FTN wrote:

I still have an original issue on vinyl... i also have it on CD and the companion recording ...

Listening this morning to Lester Bowie's Brass Fantasy, I am wondering if the label "avant garde" to anything that doesn't sound like it could have been performed before 1960 or isn't fusion isn't a huge, huge problem for jazz. I really hate that Ken Burns thing.

Lester Bowie was considered an avant gardist, but the music he made with the Brass Fantasy is pretty accessible. And there are lots of others who perform in this idiom. William Parker, Sun Ra, Henry Threadgill, all tend in this direction. I'll give a nod to Floppy, and include John Zorn here.

All this folds back around to my primary complaint about the obsessiveness of categorization of music. Lester Bowie made me think about Foucault, and I'm realizing that categories are nothing more than means of control.

If anything, jazz is the most broadly categorized genre BECAUSE there's so much bleed between eras and BECAUSE there are so many different types of jazz listeners, so no, it's not a problem for jazz at all.

In most cases, the avant label is applied when some subversion of the traditional schools of bebop, cool or hard bop takes place. Maybe it's an unusual polyrhythm or a microtonal scale or even just a simple modal scale that makes the arrangement compositionally unique and therefore considered avant. But for each person the words have a different connotation. So whatever you think is avant garde is. And whatever you don't isn't. The reason why things are sorted is to make it easier for people researching to find what they want more of. Nothing more, nothing less.

karn wrote:If anything, jazz is the most broadly categorized genre BECAUSE there's so much bleed between eras and BECAUSE there are so many different types of jazz listeners, so no, it's not a problem for jazz at all.

In most cases, the avant label is applied when some subversion of the traditional schools of bebop, cool or hard bop takes place. Maybe it's an unusual polyrhythm or a microtonal scale or even just a simple modal scale that makes the arrangement compositionally unique and therefore considered avant. But for each person the words have a different connotation. So whatever you think is avant garde is. And whatever you don't isn't. The reason why things are sorted is to make it easier for people researching to find what they want more of. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have no objection to actual descriptions--microtonal and polyrhythm are meaningful terms.

Thinks are sorted so they can be marketed and controlled by the music industry. It makes listeners passive, receptive to whatever is shoveled out by the authorities.

I just always thought of it like OPS, it's a quick and easy way to differentiate between different kinds music. It's not the best way to measure anything alone, but people will have a general idea of what you're talking about. If I say I like avant garde jazz, they'll know I'm not talking about Chuck Mangione. If people are really interested in the genres and want to have a more detailed discussion, then they can

I'm glad this thread got bumped. I was just listening to Sun Ra last night, and was really impressed. I downloaded Lanquidity and Magic City. Anything else from him that I really have to hear?

TenuredVulture wrote:Thinks are sorted so they can be marketed and controlled by the music industry. It makes listeners passive, receptive to whatever is shoveled out by the authorities.

Musicologists who have taken lifetimes to sort through the history of recorded music and meticulously organize genres have no ties or binding to the music industry, nor are they interested in developing passivity in other listeners. Quite the contrary. Cataloguing gives people starting points, valuable reference materials from which to begin in earnest and then expand increasingly outwardly.

Unless what YOU mean by categorization is the little plastic cards that stores use to group their CDs. And that the companies tell the stores where to stick the new releases. Is that it?

Ramon, by no means am I a Ra connoisseur. I do not like Lanquidity personally and gravitate towards his farther out material. That said, Magic City is great. I actually find myself more of a "tracks" guy when it comes to Ra. So here are a couple good ones and the albums they appear on: "Moon Dance" (Cosmic Tones For Mental Therapy), "Somewhere There" (Outer Spaceways Incorporated), "Door Of The Cosmos" (Sleeping Beauty), "Discipline 27-II" (Discipline 27-II). I also recommend the whole Antique Blacks album.

karn wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Thinks are sorted so they can be marketed and controlled by the music industry. It makes listeners passive, receptive to whatever is shoveled out by the authorities.

Musicologists who have taken lifetimes to sort through the history of recorded music and meticulously organize genres have no ties or binding to the music industry, nor are they interested in developing passivity in other listeners. Quite the contrary. Cataloguing gives people starting points, valuable reference materials from which to begin in earnest and then expand increasingly outwardly.

Unless what YOU mean by categorization is the little plastic cards that stores use to group their CDs. And that the companies tell the stores where to stick the new releases. Is that it?

The dumbest question I've ever been asked is "what kind of music do you like?" I have no real answer.

I wouldn't be interested in any musicologist who spent his or her life meticulously categorizing recorded music. Again, there are ways to describe music that make sense--atonality, improvisation, electronic, and so forth because they actually describe music. It's labels like avant garde that have more to do with marketing and how in many cases the target audience identifies itself. It's tribalism. Words like classical, rock, and jazz have little meaning these days, and to try to address that by further subdividing them in ever more specific categories serves only to limit. It's a way to ensure no one ever hears something unexpected. But music thrives on the unexpected.

The purists who booed Dylan when he plugged in are the real reactionaries, and have triumphed through genre proliferation. And I think the harm is real. I don't buy the notion that music in the 60s was better. But I think there's a definite causal link between the way in which the genre proliferation correlates to the declining cultural importance of music. More people heard the great music of the 60s than are hearing the great music today.

