drsmooth wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Geezus C***st -- you guys are somethin...

I didn't say that art was dead. I said that right now, there is nothing new pushing the art-forms forward. I believe that certain things have been exhausted and due to the accelerated nature of life in the 20th now 21st century that things happen faster and expire or devour more quickly. The way it comes up for me, is that I monitor all the art venues, from Burning Man to some obscure basement in some weird 'hood to East Berlin too anywhere. And right now, there is no place I can identify that is the nexus or hub or a fomenting of pushing art-forms as we've labeled identified and consumer them -- forwards.

Not that it won't happen again some day. It might. But as some of you have intimated, things we can't conceive of because life will change in ways we can't conceive.

In music, I have speculated for a long time that micro-tuning may be fertile. Up til now, its been mostly used as an effect or affect. But 12 tone equal temperament (the tuning system of the piano, and orchestras) has been very fertile for a while now and has been completely exhausted. Continuum music, exhausted. Conceptual Cage like stuff. Been there done it. 4'33" is not a new conceptual operation.

I'm not standing at the SF Dump with a Flag - on the hill side where art-makers have been curating and composing out of refuse for 20 years, that "Art is Dead". It's very much alive. Moreso than ever because of the population, education, tools, lack of specialization and elitisism to get involved. But its not progressing right now. It's re-mixing, its post-modern re-contextualizing, re-appropriating, blending, melding, repeating -- and being of a moment, message, time and place -- but there has been an obvious lack of a new revelation for me in any art-form for a while now. Be it film, music, museum art, spoken word, prose -- whatever.

I'm not wrong.

Now, to TV"s point, that it may not be possible to see or sniff or sense where its percolating in a new cauldron somewhere to be recognized in retrospect in a few years? Maybe. How could I or anyone really know. But I have a broader sense of this crisis we've reached. It has to do with the over-exposure and the fact that there aren't many new paradigms about living on this planet in play right now. We're still operating mostly off old ideas and people holding on.

I consumed art like fuel to a furnace for most of my teen and adult life and I'm quite clear now that I can get "Rush" off something, that is familiar, a form, a technique, a sound, a texture -- and still dig it -- but it is utterly clear to me now that I CAN NOT get the feeling of "oh sh**, that's some new stuff... wow, that's the scene now..." There is no hi low or medium brow format venue, scene or circumstance offering me a truly new experience.

you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything

should we be disappointed that that's not 'new'?

Kid, you have to - HAVE to - address why 'new' means anything in this context if you're to be persuasive. I doubt that players like Zorn or Jason Moran or others would listen to you on these topics and agree with you, or even agree that 'newness' was something they should be concerned about. Lovely that it's important to you; unclear why it's important to music.

"New" the way I mean it, is the driving force for my motivation. Discovering new forms, new genres, new meanings. Right now, I can't get that experience that I've had so many times before. It's a kind of elated excited sensation. I can see hear things that satisfy in other ways. That meet expectations, that use well a language I've come to learn, that demonstrate wonderful craftsmanship -- proportions -- or touch on themese I particularly care about or relevant to me. But from the standpoint of new-discovery -- and a sense that small increments and side movements are fomenting to push any form forwards, I can't find any evidence. Why it's important? It's important to my own interest. And because at least in terms of Western evolution in art n culture, it has always existed. When people declared something "dead" or "boring" or whatever in the past, it was on a different basis than what I'm getting at. In those pronouncements there were assumptions invoked about the purpose meaning or definitions -- I have no bias. I could recognize "newness" even if it didn't speak to me, or I couldn't udnerstand it, or it reflected some phenomena of people, place, culture that didn't include me or wasn't accessible. THus far, I can't sniff that out. It may in fact be out there -- but I'm not aware of it.

There are many reasons people interact with and consume cultural artifacts, and I haven't gone back to nature and stopped consuming. But from my the standpoint of my journey that started as a teen, and my hunger for first catching up, and then pushing in to as many diverse streams and seeing where things were moving, controversial or not -- I'm unable to enounter "newness" in the sense in which I'm taking about it.

I don't know what's so controversial and why so many of you feel I'm being condescending around this. It's an opinion. I'm not a professor trying to build a thesis. I'm a citizen who expressed a view point -- fully self-referential.

