Dr. Rat

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.

So why should anyone else be interested in Hopper's attempt to paint a white house without using white paint? While Hopper's explanation might be totally lacking in academic BS, it's also totally lacking in any reason to be interested in his work. So you are implying that because of one single person's misinterpretation (apparently not very well informed) in the introduction to Hopper's speech at a civic center somewhere in a small American suburban community, you are saying that all his work is nothing more than doing excercises in color to paint pictures of white houses without using any white paint. Him clarifying that this was just an exercise is a reason not to be interested in his work? If his fame was based on misinterpretations, why did he even bother to clarify that the painting was nothing more than an exercise? Cynisism? Based on one misinterpretation you are excluding any of Hopper's accomplishments. Incredible. No, what I am saying is that unless Hopper's work has some significance outside of his very narrow view he expresses in your anecdote, there's no reason for his work to be successful. The "mistaken" view is a lot more plausible that Hopper's, because people at large actually care about things like "the lonely feeling of rural Americans, the battle between the oncoming industrialization of America and the relics of the past standing nobly but threatened, etc.,etc." Whereas people by and large do not care so much about the possibilities of painting a white house without using white paint. So, I am saying that unless Hopper's work has significance outside of mere painting technicalia it ends up in a hotel room somewhere. But Hopper's work does, in fact, have social significance. Therefore we find it in museums, on the covers of books and other places which express our reverance for it. --eric

If I may self-diagnose a bit: I think what your pointing out is my tendency to be a rhetorical & theoretical counter-puncher. I didn't come into this discussion with too much in the way of a congealed take on the issue--just some interrelated ideas that seemed to go together, but I didn't know how. My hope in the discussion was to bounce some of these ideas off a knowledgable group of folks and see what happens. I'm not really doing the rigorous debate thing--my thinking adapts as I go along, though in ways that are tangential to the thing we might be talking about at the time. So some of the stuff I learned from your posts comes back as a (however distorted and possibly patronizing) idea of what it might be like to work as a musician: "I agree that artists do not often theroize their work. Warhol did, but most artists just seem to feel around, employing things that appeal to them hoping to find a way that will allow them to please themselves please others and make a living, if possible." (from a few posts back) And, if you wanted to bother, I'm sure you can see the backing and filling and adding I've had to do since I opened the discussion. I think too, I've been fighting against a tendency amongst the board members here to "read between the lines" too much (and read the actual lines themselves too little). To assign motives that I don't have, to suppose me something that I'm not (a besotten 18-year-old, a Stanley Crouch manque, a defensive neophyte, etc., etc.) So I've tended to address these misapprehensions rather than whatever productive points someone might write. Perhaps I am kind of thin-skinned! --eric

Perhaps you're right. And when I say perhaps, I by no means mean to imply that there is a possibility that you are wrong. No, just a space filler . . Unless of course there is someone else out there who thinks otherwise, I wouldn't want to offend their sensibilities either, so . . well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. And when I use the words "right" and "wrong," please know that I don't use them in any sort of absolutist sense, I am a relativist just like everyone else, I assure you, no offense intended to anyone whose hackles are raised by anyone seeming (even momentarily) to be certain of something. Sorry! I haven't figured out a way to parse "you're" yet. So obviously I'm a dullard. A waste of valuable bits. God help me!

On the troll thing: I have an idea of what you're talking about, but humor me: What do you specifically mean by this and why apply it to me? As to certainty, etc. I am an ink & paper fellow at heart I suppose. I rarely use stuff like emoticons and I find constant apologizing for having opinions and questions to be kind of tiresome, so I don't usually bother. Perhaps I'm bucking the trend but I think we'd be better off giving everyone the benefit of the doubt while reading rather than writing so as to head off every possible misinterpretation. If you think I'm abosolutist about any of this, I'm sorry you think so badly of me, but I think you are assigning the wrong tone of voice to what I write. (it ought to be high-pitched and squeaky) --eric

