Some Cecil Taylor recordings I'd like to see...
Craig Premo
set of 1988 concerts. This started me thinking that it would be great if
Cecil recorded a series of duets with different bassists. My nominations
are:
Joelle Leandre
Dominic Duval
Mark Helias
Michael Formenek
Chris Lightcap
William Parker
Anybody with me?
Monk5by5
Oxley-called "Nailed"
sounds tempting-cadence has it-got to be on my order in a few weeks
jazz...@my-deja.com
drummer/singer Karen Carpenter.
Mark
http://jazztrpt.freeservers.com
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Craig Premo
the duet concert Cecil did with Gerry.
Mike Zimbouski wrote:
> Quartet with Mark Dresser, Mark Feldman, and Gerry Hemingway.
Mike Zimbouski
Trio with Anthony Braxton and Max Roach.
Duo with Irene Schweizer (hopefully with better results than the Mary Lou
Williams date)
Trio with Marshall Allen and Rashied Ali.
Quartet with Mark Dresser, Mark Feldman, and Gerry Hemingway.
Duo with Eddie Prevost.
Mike Z
Andrew McKinnon
Craig Premo <pr...@onramp.net> wrote in message
news:38E011F0...@onramp.net...
Mouthwatering.
I'd add Peter Kowald and Barry Guy to the list.
[And who is Chris Lightcap?]
On the 1988 FMP set, I'd be interested in your opinion of the various
piano-drums duos.
AJMcK.
Marc Neville
news:3zhE4.58613$3b6.2...@ozemail.com.au...
> [And who is Chris Lightcap?]
I recently became aware of this release:
Chris Lightcap Quartet - "Lay Up" - Freshsounds New Talent 74
It apparently includes Bill McHenry (never heard of him) and Tony Malaby
(great) on saxes.
Has anyone heard this?
Marc Neville
Studio City, CA
marcn...@worldnet.att.net
Dan Given
>
> "Andrew McKinnon" <alep...@camtech.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3zhE4.58613$3b6.2...@ozemail.com.au...
>
> > [And who is Chris Lightcap?]
>
> I recently became aware of this release:
> Chris Lightcap Quartet - "Lay Up" - Freshsounds New Talent 74
> It apparently includes Bill McHenry (never heard of him) and Tony Malaby
> (great) on saxes.
> Has anyone heard this?
I've heard two tracks on the radio, both of which were very laid back,
and actually quite boring. I was expecting a bit more fire, having
heard Lightcap on Whit Dickey's AUM Fidelity record from last year.
I'd also like to further the question, who is Lightcap? Did I read
somewhere that he was in a fairly well known rock band for a few years?
Dan Given
Gustaffson and Ken Vandermark and... not sure who would fill this out,
but I think it might work.
Dan
Simon Weil
Go to:
http://chrislightcap.home.mindspring.com/
For a biography etc..
Simon Weil
Sbdmaster
>
>
Nice calls, Mike, these two especially!
Cheerz; pete g / STN >>>
Simon Weil
Joe Lovano sax, Susie Ibarra drums.
There's a new record out of Susie and Derek Bailey - and I guess that brought
her to mind. But she's also been described here as dancing on the drums and
Taylor's playing has been compared to the leaps a dancer makes. To go with that
I hear a saxophonist - who would have to have piles of technique and (I think)
a big sound. The sound I am hearing appears to be Lovano's - which is odd, as
I don't think he plays this sort of music.
Anyone heard the Ibarra/Bailey record?
Simon Weil
Dan Given
>
>
> Anyone heard the Ibarra/Bailey record?
>
Yes. I have only played it twice, and not for a couple of months, so
can't remember it very well, but I liked it quite a bit. There are some
really amazing parts, but even the less interesting bits are OK. Bailey
is playing electric, and it gets quite noisy at times. Maybe I'll put
it on today and give a more thorough review later (or maybe not).
Dan
Simon Weil
>>
>>
>> Anyone heard the Ibarra/Bailey record?
>>
>
>Yes. I have only played it twice, and not for a couple of months, so
>can't remember it very well, but I liked it quite a bit. There are some
>really amazing parts, but even the less interesting bits are OK. Bailey
>is playing electric, and it gets quite noisy at times. Maybe I'll put
>it on today and give a more thorough review later (or maybe not).
Thanks, that'll do it. There was a positive review in the March *Wire*, but I
found it a bit anonymous. Some "really amazing parts" from a Susie Ibarra
recording has me getting out my cheque book.
Simon Weil
Fabio Rojas
>have a decent collection, but knew nothing of Cecil. I enjoy Thelonius
>and some Ornette and Don Cherry, but I just can't understand "For
>Olim". Is there any melody present at all? Can you discern beauty of
>derive pleasure through the seemingly random cacophony of this solo
>piano recording? Is this simply not one of his better works? Am I
>annoying the living shit out of you? I hope not and I am earnest in my
>request for any info that might help me appreciate this artist.