How it applies for me, is that I've been for instance evaluating whether I want to remain in SF, or if there is another place I might prefer to live. One of the elements in an evaluation like that, at least in the past for me, would have been to do with the kind of artistic life and opportunity to be part of or have access to certain movements. As I talk with a variety of people from different parts of the art-world spectrum and different disciplines -- no one is talking about "Oh man, you need to go to Berlin for that, London for that, Paris for that, Austin for that ..." I believe that the ability for people anywhere with a modem to access obscure stuff current and past the world over has created some kind of phenomena, and I believe also that many of the other cultural phenomena, political systmes, belief systems... we're in a strange time in history and for right now at least, there is what I perceive to be a stuckness, a wall that's been hit.

Just my opinion.

Philly the Kid wrote:

Woody wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

Woody wrote:it stands to reason that the more of something you consume, the more infrequently you're going to experience that "rush". that doesn't mean that there isn't stuff out there knocking people's socks off, ya dig?

also, re-read your recent posts and realize how arrogant and condescending you sound.

You're pretty much a one-trick pony aren't you Woody? Funny man, wise-guy, sarcasm to cover lack of substance and anything provocative to offer. To ever get out on a limb on a topic that could expose you. Easier to crack wise -- and try to show how clever you are -- which one of us is really condescending? cynical? and a di**?

I'm not in this jazz thread to learn from you. I hate jazz. I'm in this thread to point out what a condescending elitist you sound like when you preach. You also totally ignored my actual point which is that if you're such an un-ending consumer of all-things jazz, then of course you're going to find less and less innovative things. Creativity builds on the ideas of others, so it's not surprising that you if you've literally seen and heard every thing out there, that anything new will feel less and less new to you as the years go on. Maybe it's time to start listening something else if you're all bummed out about it. And yes, I'm a cynical dick. Thank you.

Whatever I have demonstrated on BSG, lack of research here, a little hyper-bolic there, out of step with format and proportion -- one thing is pretty clear -- which is that I'm actually pretty sincere. You may not agree with me, or think I'm wasting space or off-base, but I'm not out trying to show anyone up.

A sincere bag of self-important hot air. That's what you are. Or at least how most here perceive you. Whether you disagree or not, it's the truth. And you're not trying to show anyone up because you can't. You're not clever enough. <-- sorry, that last part was just me being a cynical dick.

And I think in many instances, I've been provocative. Even if in being that way - riled some folks up.

So I guess you're a one-trick pony, too! Yay, high five! Only difference being more people tend to like me.

In this instance, I spoke about something I actually know quite a bit about and have been contemplating for a long time. And clearly by some of the reactions here, you didn't even understand what I was talking about. And reacted to something else. If I had gone in to the Bruce thread and said, "I think all Bruce is crap" (which I do), then that would be arrogant and condescending.

This is vintage PTK. If someone reacts negatively to some condescending crap you spew from your elitist, organically fed brain, it's their fault because they just don't understand, mannnnn. No, you're not condescending. Not at all!

If you actually cared about an esoteric topic like this one, you could engage me and actually have an opportunity to learn something. Ask a sincere question, "what do you mean exactly here P-t-K?" - but you don't really care about anything I said, just that I said it and the tone or style struck you in some fashion.

I don't care about anything in this thread other than pointing out the flaw in your idiotic statements and your condescending attitude. I've tried to engage you on actual sports topics before with sincerity, and it goes in one side of your giant head and out the other.

Replies above in red!!

Blah blah. I can't hear anything you say because its so personal and you openly admit your bias, and true nature.

How convenient for you. Please, by all means, feel free to remain completely un-self-aware and pretend you're just ignoring the haters. In the meantime, I'll look forward to your next 900 word essay.

Smooth -- this is for you --

You can't conceive of Count Basie and Duke Ellington, without Louis Armstrong and the branches of music coming down the river from Chic to New Orleans (or going up the river) and in NYC. You can't imagine Be Bop evolving in the 40's without the big band stuff that preceded it. You can't imagine Rollins and Clifford in the 50's without Parker and Diz in the 40's. You can't imagine Miles then Coltrane. By 1960, the music split in several directions which include people like Cecil Taylor, Ornette, people like Wayne Shorter (Post Miles), McCoy (post Coltrane) -- eventually all the way to people like Steve Lacy, Marilyn Crispel, Leroy Jenkins, David Murray --

You can track, observe and see an evolution.

