Coltrane, Jazz aesthetics, etc.

[blue lake]

Rockefella -- was that Vincent Price?

[rockefeller center]

Rockefella -- was that Vincent Price?

John Cage.

It's from the film "Sound??"

Although Rahsaan Roland Kirk and John Cage never actually meet in this film (Cage's enigmatic questions about sound are intercut with some of Kirk's more ambitious experiments with it) these two very different musical iconoclasts share a similar vision of the boundless possibilities of music. Kirk plays three saxes at once, switches to flute, incorporates tapes of birds played backwards, and finally hands out whistles to his audience and encourages them to accompany him, "in the key of W, if you please." Cage, on the other hand, is preparing a work for musical bicycle with David Tudor and Merce Cunningham at the Seville Theatre in London. Cage meets Rahsaan's music in an echo chamber, and he ends his search for the sound of silence in his favorite spot -- the anechoic chamber -- where it turns out to be the uproar of "your nervous system in operation."

http://www.cinemaweb.com/rhapsody/other.html

[Dr. Rat]

Certainly, we don't even ourselves know and understand all the reasons we might like one piece and not another, which leaves room for others to help us discover any of that myriad of influences that makes up a negotiated individual ethics, but this is a very different proposition than you are laying forth so far.

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.

The point I am making is that of those who DO, the number of poseurs is pretty small, so claiming that they are really saying (to quote you, and your claim IS CLEARLY that they are lying: "I would like to be seen as someone who likes this sort of thing, but, truly, I neither understand nor enjoy this music" seems like particularly misguided way to rationalize the fact that others have a different aesthetic than your own.

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.)

By choosing an artist like Coltrane the real issue gets obscured, because there is a more fundamental challenge that goes unresolved by getting sidelined on the issue of the complexity of his playing and composition. That more fundamental issue is what allows non-musicians to appreciate and enjoy Coltrane (despite your skepticism of the same-- for instance, my son's two friends from across the street asked me about a song that happened to be Coltrane and spoke unprompted that it was "pretty cool"-- were they being disingenuous?).

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

Edited January 21, 2004 by WNMC

[Rimshot]

No offense intended here, but this is starting to sound like "so much academic BS". I hear these kind of rambligs all of the time when discussing things in the arts. Usually by historians, philosophers and critics; and seldom by artists unless they've had a few hits.

I am reminded of a story about famous 20th century realist painter, Edward Hopper. He was invited to speak at a civic center somewhere in a small American suburban community and the person introducing him was going on and on about how this one painting of his:"The House by the Railroad Tracks" was 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.

When Hopper began speaking he said: "Really all I was trying to do was an excersize in color to paint a picture of a white house without using any white paint."

Do artists over-analyze their works and conscoiusly and deliberately set out to create their works using standardized formats and detailed blueprints? Some do

some don't. Are they trying to make music that is pretty to your ears? Some do. Are they challenging you by asking, what if? Good ones do. Is Coltrane trying to make music that is pleasant to your ears? Sometimes. Is the judgement of what is GOOD in music only those things that are pleasant to your ears? God I hope not. I don't want to live on candy all of the time.

Is it fair to citicize someone else for liking something simply because you don't find it pleasing? No. In fact it's rude and arrogant. Is it possible for young people who are not musically educated to immediately appreciate the more adventurous music of John Coltrane?

Absolutely! At this point in time it is so interwoven into our collective consciousness from being exposed to it the last 40 or more years, that it is comfortable. It is inevitable that the most daring and adventurous art will eventually become part of our collective

sense of aesthetics. The abstract expressionist painters of the post WWII period were deliberately trying to shock

the world with an anti-art statement meant to prod them away from the comfort of the WPA period muralists. Now we are seeing abstract expressionist paintings decorating perfume bottles and repeats of them on wall paper.

All that being said, I like Coltrane's music because he takes me places.I never feel like he just phoned it in the way I get from a lot of others. I like a lot of other things too. I like Coltrane. Call me what you will.

[Lazaro Vega]

Rimshot, something from real life that speaks to the musical novice "getting" late Coltrane.

In May 2002, the Roscoe Mitchell Quintet with Fred Anderson played Grand Rapids, MI, at the historic (400 seat) Wealthy Street Theater. This is with Craig Taborn, piano; Harrison Bankhead, bass; and Vincent Davis, drums. Very much an extension of late Coltrane, an evolution of that music.

At intermission a well quaffed blond woman introduced herself 'as dragged to the concert by her husband,' who gave her the out of leaving at intermission, which she declined on grounds that having heard Gary Giddins talking about Trane's music in Ken Burns "Jazz," she was able to open herself up to Roscoe and Fred. Which is remarkable. This was a white housewife in her early 50's, mid-50's, who had enough money to be on a boat that night, but went along, and found herself excitedly talking about what was happening to her.

Randy Weston once told me that the world over if you bring people the best in music, poetry, dance, film -- whatever Art it is -- they'll respond. This woman was responding to an element of jazz evolving since 1965, if not well before, as it was new to her. There was a reason folks went out to hear Coltrane blowing his brains out right up 'till the end, and why those records sell just as well as anything else in his catalogue.

