] [Thread Prev
Re: so cal gig spam--Review of Performance
I'm coming into this thread a little late, and i didn't see the
performance, so i'll try to keep this short...
I think there are problems on both sides of the fence. Those who
think the avant/jazz/noise thing is just plain old noise, and write
it off quickly. There are also those folks who are into that scence
who disregard music that ISN'T avante garde. I have a friend who is
like this. He's a great guy, but his headspace is SO buried into
freeform/experimental/noise that he gets a little pissy and arrogant
if you try to introduce him to more traditional forms, no matter how
beautiful and intriguing they might be to others. ...cliff...who am
i thinking of?...our favorite eccentric? :)
It all depends on your perspective, i guess. Just saw something last
week on the Ken Burns' JAZZ program, now airing on PBS. They are
showing an interview with Louis Armstrong, and he boldly
says..."There are ONLY two kinds of music...GOOD music and BAD
music...If it's something you can tap your feet to...that's GOOD
Interesting narrow mindedness from one of the great icons of jazz,
without whom we wouldn't even be having this friendly little
discussion of avante-whatever...
>1) It's one thing to say, "I didn't like that." It's another thing to
>say, "That was fundamentally bad music." It's yet another thing to say
>(or imply), "I didn't like that, therefore it was fundamentally bad
>music." I don't know if this last statement was what Gary intended, but
>his review did carry with it that implication (to my mind, anyway).
>2) A lot of the most accomplished and respected musicians in the "new
>music" realm, whether Ornette Colemean, Cecil Taylor, Derek Bailey, Glen
>Branca, Nels Cline, or whoever, tend to get written off as unmusical
>noisemongers by people who aren't into that realm. Gary doesn't have to
>like this sort of music in order to voice his opinion, of course.