I think the new SY record is pretty good. It is indeed rather song-based but still the SY sound is strongly present, and there is a decent amount of noise also. Especially "Karen revisited" is very very good. For starting on their discography, I would consider going back chronologically a good approach. However, it would take some time for one to get to SISTER and EVOL and that is a pitty! Therefore maybe starting from the new album, NYC ghosts and flowers and then move back to SISTER and EVOL is a good idea! Then there will be time to go through the rest. Not to forget the essential SYR series... Actually I had the chance to see them live last night. Last year I thought was the best of their shows that I had seen, so I was really looking forward to the new appearence. However, it didn't quite live up to my expectations. The set included a great deal of Murray street, which was quite fine with me, but they didnt really take off. Unfortunately, even though MS has been out 2 weeks already, the public had not done its homework. Therefore it remained rather cool and only woke up at the encores... Actually if I was SY I wouldnt come out on stage for an encore. It was strange to see Kim Gordon, a 35+ lady, jumping and dancing and all the kids underneath looking calmly at her... manolis
"35-plus" is right... like our boy Zorn, Kim is 49... Admiration abounds (though in my case it has not yet extended to the new disc...). Steve Smith ssmith36@sprynet.com NP - Patton/Mori/Zorn, "Edema," 'Hemophiliac' (Tzadik) -----Original Message----- From: zorn-list-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:zorn-list-admin@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Emmanouil Papagiannakis It was strange to see Kim Gordon, a 35+ lady, jumping and dancing and all the kids underneath looking calmly at her...
Has anyone driven to St. Arkansas? www.projex.demon.co.uk/stark.html
on 6/28/02 8:05 AM, Steve Smith at ssmith36@sprynet.com wrote:
"35-plus" is right... like our boy Zorn, Kim is 49...
Admiration abounds (though in my case it has not yet extended to the new disc...).
Steve Smith ssmith36@sprynet.com
So much for "hope I die before I get old". SY are going to have an interesting time of getting older, moreso than most bands. On the other hand, has anyone in history in any medium ever aged LESS gracefully than the Rolling Stones while still getting respect? I don't understand the rock/image biz. skip h np: IT'S MONKS TIME
An irony to see this phrase the day the papers are full of John Entwistle's obit... Steve Smith ssmith36@sprynet.com NP - Roger Kleier, "We Speak of Deep Night," 'Deep Night, Deep Autumn' (Starkland) -----Original Message----- From: skip Heller [mailto:velaires@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 11:40 AM So much for "hope I die before I get old".
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:39:46 -0700 skip Heller wrote:
SY are going to have an interesting time of getting older, moreso than most bands. On the other hand, has anyone in history in any medium ever aged LESS gracefully than the Rolling Stones while still getting respect?
I don't understand the rock/image biz.
I think that the reason is quite simple: They have given us so much that we can allow them to get older and irrelevant (creatively speaking) and still respect them (without expecting any breakthrough with each record). In short, we like them despite themselves :-). The problem that you are raising would make sense if they had not done anything. I don't care what the Stones have been doing in the past 20 years, but for what they did in the '60s and '70s, they deserve all my respect (which I am sure they can live without :-). I still listen to them (old stuff) and often hum one of their songs. In short, that are still actual... with their old stuff. Since you are talking about the Stones, don't you feel that the improv scene is also similar (in its uncritical attitude toward the icons): we keep on raving about people who produced their breakthrough 30-40 years ago (Taylor, Brotzmann, Bailey, Parker, Coleman, etc). Yes, we don't throw our underwears at them, but is the infatuation so different? And even when we are not talking about these gods, it looks like we are looking for them behind almost 90% of the actual improv production. Patrice.
Speak for yourself! Steve Smith ssmith36@sprynet.com -----Original Message----- From: Patrice L. Roussel [mailto:proussel@ichips.intel.com] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 12:07 PM Yes, we don't throw our underwears at them, but is the infatuation so different?
This sort of thing always makes me wonder and think about the following things, not that I really have any answers or anything... Is any musician / composer ever creatively relevant (or whatever we want to call it) for their whole career? (Excepting those who quit or die young) Why do some people (not Patrice, obviously) think that an artist continuing to produce art somehow changes (or tarnishes even?) their previous work? Neil Young made a bunch of very different albums in the 80s, many of which didn't work so well, but that doesn't make 'Everyone Knows This is Nowhere' any less good. Should we expect Brotzmann, Parker, et al to do anything different really? Why? It's true that when they started they were breaking new ground and that "free-jazz" is as solidified of a genre as hard-bop or trad or whatever, but so what? Dizzy Gillespie did his thing his whole life, why should it be different for Evan Parker or Mick Jagger? Can't we just say Brotzmann is a great free-jazz stylist and his style is popular? Rob Quoting "Patrice L. Roussel" <proussel@ichips.intel.com>:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:39:46 -0700 skip Heller wrote:
SY are going to have an interesting time of getting older, moreso than
most
bands. On the other hand, has anyone in history in any medium ever aged LESS gracefully than the Rolling Stones while still getting respect?