[Chrome]

At intermission a well quaffed blond woman

No offense intended, but this is a pretty funny slip ... or it might explain a lot!

(Check Webster's ... I think you were aiming for "well coiffed.")

[Jazzmoose]

At intermission a well quaffed blond woman

No offense intended, but this is a pretty funny slip ... or it might explain a lot!

(Check Webster's ... I think you were aiming for "well coiffed.")

With some music, it can't hurt...

[Dr. Rat]

No offense intended here, but this is starting to sound like "so much academic BS". I hear these kind of rambligs all of the time when discussing things in the arts. Usually by historians, philosophers and critics; and seldom by artists unless they've had a few hits.

I am reminded of a story about famous 20th century realist painter, Edward Hopper. He was invited to speak at a civic center somewhere in a small American suburban community and the person introducing him was going on and on about how this one painting of his:"The House by the Railroad Tracks" was 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.

When Hopper began speaking he said: "Really all I was trying to do was an excersize in color to paint a picture of a white house without using any white paint."

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

Edited January 21, 2004 by WNMC

[rockefeller center]

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.

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).

[Dr. Rat]

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.

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

[JSngry]

Dude, if your point is that there's a lot of B.S, in the music/art world, on all sides, you're preaching to the choir. It's a fact of life.

But like all facts of life, after one comes to terms with it, even if that coming to terms is at times difficult and shattters a lot of illusions (and it does, or at least it did for me), then one moves on and goes about one's business, aware of the B.S., but not letting it ruin an otherwise nice day. Kinda like billboards.

I strongly suspect that those who need to know will, sooner or later; those who don't never will; those who should but never do become professors, and that those who would like to know but don't really need to end up as critics. As a rule. Of course, this being reality and stuff, some people inevitably slip through somebody else's cracks and get more (or less) than what they expected. Messes up the stats and stuff, but that's life. Bleesings and curses, ya' never know which it is until it's too late!

I can't believe I'm responding to this. You seem so much like a troll, yet I don't think you are. It's just that your grasp of things is so CERTAIN and that you're correct as far as you go, which I personally think is just far enough to be dangerous, but then again, it's your life, so dance with the one who brung ya', and Bon Bal!

[rockefeller center]

The sardines and chocolate cakes: sandwiches?

Granola.

[Dr. Rat]

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

Edited January 21, 2004 by WNMC

[couw]

if people keep misunderstanding your implied messages, maybe you should work on your technique then

[Dr. Rat]

if people keep misunderstanding your implied messages, maybe you should work on your technique then

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!

[JSngry]

Well, the "troll" thing is due to how you take whatever is offered as rebuttal to your points and view it as either a single exception to your truth rather than a legitimate counter to it (which is not to say that you're wrong, just that there's room for being both right AND wrong about the same thing, depending on where and what you're sampling) that might represent a single valid example of an equally valid larger whole, or insisting that the person who offers the rebuttal is misinterpreting the reality of what it is they're presenting, which seems to me to be setting up a "no win" scenario for anybody who disagrees even partially with you. Intentionally or not, that's the net result.

But if I thought that you really were a troll, I'd not be having this conversation with you. I DO think that you're damn sure of yourself, and that's a good thing, to be sure. But I DO get the impression that you're not willing to entertain the possibility that your positions might prove less than 100% accurate when applied to ALL scenarios, and that, I feel, is possibly a case of the proverbial "having just enough knowledge to be dangerous". But I could be wrong. Maybe you just REALLY enjoy a rigorous debate and yield no ground unless absolutely necessary, even when you know there's validity in doing so. I'm getting old and tired, and that "style" of discussion doesn't much thrill me anymore, but I know those for which it does, and more power to them. Follow your bliss, as they say. But know that the number of doubts to be given the benefit of is finite for most people, and that giving it to others' input tends to increase the likelihood others giving it to yours.

In other words, I don't think you're a troll, I just think you're possibly a bit rigid and theoretical, but possibly not. But you do your fair share of begging the question your own self, if not "technically", then definitely in spirit.

But no big whoop - anybody who cops to a "high-pitched and squeaky" voice is all right with me!

Edited January 21, 2004 by JSngry

[Dr. Rat]

Well, the "troll" thing is due to how you take whatever is offered as rebuttal to your points and view it as either a single exception to your truth rather than a legitimate counter to it (which is not to say that you're wrong, just that there's room for being both right AND wrong about the same thing, depending on where and what you're sampling) that might represent a single valid example of an equally valid larger whole, or insisting that the person who offers the rebuttal is misinterpreting the reality of what it is they're presenting, which seems to me to be setting up a "no win" scenario for anybody who disagrees even partially with you. Intentionally or not, that's the net result.

