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 music". 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... 2 cents... rich >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.