overly romantic and overly analytical. Well, here's your opportunity to really chew me out, then. And, plug, plug, don't miss the following articles. Simon Weil

I think this is the closest to what I feel, except to point out there were also a whole lot of demons in the outside world when he was performing and I think they get inside his music and define it to a certain extent. I mean the whole of the 65-68 quartet sounds to me like he's going to hell, and the 70s fusion stuff sounds like he is in hell. I see that as paralleling what was going on in Society at the time. The seventies stuff I was listening to at the time, and couldn't find a place to land on, as it were. But then I couldn't really work out the 70s, at the time. I used to do lights with this crummy group and we all used to sit round listening to rock and bits of Jazz and whatever. Bitches Brew was phenomenal at the time and you just had to listen to that. The bass player in this group, who was indeed crummy, said once that he liked all the players on BB except Miles. And I don't know, I could see where he was coming from - but then again I thought there was something in it, big, disturbing, that I couldn't quite grasp. I don't listen to Jazz like your supposed to, following the lines, digging the tone, listening to the interplay. Primarily I hear the overall sense (or an overall sense) to the music. And just all Miles' music pre 80s gives me a sense of substantial content. Because of that specific questions I might have on the lines of "is Miles is messing up here?" are overriden/subsumed by the feeling that he was saying something and it was substantial. I hasten to add that once I listen for a while then I do start to get into the tone etc. Simon Weil

Happy birthday oh person with the same name as me. And the same age! Simon Weil

Un peu patronising. N'est ce pas? Simon Weil Oh, I wouln't say it in front of him. But, yes I have some serious misgivings about his whole schtick. Patronizing may be about the best I can manage at the moment: it won't last, I'll either be acknowledging his superiority or bitching at him like an equal soon enough. --eric It's just that the guy is bigger than I am - in terms of talent, achievement etc. Way bigger. And I don't think you're going to be much bigger than I am. So, to me, the idea of you patronising him is daft. I think you have the knack of getting people angry, though. Simon Weil

Un peu patronising. N'est ce pas? Simon Weil

Well, you're putting him in a box. On my small (email) experience of the man, he was kind of absent-minded. But he also demonstrated a pretty acute awareness of the risks of interviews - and also the ability to get angry to achieve a result. This is not what fools, holy or otherwise, do. The guy's a real life, large-scale, person. Doesn't fit in a box. Simon Weil

I think this thread is being circled by sharks who scent blood in the water. Yeah, free lunch for sharks... Simon Weil

I find all the negative stuff engendered by this issue kind of dismaying. It's a bit like watching a Wynton war without reference to music at all. You know nobody is helped by this stuff beyond a certain point. There are no positive conclusions to be drawn, just more negative feelings. God this is painful... Simon Weil

From my perspective there is a kind of lack of bounds to Organissimo posters when they go to AAJ and start talking about Organissimo. People don't seem aware that, if the main reason they go to AAJ is that Organissimo is down and all they do at AAJ is talk about where they come from, it shows considerable disrespect. In a certain respect I think people are blind to that and the last time it happened it was just too much in your face even for me, who takes these things with a pinch of salt. To me, guys here should still have the option of going to AAJ and mentioning Organissimo (as this is clearly on people's minds), but be sure to put something in as well as taking something out. I mean, ask yourself how you would feel if someone turned up at your door, went inside, sat down and completely ignored the host (you) talking only about how great some other host is. I do think Mike needed to make some sort of change, but not this one. Simon Weil

It's hard for me to answer this, inasmuch as my flags are so determined by my experience as a Jew. That is to say I am totally, utterly and completely aware all the time just how vicious these sorts of ideas can get. I don't believe that experience is really transferable, but what you can do is, maybe, read books by more intellectually competent people also rooted in that experience. And they can give you flags more rooted in purely intellectual argument - i.e. something that ought to transfer. There's a book Three Critics of the Enlightenment: Vico, Hamann, Herder by Isiah Berlin which is a good place to start. He is a legitimate, sound critic - i.e. if he says there's a problem, there probably is a problem. In some respects, I don't like his stuff, but if you want flags... But I would say to you, there is no substitute for your flags. Simon Weil

I think Joyce/Ulysses is hell to get into. I ended up buying a book on tape and listening to it while I did the dishes (you may well ask why I felt compelled to get into it in the first place, but anyway...Basically I felt I had to have some grasp of it to have a grasp on modern literature...). And that kind of worked. I ended up with an idea of the story, plus the sound of it is so important. I mean, it's really a book that exists to be spoken. In that way, it's like late Coltrane - in which sound is also vital. This is a brilliant and rich book, I can see that now, even if I don't personally feel able to put the effort into it to decode it right now. There's a bit of criticism somewhere where the guy says Joyce sent Ulysses out in the world basically to eat it. That's what it's like. You could just get lost in that book, I think. Simon Weil

It might have been Deep. Or other stuff. He runs his own list and website, book out...Speaking for myself, I thought it would get worse and didn't post from around then for a while. Dunno... Simon Weil

He turns up on rec.music.bluenote occasionally (I think yesterday, for example). Simon Weil

The BNboard just got too successful - It became really a premier place to post on the net - so that, like Jim says, it needed more moderation to remain healthy. It also, doubtless, proliferated well beyond Bluenote's initial intent - which was to market their product. From the fan's perspective this was good and excellent. But what is good an excellent to a fan ain't necessarily good and excellent to a record company executive. Could be largely a waste of corporate time. I mean, why employ more moderators to enforce board standards if the board is largely talking about non-Bluenote related things? To me that's the hard, boring, financially-based reality of it. So, yes, in that narrow sense, we killed the bluenote board. There was plenty of nasty stuff. And it never should have been there. But, the reality is that, without moderation, all Jazz discussion groups suffer from destructive people and/or postings. By the time Bluenote pulled the plug, it had clearly gone too far there. But one still has to deal with the reality of the necessity of moderation on Jazz groups. To me, bluenote just lost interest in that board. When they pulled Bo and replaced him with, well nobody really, the writing was on the wall. And it was for the board in general. I just have no interest in Bluenote Europe's board at all. Simon Weil

I think Tim Berne tried for a long time to put this out on Screwgun (his record label). He did put out Hemphill's Blue Boye. But, in the end, whoever owns the masters turned him down. He was really torn up about it apparently, because, indeed Hemphill was absolutely central to him coming into the music. I think (from memory) Berne went to Anthony Braxton for a lesson - who put him onto Hemphill. And then Hemphill was basically Berne's "master" while he was growing up Jazzwise. Berne says a lot of it wasn't the music, the lessons were sort of about everything. I think he found Hemphill an inspiring figure in all sorts of ways. Hemphill has this elegant blues vibe and an avant-garde sensibility to go with it. In a way, I see him the tradition of "lighter" blues players like Johnny Hodges than the more full-throated roar of r+b derived guys. He seemed like a true intellectual. Like the path not taken, in that respect, in Jazz. Simon Weil