I think Cecil has developed such an individual language for his music
that it is hard for anybody to say "he's like X" and have it mean
anything. For example, if you listen to Albert Ayler - you can
meaningfully say "he's playing some basic melodies and he sounds
like saxophonists X,Y, and Z..." After forty years of sticking to his
music, Cecil's become one of a kind.
That being said, you can say some things that might help somebody
see what other people see in his music. In his early music,
he focused on the music of other jazz musicians - he would
play Cole Porter,Monk and Ellington. His approach was to use
the basic structure of the tune as a platform for all sorts
explorations - clusters of dissonant notes, contrasting meters
in the left and righ hands, etc. After those early years,
he focused mainly on his own compositions and improvisations
which were often performed by what looks like a traditional
jazz group - a few horns + rhythm section. In the last few
years, he has become well known for solo piano concerts and
small group performances (duets and trios). When I saw
him in Chicago last month, he got stranded without the
rest of the group and performed solo for an hour.
I described the music as "Rubik's Cube music." He took this simple
three or four bar phrase and then twisted and turned it around
until it disappeared - but the logic of the phrase still
determined the music - and made it reappear again. It's
kind of like abstract art where the texture and technique
creates a new world.
I hope this helps.
-fabio
F. Sonic Smith
you find any, in his "For Olim". I bought it after seeing it on a list
of "100 most significant jazz recordings" from Fred Kaplan of "The
Absolute Sound" (and audioghile mag). I listen to a lot of jazz and
have a decent collection, but knew nothing of Cecil. I enjoy Thelonius
and some Ornette and Don Cherry, but I just can't understand "For
Olim". Is there any melody present at all? Can you discern beauty of
derive pleasure through the seemingly random cacophony of this solo
piano recording? Is this simply not one of his better works? Am I
annoying the living shit out of you? I hope not and I am earnest in my
request for any info that might help me appreciate this artist.
In article <38E011F0...@onramp.net>,
pr...@onramp.net wrote:
> I have finally acquired individually the CD's that made up the FMP box
> set of 1988 concerts. This started me thinking that it would be great
if
> Cecil recorded a series of duets with different bassists. My
nominations
> are:
>
> Joelle Leandre
> Dominic Duval
> Mark Helias
> Michael Formenek
> Chris Lightcap
> William Parker
>
> Anybody with me?
F. Sonic Smith
you find any, in his "For Olim". I bought it after seeing it on a list
of "100 most significant jazz recordings" from Fred Kaplan of "The
Absolute Sound" (and audioghile mag). I listen to a lot of jazz and
have a decent collection, but knew nothing of Cecil. I enjoy Thelonius
and some Ornette and Don Cherry, but I just can't understand "For
Olim". Is there any melody present at all? Can you discern beauty of
derive pleasure through the seemingly random cacophony of this solo
piano recording? Is this simply not one of his better works? Am I
F. Sonic Smith
Mike Zimbouski
<mitch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Since you are a Cecil Taylor fan, please explain to me the appeal, if
> you find any, in his "For Olim".
Well, to start with, it's a pretty standard example of Taylor solo;
perhaps not the absolute best example of him playing in this mode, but
certainly not below his usual par.
> Is there any melody present at all?
Depends on your definition of melody. If you're looking for underlying
chord changes as you know them or some such thing, then the answer's no.
Can you discern beauty of
> derive pleasure through the seemingly random cacophony of this solo
> piano recording?
Ding. The key, from my experience, is to stop focusing on what he's _not_
playing--i.e., conventional melody and rhythm--and focusing on what's
there; the boundless energy flowing through the music, the incredible
facility and speed of the man, the relentless barrage of ideas, the
inexorable forward motion of the music as it creates its own form and
pulse. Stop trying to understand the sounds he's making and just let them
carry you away. I don't know how to put it any better than that. Accept
chaos in music, and it'll help you accept chaos in life (and vice versa).
Mike Z
Brian Olewnick
The other day, I was fantasizing about hearing Cecil play Morton
Feldman's music--say, 'For Bunita Marcus'. Really. I think it might be
amazing.
Anyone know if Taylor ever privately practices contemporary pieces by
other, for lack of a better term, classical composers?
Brian Olewnick
Mike Zimbouski
> Anyone know if Taylor ever privately practices contemporary pieces by
> other, for lack of a better term, classical composers?
Somehow I doubt it; he's death on the idea of "composition." And I've read
more than one article which states that despite constant comparisons to
Bartok and his ilk, Taylor has very little interest in this arena; indeed,
his main sources of musical inspiration outside jazz appear to be more
along the lines of Marvin Gaye and James Brown.
Mike Z
Simon Weil
>Since you are a Cecil Taylor fan, please explain to me the appeal, if
>of "100 most significant jazz recordings" from Fred Kaplan of "The
>Absolute Sound" (and audioghile mag). I listen to a lot of jazz and
>have a decent collection, but knew nothing of Cecil. I enjoy Thelonius
>and some Ornette and Don Cherry, but I just can't understand "For
>derive pleasure through the seemingly random cacophony of this solo
>request for any info that might help me appreciate this artist.