As the art-form got further and further from being the music/dance/words of the various Black Diasporas in the US, lighter forms splintered off, be it Boogie Woogie, Rhythm n Blues, eventually leading off to Rock forms and Soul, Disco and eventually Hip Hop. Hip Hop merged with technology because of sampling and pop music forms so Aerosmith could connect to RUN DMC -- not for musical reasons necessarily.

Similar pictures could be drawn for Western European art-music.

My contention, is that right now -- while more Jazz is being made than ever before... and some of the musicianship is brilliant, and some of the cross-pollination with world music, latin music, electronic music -- has some interest. That someone would be hard-pressed to point to a "scene" a "movement" emerging that is the next logical step or even a leap to something.

I personally feel that with abstract improvised music, there's a place where Leroy Jenkins and Malcolm Goldstein for instance, meet. That one comes from a western european art music tradition, the other more from a an American Jazz tradition but it merges, and that a composer like Brian Ferneyhough, one of the last to compose some of the most precise and complex notated music ever created, creates a music, that isn't that unlike listening to the greatest improvisers.

Jazz in the 40's, 50's, 60's evolved so fast you couldn't keep up. People would come to see Coltrane in 64 expecting to hear what he was doing in 62 feeling it was brand new, and he had already moved on. There is nothing quite like that today.

Perhaps this illustrates better, part of what I'm getting at. And of course, musical trends or any art-form are not disparate from other art-forms and the culture overall. 1964 has Dr. King, Malcolm X, Wilt Chamberlain, Cassius Clay --

I can get more technical about things like the logical evolution of 12 tone equal temperament and in general 12 tone systems even of non-equal temperament, and how they were fertile for several hundred years in allowing for a harmonic evolution -- and other tech stuff - but that's too esoteric for this forum.

Hope this helps you understand partly, at least, what I was driving at...

This has nothing to do with whether or not one feels Coltrane is "timeless" or that one wants to ignite a kind of sound or feeling or texture that they have encountered before, or that one gets a certain satisfaction in seeing people articulate these art-forms and use the languages created ongoing. That is, to go see a new band or artist who plays with passion or energy or sincerity or high skill.

It goes back to what I said about Wynton, he hasn't invented anything. He hasn't pushed the art-form forwards. He has been a great technician and scholar, and has great competence. He may do work that is very inspired and tells his story or someone else's and is of time and place and serves some other purpose. But in terms of taking something to the next step or leaping out to the beyond or creating a paradigm shift --

Coltrane came along, and the art-form was forever changed. You can't say that about Wynton.

I hope this helps you grasp what I'm getting in to.

But you seem to be worrying about a period of relative stasis, which in fact is the norm--the kind of rapid evolution is really anomalous to 20th c. Western Art. You could have been born, lived, and died a long life with nothing but Baroque music. The transition from the classical era to the romantic era occurred slowly, over a generation at least and one can if one wants to debate whether Beethoven was a classical or a romantic composer.

TenuredVulture wrote:But you seem to be worrying about a period of relative stasis, which in fact is the norm--the kind of rapid evolution is really anomalous to 20th c. Western Art. You could have been born, lived, and died a long life with nothing but Baroque music. The transition from the classical era to the romantic era occurred slowly, over a generation at least and one can if one wants to debate whether Beethoven was a classical or a romantic composer.

Beethoven sort of jumped the gun on the Romantic thing, but he was still basically a classical composer. He wasn't nearly obsessed with death/satan enough to be a Romantic.

Whenever I see this thread, I always hear it in my head in a incredulous tone. "Do you like jazz? I mean really? OK, fine, you like it, but you don't actually listen to it, do you?"

Anyway, I was curious why the sudden flurry of activity, and was delighted to find a Woody/PtK spat. Good work people!

I have a few questions for PTK

1. What percentage of all music ever recorded (all genres, obviously) would you say you've heard?

2. Do you believe something has to be new, in the time sense, to be new to you?

3. Do you believe there is a "best x", where x equals anything ranging from a particular musician, genre, album, song?

4. Do you believe all artists set out to make a statement with their art?

5. Do you believe all human beings are aware of each and every influence that shapes their own thoughts and artistic productions?