But if I thought that you really were a troll, I'd not be having this conversation with you. I DO think that you're damn sure of yourself, and that's a good thing, to be sure. But I DO get the impression that you're not willing to entertain the possibility that your positions might prove less than 100% accurate when applied to ALL scenarios, and that, I feel, is possibly a case of the proverbial "having just enough knowledge to be dangerous". But I could be wrong. Maybe you just REALLY enjoy a rigorous debate and yield no ground unless absolutely necessary, even when you know there's validity in doing so. I'm getting old and tired, and that "style" of discussion doesn't much thrill me anymore, but I know those for which it does, and more power to them. Follow your bliss, as they say. But know that the number of doubts to be given the benefit of is finite for most people, and that giving it to others' input tends to increase the likelihood others giving it to yours

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

[Lazaro Vega]

Chrome -- good catch! LOL. I believe it was the writer who was "well quaffed" at 2:30 a.m. last night. Did that slip play into an aesthetics of Jungian possibilities? I think I'll leave that post unedited, despite my embarrassment. She may have been drinking at dinner before the concert, but the woman was stylish, which was the point.

With a little help, folks get the music: WNMC might try bringing some of that AACM music up to Traverse City and see what happens. I know Kahil El'Zabar's Ethnic Heritage Ensemble wants to play Valentine's Day Weekend in Michigan Feb. 13, 14, 15th). He has a 1/2 hour film called "The Last Set," too, that he co-produced with Harry Lennox which could come along. It would be a good Black History Month program. I mean, if you want to see how these aesthetics play out, put some money down, rent a hall, and in the old Hollywood cliché of Black problem solving, "put on a show!" Kahil's # (312) 543-4123. Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor are full up for concerts in this vein for February -- maybe ya'll and Jeff Haas could make this happen, and see what really goes down when an audience encounters post-Coltrane/AACM/'anything is possible' aesthetics in real life. Serious. Put down the pen and pick up the phone. Deeds not words. A call to arms. Traverse City here I come, with a doussin gouni on my knee.

[rockefeller center]

I am reminded of a story about famous 20th century realist painter, Edward Hopper. He was invited to speak at a civic center somewhere in a small American suburban community and the person introducing him was going on and on about how this one painting of his:"The House by the Railroad Tracks" was 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.

When Hopper began speaking he said: "Really all I was trying to do was an excersize in color to paint a picture of a white house without using any white paint."

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?

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.

Based on one misinterpretation you are excluding any of Hopper's accomplishments. Incredible.

[JSngry]

WNMC, you're cool, man, just switch to decaf for a while.

JUST KIDDING!!!

Seriously, you make quite a few valid (I think) points. But so do others. It's the lack of acknowledgement of the latter that might create reservations about your motives.

However, I do agree - there are some pepole who use music (and not just late-Trane, etc) as a "badge" of sorts, who like the idea of the music better than the music itself. I see them all the time when I play club dates. But there are those who really DO enjoy the music of late-Trane and that which followed in his wake, and they're not all musicians who understand the technical aspect of it, not by a long shot. I see them too. The phony and the real, you gots'em both.

I just don't worry too much about it. I got bills to pay just like everybody else, and I don't have to respect somebody's motives to welcome their patronage. Sitting down at the bar with them, now, that's an ENTIRELY different matter. Suffice it to say that there are some nights when I willingly sit by myself, and other nights when I'm a freakin' gadfly. It's a big world, and we seldom get it all at once.

[Dr. Rat]

I am reminded of a story about famous 20th century realist painter, Edward Hopper. He was invited to speak at a civic center somewhere in a small American suburban community and the person introducing him was going on and on about how this one painting of his:"The House by the Railroad Tracks" was 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.

When Hopper began speaking he said: "Really all I was trying to do was an excersize in color to paint a picture of a white house without using any white paint."

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?

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.

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

[JSngry]

So are people's positive misinterpretations of Hopper's work more valid than positive misinterpretations of Coltrane's late work, or should both be viewed suspectly?

[Dr. Rat]

With a little help, folks get the music: WNMC might try bringing some of that AACM music up to Traverse City and see what happens. I know Kahil El'Zabar's Ethnic Heritage Ensemble wants to play Valentine's Day Weekend in Michigan Feb. 13, 14, 15th). He has a 1/2 hour film called "The Last Set," too, that he co-produced with Harry Lennox which could come along. It would be a good Black History Month program. I mean, if you want to see how these aesthetics play out, put some money down, rent a hall, and in the old Hollywood cliché of Black problem solving, "put on a show!" Kahil's # (312) 543-4123. Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor are full up for concerts in this vein for February -- maybe ya'll and Jeff Haas could make this happen, and see what really goes down when an audience encounters post-Coltrane/AACM/'anything is possible' aesthetics in real life. Serious. Put down the pen and pick up the phone. Deeds not words. A call to arms. Traverse City here I come, with a doussin gouni on my knee.

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.

[Dr. Rat]

So are people's positive misinterpretations of Hopper's work more valid than positive misinterpretations of Coltrane's late work, or should both be viewed suspectly?

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

[Dr. Rat]

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.