Re: so cal gig spam--Review of Performance

[rich <rich@nuvisionsca.com>]

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.