6. If so, did you enjoy it? Was it pleasurable to you?

Woody wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:
Blah blah. I can't hear anything you say because its so personal and you openly admit your bias, and true nature.

How convenient for you. Please, by all means, feel free to remain completely un-self-aware and pretend you're just ignoring the haters. In the meantime, I'll look forward to your next 900 word essay.

Now now, are you getting agitated?

You say I'm not self-aware and don't comprehend how you pwn me constantly here on BSG ... so what's the beef? Victory for Woody again.

TenuredVulture wrote:But you seem to be worrying about a period of relative stasis, which in fact is the norm--the kind of rapid evolution is really anomalous to 20th c. Western Art. You could have been born, lived, and died a long life with nothing but Baroque music. The transition from the classical era to the romantic era occurred slowly, over a generation at least and one can if one wants to debate whether Beethoven was a classical or a romantic composer.

TV, I already said that there may be things in play now that I can't see or that won't reveal themselves for a while. But I don't think the analogy of Baroque period spanning an entire life of a person holds here. Things have accelerated with world changes. It's no longer likely in most cases that things would just linger for a long time like that or that someone would be culturally isolated. In fact, part of my contention is that things have accelerated so much that they have exhausted themsevles for the time being. I think art changes will occur when mankind changes occure.

Part of my own personal relationship to the arts and music especially, has been my need to keep seeking out where innovation is fomenting. Progression from traditions to new forms, genres and sub-genres.

Philly the Kid wrote:

Woody wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:
Blah blah. I can't hear anything you say because its so personal and you openly admit your bias, and true nature.

How convenient for you. Please, by all means, feel free to remain completely un-self-aware and pretend you're just ignoring the haters. In the meantime, I'll look forward to your next 900 word essay.

Now now, are you getting agitated?

You say I'm not self-aware and don't comprehend how you pwn me constantly here on BSG ... so what's the beef? Victory for Woody again.

I'm tapping out on this one. Bye!

Flawless Victory PtK!

FTN wrote:I have a few questions for PTK

1. What percentage of all music ever recorded (all genres, obviously) would you say you've heard?

2. Do you believe something has to be new, in the time sense, to be new to you?

3. Do you believe there is a "best x", where x equals anything ranging from a particular musician, genre, album, song?

4. Do you believe all artists set out to make a statement with their art?

5. Do you believe all human beings are aware of each and every influence that shapes their own thoughts and artistic productions?

Based on past comments by FTN and experience, I'm not quite sensing this is a genuine query to foster friendly dialog. I think you disagree with me already and are trying most likely to set me up to say some stuff, but I'll take a stab at trying to answer you as best I can, at face value on your questions....

1. What percentage of all music ever recorded (all genres, obviously) would you say you've heard?

I think that I have been exposed in some depth to all the ways music could be conceived and executed. There may be some handful of indigenous musics and or sub-genres of some off-shoot of a popular style that I am not familiar with -- but I don't think there is an approach to music-making or sound sources or harmonic models or technology influences. That's what's important. Not whether or not I've literally heard every recorded instantiation.

So percentage of all recordings ever made is probably small, percentage of kinds of music and ways of presenting a musical experience is complete.

2. Do you believe something has to be new, in the time sense, to be new to you?

You seem to be focusing on "new" in a different way than I was trying to assert it. By new, I mean "new way", not "new instance". Let's say that I'll cop to the fact that there are some scenes, genres, sub-genres that I don't know about at all. Have heard no examples of, I remain confident that were I to hear them, and while the specifics of encountering them would be "new", that as a musical experience or even as a style that I wouldn't likely find it to be a "new way".

Time sense, is not the issue. Because there is such large historical archive, people work their own path in various orders. But the ear will grow and conceptually the mind will grow in how it takes on "new ways" of experiencing, and then it can, hit a limit where "newness" is only in instance. I can imagine someone coming up with a meld of things that I've never heard anyone do before -- and so in that sense it would be "new" to me at that moment, but I can't contemplate that that experience would create a "new way" of understanding or hearing. It might evoke something for me and be provocative even, or fascinating, but not new in the way I've been meaning.