Look at the top 10 hits of 1968:

1. Hey Jude, The Beatles
2. Honey, Bobby Goldsboro
3. Love Is Blue, Paul Mauriat
4. (Sittin' On) The Dock Of The Bay, Otis Redding
5. People Got To Be Free, Rascals
6. Sunshine Of Your Love, Cream
7. This Guy's In Love With You, Herb Alpert
8. Stoned Soul Picnic, Fifth Dimension
9. Mrs. Robinson, Simon and Garfunkel
10. Tighten Up, Archie Bell and The Drells

If you did nothing but listen to top 40 in 1968, you heard a lot of great music. Sure, there's some forgettable stuff there.

now, compare to 2008

Low - Flo Rida featuring T-Pain
Love in This Club - Usher featuring Young Jeezy
Bleeding Love - Leona Lewis
Touch My Body - Mariah Carey
Lollipop - Lil Wayne featuring Static Major
Take a Bow - Rihanna
Viva la Vida - Coldplay
I Kissed a Girl - Katy Perry
Disturbia - Rihanna
Whatever You Like - T.I.
So What - Pink
Live Your Life - T.I. featuring Rihanna
Womanizer - Britney Spears
Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) - Beyoncé

Now, I actually like the Single Ladies song. But I think it's clear that the great songs of 2008 aren't making quite the same impact as the great songs of 1968. And Jazz has become pretty marginal as well.

Now, maybe all this is nothing but a coincidence, but I think categorization raises up walls and walls are bad for music.

Consider Baba O'Reilly. Pete Townsend was strongly influenced by the composer Terry Riley, who himself was pretty omnivorous in his listening.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVKzpkueTIQ[/youtube] (evidently, many youtube commentators use hallucinogens when listening to this)

Much is to be gained as walls fall.

I stopped getting worked up over labeling music a while ago. There's no point. The broad genre classification is like the building block. You start there, and you work your way up. Most people will classify something differently in terms of sub-genres, so when someone recommends me a band, I just ask them "what kind of music is it?" and if they try to get technical with sub-genres, I just ask "is it rock? jazz?" and if they can't even give me that general description, it goes at the bottom of my queue.

Listeners have never changed. Those who want to dig deeper do and those who don't, well, don't. The 60s are a bad example. It was just a coincidence that what was popular was also what was good. Pure coincidence. Music has been hurt along with everything else by the mass commodification and commercializing of anything even semi popular. But that's been an ongoing process since World War II, so it's not at all surprising. Also, that list from 1968 is pure dreck. I'd say it's as much dreck as what's on the 2008 list to be quite honest. Alas this whole topic is stale and I'll not enter into another baby boomer pissing match about why music from the 60s is quantitatively better than today's. Leave that for Greil Marcus and Rolling Stone to irrelevantly yuk on about. I don't find it the least bit interesting and I'm afraid that you've still never come close to making a point about this genre business.

It all comes back to taste being subjective. When I listen to something, I either like it, dislike it, or feel nothing for it. 3 true outcomes of music. When I play something for someone, they have one of those 3 reactions as well. Some people like stuff that I dislike. Fact of life.

Yes of course, but that's a bit reductionist and nothing more than an out valve for all music crit.

I mean, when someone says "what kind of music do you like", it's usually b/c they don't have much to say. And you can just say "I listen to most things", and work from there.

FTN wrote:I stopped getting worked up over labeling music a while ago. There's no point. The broad genre classification is like the building block. You start there, and you work your way up. Most people will classify something differently in terms of sub-genres, so when someone recommends me a band, I just ask them "what kind of music is it?" and if they try to get technical with sub-genres, I just ask "is it rock? jazz?" and if they can't even give me that general description, it goes at the bottom of my queue.

But given your tastes, (Zappa, Radiohead, Zorn) I'd be most likely to recommend stuff that doesn't easily fit in broad jazz/rock/classical categories. I'd recommend Messiaen, on the basis of his influence on Radiohead, who you'll find in the classical music section of your local record shop. You might also like Robin Holcomb, because of her association with Bill Frisell and Wayne Horvitz (she's married to him), and I guess she's sort of classical and sort of rock, but not really either of those things and she's sort of folky, but not that either.

This sounds like something you might like:

SOLOS
Robin Holcomb/Wayne Horvitz
While Robin Holcomb and Wayne Horvitz have appeared on record in each other’s company numerous times, this is their first recording actually sharing the billing. Together - and yet alone, each plays solo piano. The program includes original compositions, three improvisations and three covers, including Wayne Shorter’s beautiful "Armageddon."

There's nothing new to all this of course--Gilbert and Sullivan, Leonard Bernstein, George Gershwin all defied simple classification as well.

Why couldn't you just say "Check out Messiaen, you'll find the cd in classical, but the music influenced Radiohead"

karn wrote:Listeners have never changed. Those who want to dig deeper do and those who don't, well, don't. The 60s are a bad example. It was just a coincidence that what was popular was also what was good. Pure coincidence. Music has been hurt along with everything else by the mass commodification and commercializing of anything even semi popular. But that's been an ongoing process since World War II, so it's not at all surprising. Also, that list from 1968 is pure dreck. I'd say it's as much dreck as what's on the 2008 list to be quite honest. Alas this whole topic is stale and I'll not enter into another baby boomer pissing match about why music from the 60s is quantitatively better than today's. Leave that for Greil Marcus and Rolling Stone to irrelevantly yuk on about. I don't find it the least bit interesting and I'm afraid that you've still never come close to making a point about this genre business.

Then why respond with your post? It must take time away from your cataloging. And it really makes no sense. Either popular music from the sixties was dreck or it was good. I don't think it's a mere coincidence that there was good popular music in that era. Music was still commercial. Everyone wanted to make a buck, and indeed, they did made lots of them. In fact, some of the money even went to the musicians.

The Dude wrote:Why couldn't you just say "Check out Messiaen, you'll find the cd in classical, but the music influenced Radiohead"

That's pretty much what I did say, isn't it?

I'm just not understanding where the problem lies. If you're able to dramatically overcome these labels by recognizing various influences, despite differences in genres, what's wrong with labeling them to help us idiots differentiate them