The problem that you are raising would make sense if they had not done anything. I don't care what the Stones have been doing in the past 20 years, but for what they did in the '60s and '70s, they deserve all my respect (which I am sure they can live without :-). I still listen to them (old stuff) and often hum one of their songs. In short, that are still actual... with their old stuff.
Since you are talking about the Stones, don't you feel that the improv scene is also similar (in its uncritical attitude toward the icons): we keep on raving about people who produced their breakthrough 30-40 years ago (Taylor, Brotzmann, Bailey, Parker, Coleman, etc). Yes, we don't throw our underwears at them, but is the infatuation so different? And even when we are not talking about these gods, it looks like we are looking for them behind almost 90% of the actual improv production.
Patrice.
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:22:36 -0500 Robert Pleshar wrote:
Should we expect Brotzmann, Parker, et al to do anything different really? Why? It's true that when they started they were breaking new ground and that "free-jazz" is as solidified of a genre as hard-bop or trad or whatever, but so what? Dizzy Gillespie did his thing his whole life, why should it be different for Evan Parker or Mick Jagger? Can't we just say Brotzmann is a great free-jazz stylist and his style is popular?
In fact, the artists themselves are quite reluctant to speak of breakthroughs (I am thinking of the ones who have been around for a while). It is usually the fans/reviewers who keep on bringing that (there was a time when it was impossible to read a review of a William Parker record without the mention that he was pushing the limits even further...). As if it was shameful to listen to music that does not shutter previous work :-). The irony is that putting TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LUNGS on a turntable makes you wonder how much improv has really pushed the limits in the past 30 years... It is almost as if everything was already there with this 1970 LP. Patrice.
on 6/28/02 9:22 AM, Robert Pleshar at rpleshar@midway.uchicago.edu wrote:
This sort of thing always makes me wonder and think about the following things, not that I really have any answers or anything...
Is any musician / composer ever creatively relevant (or whatever we want to call it) for their whole career? (Excepting those who quit or die young)
Some would say Miles Davis, but I'm not sure I would. The Cyndi Lauper cover was a bad choice (espec since he was trying out some better tunes, like "Deja Vu" and "She's Out Of My Life"). Plus, Sting is always a bad sign. Look at his impact on Ivan Lins, Joe Henderson, Zappa... I think, tho, Glenn Gould was relevant his whole career, as was Leonard bernstein, John Hartford, Merle haggard, Rahsaan Roland Kirk, Cannonball Adderley, Sun Ra, Public Enemy, and a scant few others. The numbers aren't all that encouraging, tho.
Why do some people (not Patrice, obviously) think that an artist continuing to produce art somehow changes (or tarnishes even?) their previous work? Neil Young made a bunch of very different albums in the 80s, many of which didn't work so well, but that doesn't make 'Everyone Knows This is Nowhere' any less good.
Good example from both perspectives. Look at HARVEST MOON. I think that definitely induced a re-examination of HARVEST as to what the artist thought it was. I don't know if it changes the fact that something is good, but it may make you think at just what did it succeed.
Should we expect Brotzmann, Parker, et al to do anything different really? Why? It's true that when they started they were breaking new ground and that "free-jazz" is as solidified of a genre as hard-bop or trad or whatever, but so what? Dizzy Gillespie did his thing his whole life, why should it be different for Evan Parker or Mick Jagger?
Dizzy wasn't separating himself from the mainstream, so he was spared that sort of judgement. What you say and how you present yourself has a lot to do with how people view your work.
Can't we just say Brotzmann is a great free-jazz stylist and his style is popular?
If he would allow people to leave it at that, yes. But look at all the shit people are saying about Bailey playing standards. The avant-garde community is full of people analyzing things past where just about any other community would take it, no? You think Brotzman is going to do anything without an in-depth explanation? skip h NP: Bob Dylan, BRINGING IT ALL BACK HOME
I think we can all realize that while free-jazz or whatever we want to call it is still separated from the mainstream, it's pretty much just a different style (at least by this point) - a less popular one, but really just another style. Does Brotzmann really have in-depth explanations for everything or are you talking about certain portions of his audience? I must say I have remained blissfully unaware of any of Brotzmann's explanations of his music. I think we should take things musicians say about their music with a hunk of salt, though. Often they're pressed into explanations for things that make better sense when heard as music then as words. I guess that's why music is made in the first place... Rob Quoting skip Heller <velaires@earthlink.net>:
on 6/28/02 9:22 AM, Robert Pleshar at rpleshar@midway.uchicago.edu wrote:
Should we expect Brotzmann, Parker, et al to do anything different really? Why? It's true that when they started they were breaking new ground and that "free-jazz" is as solidified of a genre as hard-bop or trad or whatever, but so what? Dizzy Gillespie did his thing his whole life, why should it be different for Evan Parker or Mick Jagger?