3. Do you believe there is a "best x", where x equals anything ranging from a particular musician, genre, album, song?

Hmmm. I guess I would say 'yes'. I think their are exquisite examples of things that on their own merits can impact across cultural references or stand the test of time or have elements of a greater universal appeal. A lot of things derive their rating based on historical context. And even amongst experts, there is always debate about an artist or a work of art. There are people with large bodies of work that have influence a lot, and there are persons who may have done one thing but it resonated or had impact.

Things can succeed or fail on their own terms. So it's not just about taste. I may not like a particular artist/musician/band or style, but I can recognize how it might be innovative, reflective of a movement, important in its influence or historical context.

In the case of musical works, take pop songs from the 60's. I can recognize that say band like the Rolling Stones, Who, Led Zep, Kinks, Hendrix were innovating - inventing something and tied to the times and place -- and may have enjoyed those art/music works at some time, even if they don't resonate for me today, or I might recognize the impact or importance of a band/artist even if they specifics NEVER appealed to me, and within genres, experts can debate this band over that, this song over that and make their case. You need to have some familiarity. Now, anyone can jump in with the "I just hate it" - or "I just love it". And for someone say 20 years old today growing up in a certain environment and exposed say mostly to rnb and hip hop, to suddenly encounter Hendrix it would be "new" to them. They might like it or reject it on its face, but their ability to talk about it and rate it as good better best, lack qualifications.

4. Do you believe all artists set out to make a statement with their art?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this? I think there are many motivations for why people do anything, including make music or artistic expression. Many people enjoy the process. Enjoy self-expression. Often-times they want to communicate something or tell a story. A lot of art is connected to specific time and place and cultures. Some of it is political.

Some people are more in to the technique, or process of doing it. Some don't think that much at all and just do.

I think many artists are trying to accomplish some end-goal in sharing their art with others.

5. Do you believe all human beings are aware of each and every influence that shapes their own thoughts and artistic productions

Obviously not. I think that often times when you listen to an artist/musician talk about their journey or what they perceive as their influences or just how they talk about what they do and how they do, that there is a big disconnect. Some of my most disappointing moments were attending talks of composers that I knew their music and really was taken with it, and then met them or heard them talk about it or who they were in the world and would rather have not known, or couldn't connect at all how they talked about what they did and what it was.

As i said in the prior question, "what shapes their artistic productions" is a myriad of things. Some people just want to perform. Some people want to be famous. Some want to make dough. Some want to get the girl/guy. There are as many motivations for doing art as any other endeavor.

Some people get fixated on one style or mileu, some devour and explore many and go through phases. You see a guy like Miles Davis and he had many periods and many focus areas. Same with a painter like Picasso or Dali. Some people just do one thing one way and that's it. Some do it one way but hone and refine it more and more and more.

Not everything by a respected artist is great. Not every Beethoven is great or ever Miles solo. And someone of no fame may create something very special.

Part of my personal journey with exploring the arts and music, hasn't been just to acquire "my favorite stuff' ,but to try to explore every "way" and the whys and hows. And right now, I've been unable to get a certain experience that I have been able to get in the past from any encounter with any art work or performance.

I still have things I like to consume or re-experience. Just like a lot of the threads here talk about bands, favorite tracks or albums, I have things that I go back to -- or return to. My personal tastes are probably very different than most on BSG, I would contend because of my experience, education and personal interests -- I've probably delved more deeply in to some of these questions and my experience interacting with art works is different, may have had differetn motivations. I do feel that my ear for instance had grown (and my thinking) that there has been an evolution. I also believe that some art forms and styles have more layers to them. When I encounter something like a pop/rock tune from the mid-late-60's that has been aired on radio literally millions of times in the last 35 years, there can be a fatigue factor. Where something for me was so over-exposed its hard to find its original resonance. I enjoy certain things in a context. I see a documentary of the Who let's say, with old footage from when they were young and coming up and starting out, and there is some context explaining who they were, how they came up, what was around them, what was happening in the world -- then that can get my attention and I can try to put myself in to a frame of mind to appreciate it on its own terms. Some things I find better than others. Not every single song or artist from an important period still holds up for me.

I had a hard time getting in to Beethoven for a long time when I was younger. I liked older Baroque stuff and later romantic but couldn't vibe him. But as I learned more about him, his times, what shaped him and then heard recordings of some of his works on period instruments -- I was able to find my way in, in a way I hadn't before. It was more raw, and I could appreciate him on his own terms.