>
and some Ornette and Don Cherry is probably not enough of a preparation for
understanding Cecil Taylor. Like Mike Z. implied that does leave you in the
position where you either have to trust the music - or not. I'm not an expert
on this at all, but I do find it useful to compare Taylor with Pablo Picasso.
They are both artists who run the gamut of the emotions - with Picasso being
remembered, for example, by Guernica often said to be the best painting of the
20th Century and immensely harrowing. See for example:
http://www.tamu.edu/mocl/picasso/works/charnel.html
for something by Picasso in this style.
If you take that sort of expression as valid - covering those sorts of emotions
- then Taylor becomes more comprehensible. He certainly encompasses the darker
side of life as well as being capable of the most exquisite, filigree, playing.
On the question of melody, if you listen to track 3 and track 8 (these are
short tracks) of For Olim, you will hear some melodic playing, in fragments, in
amongst the discordant playing. There is also a short passage reminiscent of
romantic piano somewhere around 2:00 on track 8. Most of the time Taylor seems
to be worrying away obessively (I think this is what Fabio Rojas was talking
about in his Rubik cube analogy) - It's not so much discordant but the Monk
"Ugly Beauty" - expressive of all sorts of dark emotions, including
occasionally some brutal ones. Beauty in that sense.
You can, maybe, follow, a sort of progression in Taylor like you can in
PIcasso. If you look at these pictures:
Self-Portrait 1906
http://www.tamu.edu/mocl/picasso/works/palette.html
Les Desmoiselles d'Avignon 1907
http://www.tamu.edu/mocl/picasso/works/avignon.html
Houses on the Hill 1909
http://www.tamu.edu/mocl/picasso/works/ebro.html
Still Life 1912 (uses found objects)
http://www.tamu.edu/mocl/picasso/works/caning.html
Portrait of a Young Girl 1914 (uses found objects)
http://www.tamu.edu/mocl/picasso/works/girl.html
Arlequin 1915
http://www.tamu.edu/mocl/picasso/works/harleq2.html
By the time you get to Portrait of a Young Girl or Arlequin, the subject has
been so chopped around, bits added to it etc., that standard figurative
portrature has been converted into something else. Maybe (to be really loose
about it) you might compare Taylor relation to bop in the 50s to the Self
Portrait's relationship to standard portraiture - and style on For Olim,
chopped around melodies, added chaos et al might be compared to Picasso's style
on Portrait of a Young Girl.
Simon Weil
jazz...@my-deja.com
> derive pleasure through the seemingly random cacophony of this solo
> piano recording?
>
Join the crowd. The only real use I find for Cecil's music is to clear
the room when you are ready for your party to end.
Mark
http://jazztrpt.freeservers.com
Faizal Ali
music as "chaos" (even though I realize it was not meant as a put-down) but
you've made the point much better than I would have.
And to the original poster, F. Sonic Smith (by the way, I thought you were
dead!), you should know that Cecil Taylor remains, even now, a figure of
controversy in jazz. Some very knowledgable and respected critics have the
same reaction to his music as you did. Personally, I believe his music
represents a logical and inevitable extension of the jazz tradition, but
others believe that his innnovations are so radical that they leave that
tradition altogether (I'm not even certain that Taylor himself would
disagree with the latter argument).
.
"Fabio Rojas" <f...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message news:8c37o6
Jazz Dr
>same reaction to his music as you did.
Last spring I saw Gunther Schuller speak at a lecture/concert (with Joe
Lovano) at Laffayette University. One of the most interesting things he said
was that, in his experience, some people can hear and appreciate dissonant
music, and some people can't. Even among musically inclined and musically
educated people.
I think that this is probably true much in the same way some people find
certain flavors of food appealing and others find that taste appalling.
Personally, while I find Cecil Tayor's music difficult, and challenging
to listen to, there are times when I enjoy hearing the the rise and fall of the
patterns he plays. The more I listen the more I understand.
Steve Emerson
>
> In article <38e5577c...@news.idt.net>, ole...@tribeca.ios.com wrote:
>
> > Anyone know if Taylor ever privately practices contemporary pieces by
> > other, for lack of a better term, classical composers?
>
> Somehow I doubt it; he's death on the idea of "composition." And I've read
> more than one article which states that despite constant comparisons to
> Bartok and his ilk, Taylor has very little interest in this arena;
And let me say, as a great admirer of CT, that this is pure
disingenuousness on his part and always has been. Not that things like
his critique of Stockhausen in the A.B. Spellman book aren't inspired.
SE.
Brian Olewnick
wrote:
>And let me say, as a great admirer of CT, that this is pure
>disingenuousness on his part and always has been. Not that things like
>his critique of Stockhausen in the A.B. Spellman book aren't inspired.