If it looks COOL, I'm interested in it. No matter what the artist's intention is or how he produced the stuff. Back to my meal - sardines+chocolate cakes (I can't justify why I like this combination). "Begging the Question" Begging the question is what one does in an argument when one assumes what one claims to be proving. An argument is a form of reasoning whereby one gives a reason or reasons in support of some claim. The reasons are called premises and the claim one tries to support with them is called the conclusion. If one's premises entail one's conclusion, and one's premises are questionable, one is said to beg the question. The following argument begs the question. We know God exists because we can see the perfect order of His Creation, an order which demonstrates supernatural intelligence in its design. The conclusion of this argument is that God exists. The premise assumes a Creator and Designer of the universe exists, i.e., that God exists. In this argument, the arguer should not be granted the assumption that the universe exhibits intelligent design, but should be made to provide support for that claim. From the skeptic's dictionary. All we've done is gone from the question "What constitutes interesting art" to What consititutes art that "looks cool?" The sardines and chocolate cakes: sandwiches? --eric

So why should anyone else be interested in Hopper's attempt to paint a white house without using white paint? While Hopper's explanation might be totally lacking in academic BS, it's also totally lacking in any reason to be interested in his work. It doesn't really matter what Hopper thought he was doing. What matters is what the work is. If it wasn't "an expression of the lonely feeling of rural Americans, the battle between the oncoming industrialization of America and the relics of the past standing nobly but threatened, etc.,etc." or something of that sort, no one would give a damn about it, Hopper wouldn't be famous, and his painting would probably be competently executed eye candy in a hotel room somewhere. Art, of course, is probably the best place to find the sort of "inauthentic" aesthetic appreciation that I'm talking about. Much of Andy Warhol's career makes sense as a satire of the art world. What he produced, whatever it was, was counted as art because he was one of the elect--he was an Artist! (cue angelic choir) But the Hopper point does bring up an interesting issue. I agree that artists do not often theroize their work. Warhol did, but most artists just seem to feel around, employing things that appeal to them hoping to find a way that will allow them to please themselves please others and make a living, if possible. So, the shape art eventually takes is highly context-dependent. My thinking is that jazz may have some serious problems because of this. Duke Ellington called himself a "man of the theatre." He came up playing speakeasies, having to please and win over crowds that didn't necessarily come to see him or anything like him, playing background music for "exotic" dances, without the cover of being considered to be art. While, of course, he chafed at this and longed for the more comfortable position of "artistic legitimacy," I think the need to create his art in the context of entertainment gave him a context in which he could create great work. I don't think today's "jazz musician context" is nearly as fertile. I think today society has a rather sycophantic attitude toward artists (what Warhol was sending up). Any jazz musician who plays regularly for money is a junior grade (A)rtist. Anyone on a major label is a full-fledged Artist. If people are dissatisfied with what gets played, they're a lot more likely to disappear that to challenge (who wnats to get called a philistine?). Jazz is left with a smaller and smaller politely admiring audience. The greatest embarassment for a jazz musician is not an attempt at art that fails (perhaps this is what we've come to expect), but an attempt at enetertainment that fails. Instead of playing to diverse crowds of people with widely differing expectations, jazz artsists today get to play in fixed-seat art centers where listeners are strapped in and forced to listen like poor Alex in the Clockwork Orange. Or they play clubs where the music they play is the central theme of the evening (regardless of whether people actually pay attention). This isn't necessarily an indictment of the artists themselves, but rather of the use they are put to by society at large and the increasingly sterile artistic context we're left with. This is sort of riffing on a Crouch/Murray theme, but neither of them is a complete moron. They can be learned from. Just as Josef Goebbels can be learned from (Fox has!). --eric