I try not to compare cultures and styles too much. I do think it is possible to make some objective statements and that it does not insult one art form or style to say it has less complexity than another.

Anyway, I've done my best to answer your questions at face value.

Soren wrote:6. If so, did you enjoy it? Was it pleasurable to you?

Not sure what you are trying to say, but if "enjoyability and pleasure" are your only criteria for rating something, then we aren't on the same page.

People use music in their lives in all kinds of ways. It reminds them of something, it makes them feel a certain way, it mixes with their mood or energy. Music is ubiquitous and most people have some sort of relationship to music and music consumption even if not overt. (how music/sounds design impacts TV or movies or video-games)

People enjoy things for all kinds of reasons. Some people get enjoyment from trying to explore new things, some just want to stay within a certain defined zone for their entire lives.

People use music (art) in different ways.

Saying something is not very good, doesn't mean that no one enjoyed it. I know a bum who enjoys cheap booze, or some girl who enjoys two-buck chuck, but does that mean everything is equal? If someone enjoys it, its just as good as everything else? You can say, "that's right", but then we aren't having a meaningful conversation.

Philly the Kid wrote:My contention, is that right now -- while more Jazz is being made than ever before... and some of the musicianship is brilliant, and some of the cross-pollination with world music, latin music, electronic music -- has some interest. That someone would be hard-pressed to point to a "scene" a "movement" emerging that is the next logical step or even a leap to something.

Thanks for hanging in, Kid.

I guess what I'm not getting is: does there need to be a "scene" or a "movement" that's "new", that's "where things are going"? Most of that sort of categorization happens after the fact anyway. What's the relevance of being able to identify it right now?

Take bop for instance: any credible historian of the period concedes that the guys who created bop didn't have a particular intent to be doing it when they were doing it. They were doing something, and it was something they liked, but in terms of being THE thing to do, or having A particular, conscious aesthetic, well....

Gillespie's heart's desire was to lead a big band, well after Salt Peanuts.

In this vein, I heartily recommend Scott DeVeaux's unfortunately titled The Birth of Bebop. Unfortunate, because that title falls far short of indicated what the book is really about - which is much more about the many diverse & conflicting ways that the arc of a specific artistic innovation like bop is shaped by the broader culture in which it emerges. DeVeaux makes a convincing case that, far from following the deterministic path you suggest is so evident, a cultural phenomenon like bop owes much more to disruption and dissent than evolution and concord.

drsmooth wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:My contention, is that right now -- while more Jazz is being made than ever before... and some of the musicianship is brilliant, and some of the cross-pollination with world music, latin music, electronic music -- has some interest. That someone would be hard-pressed to point to a "scene" a "movement" emerging that is the next logical step or even a leap to something.

Thanks for hanging in, Kid.

I guess what I'm not getting is: does there need to be a "scene" or a "movement" that's "new", that's "where things are going"? Most of that sort of categorization happens after the fact anyway. What's the relevance of being able to identify it right now?

Take bop for instance: any credible historian of the period concedes that the guys who created bop didn't have a particular intent to be doing it when they were doing it. They were doing something, and it was something they liked, but in terms of being THE thing to do, or having A particular, conscious aesthetic, well....

Gillespie's heart's desire was to lead a big band, well after Salt Peanuts.

In this vein, I heartily recommend Scott DeVeaux's unfortunately titled The Birth of Bebop. Unfortunate, because that title falls far short of indicated what the book is really about - which is much more about the many diverse & conflicting ways that the arc of a specific artistic innovation like bop is shaped by the broader culture in which it emerges. DeVeaux makes a convincing case that, far from following the deterministic path you suggest is so evident, a cultural phenomenon like bop owes much more to disruption and dissent than evolution and concord.

fair does, doc. I'd say you care too much, but I guess if he's pissing me off, so do I.