That's also been my take on CT's comments in this area, though it's
purely an assumption on my part. I recall reading somewhere of someone
witnessing Cecil's practice sessions and commenting on the number of
blues songs and standards he played, so I was curious if anyone had
similarly witnessed the practicing of "classical" standards. Maybe
not, but I'd still love to hear him bring his phenomenal touch to
something like Feldman's work.
Brian Olewnick
F. Sonic Smith
Madrid. Guernica was without a doubt the highlight of the trip.
Although I had seen it when it resided here in the U.S., I was caught
off guard by it. I had forgotten how big and how emotionally stirring
it is. I have no trouble appreciating Picasso throughout his stages,
and FWIW, love El Greco and Goya's "Black paintings". While I
appreciate your effort, I can think of no visual medium that analogizes
well with Cecil Taylor.
In article <20000401060319...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
simo...@aol.com (Simon Weil) wrote:
> F. Sonic Smith wrote:
> >Since you are a Cecil Taylor fan, please explain to me the appeal, if
> >you find any, in his "For Olim". I bought it after seeing it on a
list
> >of "100 most significant jazz recordings" from Fred Kaplan of "The
> >Absolute Sound" (and audioghile mag). I listen to a lot of jazz and
> >have a decent collection, but knew nothing of Cecil. I enjoy
Thelonius
> >and some Ornette and Don Cherry, but I just can't understand "For
> >derive pleasure through the seemingly random cacophony of this solo
Simon Weil
F. Sonic Smith replied:
:>Funny you should mention Guernica. I just got back from a trip to
>Madrid. Guernica was without a doubt the highlight of the trip.
>Although I had seen it when it resided here in the U.S., I was caught
>off guard by it. I had forgotten how big and how emotionally stirring
>it is. I have no trouble appreciating Picasso throughout his stages,
>and FWIW, love El Greco and Goya's "Black paintings". While I
>appreciate your effort, I can think of no visual medium that analogizes
>well with Cecil Taylor.
It depends on what level you want to take it. My main attempt was to try to
make an analogy between the disappearance of form in Picasso and the
disappearance of anything approaching classic Jazz form (melody, harmony, etc.)
in Taylor. I was trying to suggest that looking for standard Jazz stuff in
Taylor isn't the way to go about it (just as looking for standard form in
cubist Picasso isn't the way to go about that). I was hoping to try to get you
to let go and just listen to the music. Guernica was mainly there to give you
an idea of the emotional pallette Taylor might draw upon. Not perhaps that good
an example, but I wanted to indicate the world of violence and agression (along
with all sorts of other stuff) that is present in Taylor - and suggest its
validity by comparison. I think you have to allow yourself to feel those
emotions to some extent in order to hear the music properly.
But, on the point of "big and emotionally stirring" that's *exactly* what
Cecil's music is. I think it's music that just overwhelms. But it has to be
"got". It took me 10 years plus - but there are people (including some here)
who got it immediately.
Simon Weil
Simon Weil
>I have no trouble appreciating Picasso throughout his stages,
>and FWIW, love El Greco and Goya's "Black paintings". While I
>appreciate your effort, I can think of no visual medium that analogizes
>well with Cecil Taylor.
For some more on the Taylor/Picasso comparison, here's Robert Hughes on the
African elements in Les Demoiselles d'Avignon:
"..the alterations of the human face and body [in African Art]..seemed violent,
and they offered themselves as receptacles for [Picasso's]own panache. [In] the
work of Picasso's so-called "Negro Period"...its lashing rhythms remind us
that Picasso looked to his [African] masks as emblems of savagery transferred
to the sphere of culture.
With its hacked contours, staring interrogatory eyes, and general feeling of
instability, Les Demoiselles is still a disturbing painting...No painting ever
looked more convulsive."[Hughes does make clear that he doesn't share Picasso's
view of African art as intrinsically "savage"]
Violent, savagery transferred to the sphere of culture, disturbing, convulsive
- all these are elements of Taylor's art too. It would be easy to hear it as a
God-awful noise. But it isn't, it's great art.
Simon Weil
Robert J. Dewar
people, "getting" Miles Davis (or jazz in general) is overwhelming and
difficult.
Music that might be considered mainstream or "safe" in jazz circles is
often indecipherable and difficult for people new to the idiom. I can never
figure out why people like Kenny G, and yet seem unmoved by some of Stan
Getz`s more traditional outings. Or why they like Spyro Gyra and not
Weather Report.
Many a cocktail party (yes, we still have them! :) has been a frustrating
experience of taking off Getz et al in favour of some smooth jazz. Hey, I
dont expect them to like Cecil Taylor right out of the gate, but what is so
difficult about more accesible forms of jazz?
Robert j Dewar
"Simon Weil" <simo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000403112754...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
> I compared Cecil Taylor to Picasso.
>
> F. Sonic Smith replied:
> :>Funny you should mention Guernica. I just got back from a trip to
> >Madrid. Guernica was without a doubt the highlight of the trip.