Dizzy wasn't separating himself from the mainstream, so he was spared that sort of judgement. What you say and how you present yourself has a lot to do with how people view your work.
Can't we just say Brotzmann is a great free-jazz stylist and his style is popular?
If he would allow people to leave it at that, yes. But look at all the shit people are saying about Bailey playing standards. The avant-garde community is full of people analyzing things past where just about any other community would take it, no? You think Brotzman is going to do anything without an in-depth explanation?
on 6/28/02 11:42 AM, Robert Pleshar at rpleshar@midway.uchicago.edu wrote:
I think we can all realize that while free-jazz or whatever we want to call it is still separated from the mainstream, it's pretty much just a different style (at least by this point) - a less popular one, but really just another style.
I agree, except that the avant-garde has really done a lot of its own legwork to keep it out of the mainstream. Which I don't think is automatically good.
Does Brotzmann really have in-depth explanations for everything or are you talking about certain portions of his audience?
A bit of both, to be fair. sh
on 6/28/02 9:06 AM, Patrice L. Roussel at proussel@ichips.intel.com wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:39:46 -0700 skip Heller wrote:
SY are going to have an interesting time of getting older, moreso than most bands. On the other hand, has anyone in history in any medium ever aged LESS gracefully than the Rolling Stones while still getting respect?
I don't understand the rock/image biz.
I think that the reason is quite simple:
They have given us so much that we can allow them to get older and irrelevant (creatively speaking) and still respect them (without expecting any breakthrough with each record).
In short, we like them despite themselves :-).
The problem that you are raising would make sense if they had not done anything. I don't care what the Stones have been doing in the past 20 years, but for what they did in the '60s and '70s, they deserve all my respect (which I am sure they can live without :-). I still listen to them (old stuff) and often hum one of their songs. In short, that are still actual... with their old stuff.
I think that, but I also think they're disrespecting the audience and legacy that that music built by putting out crap under the Rolling Stones brand name. You want the quality to go in before the name goes on. Instead, you get the name without the quality.
Since you are talking about the Stones, don't you feel that the improv scene is also similar (in its uncritical attitude toward the icons): we keep on raving about people who produced their breakthrough 30-40 years ago (Taylor, Brotzmann, Bailey, Parker, Coleman, etc). Yes, we don't throw our underwears at them, but is the infatuation so different? And even when we are not talking about these gods, it looks like we are looking for them behind almost 90% of the actual improv production.
I agree, and I think it's much the same as rock star adulation. You have guys who are less musicians that icons of a cause. And I prefer my musicians be people whose music I like rather than people whose music I used to like but whose efforts I respect (Bill frisell, I'm talking to YOU). Also, I think calling people "Gods" is silly. I have friends who are regarded as Gods in some quarters, and it hasn't helped them a damn bit. if anything, it makes them insulate themselves, and that's no fun for anyone (turns going to a Laker game into a paramilitary operation). Last I heard, Cecil Taylor had to pay to get on the subway same as the rest of us. Until such time as that's changed, he's mortal with the rest us. He just happens to play better piano and write worse poetry. skip h
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:21:48 -0700 skip Heller wrote:
I agree, and I think it's much the same as rock star adulation. You have guys who are less musicians that icons of a cause. And I prefer my musicians be people whose music I like rather than people whose music I used to like but whose efforts I respect (Bill frisell, I'm talking to YOU).
Also, I think calling people "Gods" is silly. I have friends who are
You use capital G, not me :-). I meant god in the casual sense of hero, model, you name it. Patrice.
on 6/28/02 1:36 PM, Patrice L. Roussel at proussel@ichips.intel.com wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:21:48 -0700 skip Heller wrote:
I agree, and I think it's much the same as rock star adulation. You have guys who are less musicians that icons of a cause. And I prefer my musicians be people whose music I like rather than people whose music I used to like but whose efforts I respect (Bill frisell, I'm talking to YOU).
Also, I think calling people "Gods" is silly. I have friends who are
You use capital G, not me :-). I meant god in the casual sense of hero, model, you name it.
Patrice.
It's a typo. And I still think making a hero out of a musician is questionable. As Jello Biafra said, "If there's gonna be a revolution, you better hope it's not led by musicians." That's different than loving somebody's music. The few heroes I have who are musicians offered something up other than just good records. sh
While y'all keep arguing the merits of aging hipsters and hepcats, I'm going to keep drooling over St. Arkansas, Boogie St., and Murray St. This music is keeping me smiling bigtime. Leonard, Kim, and David T. My current Triune God, indeed. Early onset Alzheimers prevents me from remembering their earlier works, and my Parkinsons is keeping me shakin' all over.
participants (6)
-
Emmanouil Papagiannakis -
Patrice L. Roussel -
Robert Pleshar -
skip Heller -
Steve Smith -
s~Z