I think my big issue is trying to attach something larger to a piece of music. I think its helpful to understand the time and place a piece of music is crafted, but at the end of the day, you pop in the cd or put on the record or select the album on your itunes, and its your brain v a piece of music.

i can listen to A Kind of Blue, without knowing about where jazz had come from, or where it was going to go, and my brain instinctively loves the music. My brain connects to it, the warmth of the music, the delicateness of it. And I don't have to know anything about modal jazz on a technical level, or understand where Miles Davis had come from, or understand what life was like in 1959/1960 to appreciate the beauty of that record.

thats why I think this whole concept of "scenes" and "movements" and whatever else is one of the bigger negatives with music. At the end of the process, you master the record/song and its finished. And then someone listens to it, and their brain either reacts positively, negatively, or indifferently. I dont think it matters when it is from, or what the politics of the time were, or how many other musicians were part of the "movement" that the piece came from. It is what it is.

I got into Jean Michel Jarre after I got into Air. JMJ was a huge influence on Air. But when I listen to one of Air's records now, my brain doesn't hear the music differently, or I don't appreciate the music differently because I've been exposed to one of their biggest influences after the fact. When I listen to Air records, I just remember the first time I heard them, or my brain associates the images that were in my mind the first time I heard the records.

Music is a huge part of my life. But there is so much of it out there, and so much to be discovered, I think its kind of silly to get hung up on trying to assign roles or compartmentalize it on a micro level. Really, what it comes down to is what you enjoy, what moves you, and what interests you. Because its different for a lot of people. A lot of people don't like Phish, for instance, or don't see the musical genius in their improvisation and style of music. And while I find that perplexing at times, I realize that different people simply like different things, and that's out of my control. And really, its not something I should have control of anyway.

FTN wrote:
Music is a huge part of my life. But there is so much of it out there, and so much to be discovered, I think its kind of silly to get hung up on trying to assign roles or compartmentalize it on a micro level. Really, what it comes down to is what you enjoy, what moves you, and what interests you. Because its different for a lot of people. A lot of people don't like Phish, for instance, or don't see the musical genius in their improvisation and style of music. And while I find that perplexing at times, I realize that different people simply like different things, and that's out of my control. And really, its not something I should have control of anyway.

I have the feeling many if not most musicians come at it the same way. A Jenny Scheinman can rip some terrific jazz violin improv shoulder-to-shoulder with Jason Moran, then sashay down the street to another venue and wail a sweet punk-country version of Twilight Time; sure she knows there are differences between the two (and similarities), but mostly she likes making the music, all of it (at least it sure sounds like she does).

Philly the Kid wrote: The way it comes up for me, is that I monitor all the art venues, from Burning Man to some obscure basement in some weird 'hood to East Berlin too anywhere. And right now, there is no place I can identify that is the nexus or hub or a fomenting of pushing art-forms as we've labeled identified and consumer them -- forwards.

I missed this first time round. didn't realise PtK was styling himself after professor xavier.

Philly the Kid wrote:When people declared something "dead" or "boring" or whatever in the past, it was on a different basis than what I'm getting at. In those pronouncements there were assumptions invoked about the purpose meaning or definitions -- I have no bias. I could recognize "newness" even if it didn't speak to me, or I couldn't udnerstand it, or it reflected some phenomena of people, place, culture that didn't include me or wasn't accessible.

are you the critic that all the other critics form into when they get really mad and have to beat the art demon at the end of the universe? Seriously, I think boyle family make all their pieces just for you.

Philly the Kid wrote: I'm a citizen who expressed a view point -- fully self-referential.

yes. very. I would say that it is a strong theme throughout your work.

Philly the Kid wrote:How it applies for me, is that I've been for instance evaluating whether I want to remain in SF, or if there is another place I might prefer to live ... As I talk with a variety of people from different parts of the art-world spectrum and different disciplines -- no one is talking about "Oh man, you need to go to Berlin for that, London for that, Paris for that, Austin for that ..."

so let's be clear. San Fran is indeed the centre of the world, from which all things can be observed with no bias whatsoever?

Man, that whole post was one of your most epic.

In all seriousness, there's a lot of amazing shit happening in Brazil. I have no idea if this is the kind of scene PtK denies exists, since I don't really understand what he's looking for, or why he's looking for it. (This whole emphasis on new seems like a weird kind of romantic over-emphasis on originality for its own sake with no attention to craft or even pleasure.

One curious thing I've heard is Brazilian musicians re-configuring familiar music--there's Seu Jorge's Bowie which is amazing, Gilberto Gil's Marley, which I think is even better, and Rita Lee's Beatles, which is ok but a little too loungey for my tastes.