> >Although I had seen it when it resided here in the U.S., I was caught
> >off guard by it. I had forgotten how big and how emotionally stirring
> >it is. I have no trouble appreciating Picasso throughout his stages,
> >and FWIW, love El Greco and Goya's "Black paintings". While I
> >appreciate your effort, I can think of no visual medium that analogizes
> >well with Cecil Taylor.
>
Reg Schwager
in 1986 is worth reading.
http://www.banffcentre.ab.ca/Music/jazz/taylor.html
Simon Weil
>I described the music as "Rubik's Cube music." He took this simple
>three or four bar phrase and then twisted and turned it around
>until it disappeared - but the logic of the phrase still
>determined the music - and made it reappear again. It's
>kind of like abstract art where the texture and technique
>creates a new world.
At the risk of putting my non-musical, non-artistic foot in it, Rubik's *Cube*
music does so remind me of *Cubism*. And, indeed, I think that the body of
Cubist pictures, made up of little complete and incomplete sorta geometrical
cells - the cubes of Cubism - can particularly be compared to the body of much
of Taylor's music, made up of him worrying and turning round and doing
God-knows-what to the little cells of notes. For a Picasso picture like this:
http://tyrone.differnet.com/experience/atlarge/picasso-poet1.htm
Simon Weil
Amos Omondi
There is nothing there. Taylor is probably the biggest con ever
to be associated with jazz. But that is qualified: prior to 1965 (35
years ago!)
he actually did play some jazz.
> ----------
> From: F. Sonic Smith[SMTP:mitch...@my-deja.com]
> Posted At: Saturday, April 01, 2000 2:41 AM
> Posted To: bluenote
> Conversation: Some Cecil Taylor recordings I'd like to see...
> Subject: Please explain "For Olim"...
>
> Since you are a Cecil Taylor fan, please explain to me the appeal, if
> you find any, in his "For Olim". I bought it after seeing it on a list
> of "100 most significant jazz recordings" from Fred Kaplan of "The
> Absolute Sound" (and audioghile mag). I listen to a lot of jazz and
> have a decent collection, but knew nothing of Cecil. I enjoy Thelonius
> and some Ornette and Don Cherry, but I just can't understand "For
> Olim". Is there any melody present at all? Can you discern beauty of
> derive pleasure through the seemingly random cacophony of this solo
> piano recording? Is this simply not one of his better works? Am I
> annoying the living crap out of you? I hope not and I am earnest in my
> request for any info that might help me appreciate this artist.
> In article <38E011F0...@onramp.net>,
> pr...@onramp.net wrote:
> > I have finally acquired individually the CD's that made up the FMP
> box
> > set of 1988 concerts. This started me thinking that it would be
> great
> if
> > Cecil recorded a series of duets with different bassists. My
> nominations
> > are:
> >
> > Joelle Leandre
> > Dominic Duval
> > Mark Helias
> > Michael Formenek
> > Chris Lightcap
> > William Parker
> >
> > Anybody with me?
> >
> >
>
>
Faizal Ali
you could always tell if he was depicting a woman or a still life, etc.
Perhaps abstract expressionism would provide a more apt analogy for Cecil
Taylor's music. The former dispenses with conventional notions of
representation much as the latter dispenses with conventional notions of
harmony, melody and rhythm. (It is no coincidence that the cover of Ornette
Coleman's "Free Jazz" features a Jackson Pollock paiting).
"F. Sonic Smith" <mitch...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ca70f$udc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Simon Weil
>Picasso's art always remained representational; no matter how abstracted,
>you could always tell if he was depicting a woman or a still life, etc.
I think the art of Picasso's "high" Cubist period ca. 1911 makes it *very* hard
to discern the ultimate subect. It's just a field of abstraction with traces of
figuration - at least from the point of view of the naive observer. That was
the comparison I was making. You can also trace elements of melody and Jazz
history and whatever in Taylor if you look hard, so l still think it's a pretty
good analogy from that point of view.
>Perhaps abstract expressionism would provide a more apt analogy for Cecil
>Taylor's music. The former dispenses with conventional notions of
>representation much as the latter dispenses with conventional notions of
>harmony, melody and rhythm. (It is no coincidence that the cover of Ornette
>Coleman's "Free Jazz" features a Jackson Pollock paiting).
The thing about Jackson Pollock's art is that you don't get the rigorous sorta
analytic quality that you get in Cubism and, in my opinion Taylor. He was just
hurling paint at the canvas, which, despite Cecil's detractors is *not* what he
does.
Simon Weil
Bruce LeClaire
"F. Sonic Smith" wrote:
>
> I can think of no visual medium that analogizes well with
> Cecil Taylor.
While I appreciate Simon's interesting attempt to draw a parallel
between Picasso and Taylor, and thank him for introducing a wonderful
website to me, I think the analogy is limited. But I'll leave it at
that since I don't have anything to contribute, and think the discussion
interesting and creative, and plan to reread the thread soon to
reconsider anyways.
