Hi skip h:
I'm very moved with your feelings about the music in your childhood!
I'm very identified with your points of view...
Cheers
Roberto
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:06:49 -0700
> Subject: Re: style,cliche & repetition
> From: skip Heller <velaires(a)earthlink.net>
> To: Herb Levy <herb(a)eskimo.com>,
> <zorn-list(a)mailman.xmission.com>
>
> Herb makes a great number of interesting points.
>
> Peronsally, I think performers are doomed to repeating themselves
> (ourselves). We're limited by all sorts of things -- personnel,
equipment,
> our own technical limitations, the fact that you've basically got twelve
> primary notes to manipulate. And the community becomes limited by how
many
> performers it is possible for them to hear, the conditions under which
they
> hear music, and so forth. You go in knowing that.
>
> The sensitivity of audiences and musicians is subject to similar problems.
> Made even more pronounced by the fact that audiences generally like
musical
> comfort food and musicians like to do things they know their audience will
> enjoy. After awhile, the process gets kind of cynical. The performers
know
> how to push buttons, the audience knows where to get their candy. Fair
> enough. I spend 16 bucks on a record, I want a certain level of quality.
>
> But there's another imperative there, too. When an artist really does
> what's in his heart, without either trying break free of the stylistic
> limitations he has, and at the same time pushing that style someplace
else,
> the effect is often magical. The example of this I like to trot out is
Mose
> Allison. He's eveolved from a quirky blues singer into a guy whose piano
> style includes blues, Ives, and Bartok. Sadly, no record company will let
> him make an instrumental record. So he's found a way to take these insane
> solos on vocal tunes, and, at age 76 (or thereabouts), he's become a more
> challenging performer than he ever was at 35.
>
> There are very few few musicians who can move through different styles and
> transform their playing totally in the face of each context. Those who
can
> are generally journeymen who never had much of a personal voice.
>
> But there is definitely such a thing as guys who crank it out for money
and
> glory. Obviously, Cecil Taylor is not one of these. It's fair to say
King
> Crimson have, at ceratin times, have been. And, as for the Rolling
Stones,
> let's just say their appearance on BEVERLY HILLS 90210 spoke volumes.
>
> In the case of bands like the Stones, who have come to embody something
less
> than artistic, one has a right to get pissed off at $125 concert tickets.
>
> As for the naive romance of wanting something fresh every time you open
the
> box, I agree. It's almost childlike to wish that.
>
> But, as long as the cause of music is to fascinate, excite, and provoke,
the
> audience should be allowed the right to that feeling of anticipation every
> time he/she opens a new record and gets ready to hear it.
>
> When I was a kid, LP's were a serious consideration. At $6 a throw, which
> was two wks pay in my neighborhood, you were hanging a lot on that
purchase.
> I remember buying a record, having the shrink-wrap off it before I even
got
> out of the shopping center, and studying the cover all the way home (props
> to Cal Schenkel, for cramming about three hours worth of graphics into the
> avg Zappa pkg). Then, after you'd read the lyric sheet, studied the
> personnel, checked out the clothes and haircuts, took note as to who was
> thanked, you finally got the thing home, and you made sure your shakedown
> listen was not going to be interrupted. Then the music would come on, and
> you'd go on that journey with Joni, Frank, Waler & Donald, or whomever.
And
> it was a vital, magic thing. Because you knew -- of certain artists --
that
> yes, their style was personal to them, but you also knew they were trying
to
> push it to the next place, and that was as germane to the $6 purchase as
the
> songs themselves. You wanted to know where "next" was.
>
> As I've gotten older, I've really clung to those notions. The punk rock
> days only deepened my feelings that records should do that (anyone else
> remember hearing FLOWERS OF ROMANCE the first time? Or "Christine" by
> Siouxsie?). In this world, I feel that way whenever Dave Douglas, Ellery
> Eskelin, Arto, or Don byron make new records (although Don hasn't made
> anything I've been crazy for in some time -- maybe he's the Dylan figure).
> I used to feel that way about Frisell (maybe he's Hendrix and the group
with
> Joey was the Experience and he's at Band Of Gypsies).
>
> This seems to be going all over the place, but I think that if an artist
is
> really doing his job for his audience -- and the minute you take money to
do
> a job, you have an obligation to service your clientele --he's gotta
really
> do it because he's really got something worth selling. You can't do it
just
> for the money, the visibility, or the "well, I've got to have a record out
> this year". The audience already cares about certain artists. I think if
> an artist really cares -- not just to the point of trying to keep them
> pleased, but really keeping them nourished -- he'll be compelling every
time
> out, even if the record misses the mark, because there's some blood up in
> the music.
>
> Yes, it's romantic to think that. But this is coming from the kid who
saved
> up a whole month to buy DON JUAN'S WRECKLESS DAUGHTER, who mowed two lawns
> to buy MINGUS, and who spent all his brithday money on BEFORE THE FLOOD.
I
> still haven't forgotten the power of feeling like part of the audience for
> those records.
>
> skip h
>
>
>