I think we are pretty much in agreement on this, except that a) I don't have as much confidence in the fact/value distinction as you seem to; and B) I wouldn't radically privilige someone's knowledge of their aesthetic experience just because that person is the one experiencing it. I admit, this may sound weird, but the ability to criticize someone's "experience" is essential to entire fields of study--psychology, studies of ideology, aesthetics, etc. That people may be mistaken as to their own motives I think we ought to take as a given. The fact that people have different aesthetic opinions I'd also take as a given. I'm not neccessarily interested in resolving whatever contradictions or complications or goodness that might come out of that. There is a third possibility: these folks think they are telling the truth but they actually aren't (therefore they aren't lying, because lying implies intent not just saying that which is false, and they aren't telling the truth either.) My idea is that genuine aesthetic response is possible (as McDonough points out, the ancient Sumerians were messing around with some of the same musical realtionship that we are playing around with--I think there is an argument to be made that there are some natural aesthetic responses to musical experiences, though I wouldn't follow McDomough implication: that therefore we ought to stick to manipulating the "conventional" musical relationships). I would also acknowledge that positive aesthetic responses are possible to Coltrane Live in Tokyo, though I've never had any. (This by the way doesn't trouble me.) But I would say to the extent that Coltrane's work is deeply complex, and to the extent that a great deal of context that may be necessary to appreciate it, to this extent we ought to be skeptical of claims of positive reception. I think JSngy gave us an excellent sketch of (one portion of?) his aesthetic reaction to Coltrane, which I beleive implicitly. But, I suspect a lot of (not all, we have to provide for people with great natural facility for music) uneducated positive responses to Coltrane of being motivated socially as I've described earlier or by "shallow as a schoolyard puddle" motives: "God that's raucus!! And it's consdiered to be art! Thrash with official validation, that's for me now that I'm old enough to look undignified in the moshpit." If this was a particularly "difficult" piece of Coltrane's that the kids across the street thought was cool, I'd suspect "shallow as a schoolyard puddle motives." --eric

What is "proper" appreciation? I can kill a flower just by looking at it, but I love them anyway. Forget about me actually raising one, though. Ugly. Pure-D UGLY! My wife, otoh, has the proverbial green thumb, but I doubt that she knows a pistil from a stamen, which I do. So who's got the "proper" appreciation of THIS form of life? I think we both do, in our own way, but SHE'S the one who needs to have the garden. Even though we both can derive genuine satisfaction from it, it is no doubt a "different" satisfaction that we each receive. It's the same w/Trane. People DO appreciate it. Why they do is a question with many different answers, I'm sure, and some of them would include the "I say I like it becasue I'd like to like it type". But you're right -to assume that all, or even most, would fall into this category IS smug, and moreso than perhaps you realize. Nothing personal, honestly, but this kind of thing (why do other people REALLY like what they say they like and do they in fact REALLY like it) seems to concern you much more than it does me. I will, for now anyway, respectfully (which, yes, is a change from my previous position) withdraw from the discussion, because I don't think that I will ever have "answers" to the questions you raise. Do you talk to many experienced musicians and/or many highly-experienced, veteran listeners, or do you just talk just to relatively novice-level "fans"? Your sampling might be severely skewered. And honestly, there'a vaguely voyeuristic quality to the whole question that makes me feel slightly (and undefinably) uncomfortable. But that's just me. I will say this though - thinking about art and jazz and where they're going never actually GOT them anywhere. It's the DOing that gets the GOing accomplished, and that's a process that will never be perfect until the going gets to where it needed to get, at which point the whole thing's over, and it's time for the next trip to begin. "Perfection" is an end, literally, not a process. Have a nice day, and perhaps some other time we can continue. That's cool. Just to answer your parting questions: I've had the opportunity to talk to both musicians and fans on this general topic, but have found musicians generally aren't particularly comfortable talking about aesthetics (this voyeuristic feeling you get? I don't know). What I do get from musicians seems to lend credence to the esoterism argument: they like Coltrane becasue he works at a pretty exalted level of technical sophistication which they can understand and appreciate in much the same manner as you describe yourself appreciating him earlier. By an large, though, I don't find that musicians have a very good idea of why non-musicians ought to like Coltrane, are vaguely resentful when they do not, and are pretty unreflective in putting forward Coltrane-influenced ideas of "progress" and "pushing limits" as aesthetic standards for younger performers. Fans, on the other hand, seem to like him for a variety of reasons that I've heard, for many he seems to be conceived as vicarious primal scream therapy or as an example of the absolute outer limits, and admirable as such. On thinking/doing/going: How does one know if one is doing the wrong thing and going in the wrong direction if someone isn't thinking? PT Barnum once said nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. In a way, an increadibly arrogant smug statement. But one with an important grain of truth to it, I'd say. That grain of truth make me think that something seeming arrogant or smug is a bad reason for thinking it untrue.