But I also disagree with FSS's statement above, because I think there is
a visual medium that analogizes quite well with Cecil Taylor. In fact,
this visual form led me to appreciate his playing for the first time.
And to this day I consider it visual art of the highest order (though
perhaps not in the same league as Picasso).
First a confession. I must admit that I don't regularly listen to
Cecil. I have difficulty with his music and often just prefer to listen
to something else. Simon Weil commented that it took him 10 years to
appreciate Cecil. I'd be interested in hearing more about that (did you
follow a progression of musicians to him, or relisten to his music
periodically over the course of time [as I do], or have some
life-altering experience, etc.).
Returning to FFS's statement above. The visual art that turned me on to
Cecil was a live clip I saw of him performing at the piano. It was
amazing to watch, the kinetics of his playing are so dramatic that it
becomes an art form similar to dance. It is meant to be watched and
appreciated. (Monk does this for me as well). I believe that I read
many years ago a description, written by Marcel-Frank Simon, of Cecil at
the piano where, iirc, Marcel used the phrase "attacked the piano".
Not being as good a writer as Marcel I think I'll just say that until
you actually see Cecil play you cannot fully appreciate his music. (I
don't say this for all musicians, but I would also make a similar
statement for Monk). The WWF would do well to copy some of the slams
and moves Cecil puts on his piano!
Unfortunately, I must admit I can't remember exactly what program I saw
that had Cecil on it. I remember the photography involved stunning
contrasts, with Cecil in all black and the room all white (or vice a
versa). I believe it was a segment on a Bravo jazz piano feature hosted
by Chick Corea. Perhaps other readers can suggest videos which have
Cecil on them.
As an aside, I can mention the last time I listened to Cecil was just
last week during a radio broadcast by Charlie Kohlhase of a live recital
(sorry I forget which). What was interesting to me was that I actually
found the music soothing enough to fall asleep to, for a short nap. I
had been on the road all day, after having a "short" night of sleep, and
was stopping off at the end of the day to get some coffee. I stayed in
my car to listen to Cecil, and he put me to sleep, just like a baby!
--Bruce
Josh Kortbein
Recent (couple years ago?) studies have shown that the fractal dimension
of Pollock's canvases increased over time, which is a sign that there was
some kind of plan and technique at play - not simple "hurling paint at
the canvas".
Josh
NP: The Beta Band, _The 3 E.P.'s_
--
josh blog listening log:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/
Simon Weil
>Simon Weil commented that it took him 10 years to
>appreciate Cecil. I'd be interested in hearing more about that (did you
>follow a progression of musicians to him, or relisten to his music
>periodically over the course of time [as I do], or have some
>life-altering experience, etc.).
It was coming on here (rmb) and listening to a long line of people who I
respect talking about how good he was. I bought *Silent Tongues* well over 10
years ago and I quite liked it - but it was so full of aggression I never felt
quite sure of my response. On the other side I once did a light show (over 20
years ago) and some guy compared what I was doing to Cecil Taylor's Unit
Structures - seeing as how I didn't think I was doing anything particularly
marvellous, I thought that this guy was not a terribly good judge (and
pretentious to boot) and that put me off a lot.
Basically, coming on here, there are loads of people who know what they're
talking about (in a way that I haven't really found in the press or on the
radio) and having enough of them say Cecil was good has persuaded me to listen
to the music. It might also be that I've got older and am more capable of
looking at the darker stuff (which has certainly happened also).
Simon Weil
Simon Weil
I wrote:
>: The thing about Jackson Pollock's art is that you don't get the rigorous
>sorta
>: analytic quality that you get in Cubism and, in my opinion Taylor. He was
>just
>: hurling paint at the canvas, which, despite Cecil's detractors is *not*
>what he
>: does.
>
>Recent (couple years ago?) studies have shown that the fractal dimension
>of Pollock's canvases increased over time, which is a sign that there was
>some kind of plan and technique at play - not simple "hurling paint at
>the canvas".
Ellen Landau, in her big book on Pollock, described his painting process as
"automatic". However there is also something more that bears on this. Pollock
was filmed by Hans Namuth:
"...the painter James Brooks tried to explain why his friend's creativity had
deteriorated so after he made the Namuth film. Jackson, Brooks observed, had
worked best when there was no value to his work, when "an impulse would go down
without premeditation." When he began to realize that every stroke he made was
worth money, or was potentially famous, Brooks saw Pollock becoming
self-conscious and paralyzed."
What this says is that Pollock did his best work "without premeditation" - BUT
it also implies that late in his career, as a result of his success Pollock did
become somewhat conscious of his "stroke". Maybe this is what the fractal
research picked up. Landau would seem to want us to understand that the late
works are not the ones to characterise Pollock with and that fits with what I'm
saying.
Simon Weil
Faizal Ali
that also features Paul Bley, Bill Dixon, and Archie Shepp. I can't recall
the title, though. I think it's something like "Imagine the Sound". Great
film.
You're comments about Cecil's body language being dance-like is interesting,
because I believe he actually has studied dance. In fact, sometimes he will
open concerts by dancing for several minutes before sitting down at the
piano (much to many fans' chagrine!)
"Bruce LeClaire" <bw...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:38EA3833...@mindspring.com...
Faizal Ali
>
> I think the art of Picasso's "high" Cubist period ca. 1911 makes it *very*
hard
> to discern the ultimate subect. It's just a field of abstraction with
traces of
> figuration - at least from the point of view of the naive observer. That
was
> the comparison I was making. You can also trace elements of melody and
Jazz
> history and whatever in Taylor if you look hard, so l still think it's a
pretty
> good analogy from that point of view.
Good point.
>
> The thing about Jackson Pollock's art is that you don't get the rigorous
sorta
> analytic quality that you get in Cubism and, in my opinion Taylor. He was
just
> hurling paint at the canvas, which, despite Cecil's detractors is *not*
what he
> does.
>
I may be out of my depth here, as I'm no expert on visual art (although I'm
really no expert on jazz, for that manner!), but I don't know if it's
accurate to say Pollock just randomly flung paint on his canvas. Those
famous films of him at work, to me, show him being very deliberate in his
technique. His art has proven as difficult to forge (there have been many
unsuccessful attempts) as any other artist's, which would not be the case if
it just consisted of paint randomly flung at a canvas. I think that is akin
to people saying that they could play like Cecil Taylor simply by randomly
pounding their fists on the piano.
Although Pollock's paintings eschew representation, the other qualities of a
painting (composition, the use of colour, etc). still apply. And I think
that's what you were saying about Taylor's music. Although it is only
tenuously related, if at all, to a tonal system the other qualities of
musical structure (motivic development, dynamic and timbral contrast, etc.)
are still present.
Simon Weil
>While I appreciate Simon's interesting attempt to draw a parallel
>between Picasso and Taylor, and thank him for introducing a wonderful
>website to me, I think the analogy is limited. But I'll leave it at
>that since I don't have anything to contribute, and think the discussion
>interesting and creative, and plan to reread the thread soon to
>reconsider anyways.
Much more of this damn praise and I'm going to faint.
<snip>
>As an aside, I can mention the last time I listened to Cecil was just
>last week during a radio broadcast by Charlie Kohlhase of a live recital
>(sorry I forget which). What was interesting to me was that I actually
>found the music soothing enough to fall asleep to, for a short nap. I
>had been on the road all day, after having a "short" night of sleep, and
>was stopping off at the end of the day to get some coffee. I stayed in
>my car to listen to Cecil, and he put me to sleep, just like a baby!
If only I had realised that's what you wanted. I know I shouldn't have included
those web-adresses. But there's still time. I've already been compared to Cecil
once in my life (see previous post). It can been twice! Yes, I see it now. I
must remove all content from my posts. Then I shall achieve my goal. I know
Bruce to be a fair man. He would never withhold praise where it is deserved.
Yes, he will be able to restrain himself just long enough. He'll compare me to
Taylor. Then he'll fall asleep. Forever. This, my friends, is the true way
forward for Jazz.
Simon Weil
Simon Weil
>> I think the art of Picasso's "high" Cubist period ca. 1911 makes it *very*
>hard
>> to discern the ultimate subect. It's just a field of abstraction with
>traces of
>> figuration - at least from the point of view of the naive observer. That
>was
>> the comparison I was making. You can also trace elements of melody and
>Jazz
>> history and whatever in Taylor if you look hard, so l still think it's a
>pretty
>> good analogy from that point of view.
>
>Good point.
>>
I wrote:
>> The thing about Jackson Pollock's art is that you don't get the rigorous
>sorta
>> analytic quality that you get in Cubism and, in my opinion Taylor. He was
>just
>> hurling paint at the canvas, which, despite Cecil's detractors is *not*
>what he
>> does.
>>
>
>I may be out of my depth here, as I'm no expert on visual art (although I'm
>really no expert on jazz, for that manner!),
Well I'm just going along and seeing what (if anything) happens. Kind of fun
though!
>but I don't know if it's
>accurate to say Pollock just randomly flung paint on his canvas. Those
>famous films of him at work, to me, show him being very deliberate in his
>technique. His art has proven as difficult to forge (there have been many
>unsuccessful attempts) as any other artist's, which would not be the case if
>it just consisted of paint randomly flung at a canvas. I think that is akin
>to people saying that they could play like Cecil Taylor simply by randomly
>pounding their fists on the piano.
>
>Although Pollock's paintings eschew representation, the other qualities of a
>painting (composition, the use of colour, etc). still apply. And I think
>that's what you were saying about Taylor's music. Although it is only
>tenuously related, if at all, to a tonal system the other qualities of
>musical structure (motivic development, dynamic and timbral contrast, etc.)
>are still present.
>
I did try to answer the point about Pollock "just hurling" paint in my earlier
post to Josh Kortbein. But I could try and have another go at it. Here's a bit
from Robert Hughes' book _The Shock of the New_:
"In the late fories, Pollock began to drip paint onto a canvas laid on the
floor. His tools were sticks and old caked brushes. This process, which sounded
(and to many people still sounds) like a recipe for incoherence, clarified his
work. "On the floor", he declared, " I am more at ease. I feel nearer, more
part of the painting, since this this way I can walk around it, work from the
four sides and literally be *in* the painting. This is akin to the method of
the Indian sand painters of the West" - who made ephemeral ritual images by
dribbling coloured sand through their fingers on to the earth. Pollock had
never been a natural draftsman; his line had a laboured, blurting character, an
inherent clumsiness of hand. But by 1948, after he had mastered this new way of
painting "from the hip", swinging the paintstick in flourishes and frisks that
required an almost dancelike movement of the body, Pollock's drawing had gone
to the opposite extreme. On their short flight to the canvas, the skeins and
spatters of paint acquired a singular grace. the paint laid itself in arcs and
loops as tight as the curve of a trout-cast. What Pollok's hand did not know,
the laws of fluid motion made up for.
The result was a series of large canvases ("heroic" was the approved word for
their size) in which the flung pigment filled the whole surface with its web,
leaving no "holes" or figure-ground contrasts. the effect was rather like
Monet's waterlilies; the picture plain turned into a continuum of small
incidents, turns and dabs of the brush in Monet's case, and in Pollock's the
loops and spatters of paint. Nobody could deny, after examining the exquisitely
turned surface of a work like *Lavender Mist*, with its close harmony of blues,
lilac-greys, white, and silver, the degree of Pollock's control over his risky
process. There being so few contrasts of light and dark, the surface became the
literal "mist" of the title, a subtly inflected and airy space which, at last,
owed nothing to the Cubist grid. It was as though the shallow, plasma-like
surface of analytic Cubism, with its occasional swirl and break of recognisable
fragments, had finally shed its last vestiges of three-dimensional form. There
were no more receding planes: no in-and-out movement of the eye in depth - only
the weaving, serpentine, darting movement of particles *across* the surface.
The best Pollocks of his best years, 1948-1950, as well as some later and more
isolated works, are decorative."
OK, to pick up some of the points. There is one parallel between Taylor and
Pollock that I hadn't seen. This is the dance element in the making of their
Art (referred to by you and Bruce LeClaire - and also by me in a post linking
Cecil to Susie Ibarra earlier this thread). Hughes gives Pollock a great deal
of control over what he was doing (which would have to have be so for the work
to be any good). But Hughes does make a distinction between Pollock's art and
painting. He talks of "flung pigment filled the whole surface with its web" -
and makes it clear that it was in this particular use of paint rather than
standard painting that Pollock's ability lay. Hughes specifically draws
attention to the "inherent clumsiness of hand" of Pollock the draftsman. If one
were to make of this a parallel with Cecil's art, Taylor would have to be
incompetent at playing the piano in the accepted Jazz and Classical modes - and
that is certainly not true (despite the knock). To take this further parallel,
Pollock *wouldn't have been capable* of constructing the beautiful surface of
Cubist art, with it's occasional references to figuaration - because his
painting wasn't up to it. He had to go completely away from figuration to get
an art where he had true artistic control. A musician like that would only be
able to play *completely* outside the standard techniques associated with
production of melody, harmony etc on an instrument. I guess it would be a
sound-space producer rather than a Jazz player.
Simon Weil
Faizal Ali
(Much fascinating material regrettably snipped)
> Hughes specifically draws
> attention to the "inherent clumsiness of hand" of Pollock the draftsman.
If one
> were to make of this a parallel with Cecil's art, Taylor would have to be
> incompetent at playing the piano in the accepted Jazz and Classical
modes - and
> that is certainly not true (despite the knock). To take this further
parallel,
> Pollock *wouldn't have been capable* of constructing the beautiful surface
of
> Cubist art, with it's occasional references to figuaration - because his
> painting wasn't up to it. He had to go completely away from figuration to
get
> an art where he had true artistic control. A musician like that would only
be
> able to play *completely* outside the standard techniques associated with
> production of melody, harmony etc on an instrument. I guess it would be a
> sound-space producer rather than a Jazz player.
>
Great stuff. The only question I would have is, was Pollock's
representational work really "incompetent", or just not at the highest
level. But that would probably be quibbling.
I can't think of any free musicians who are not able to play competently in
a more conventional genre, be it "mainstream" jazz, classical, or whatever.
Can anyone else?
Blue Lake
Faizal Ali <f....@utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:FsKM9...@campus-news-reading.utoronto.ca...
>
> "Simon Weil" <simo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000405125534...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
>
> (Much fascinating material regrettably snipped)
>
> > attention to the "inherent clumsiness of hand" of Pollock the draftsman.
> If one
> > were to make of this a parallel with Cecil's art, Taylor would have to
be
> > incompetent at playing the piano in the accepted Jazz and Classical
> modes - and
> > that is certainly not true (despite the knock). To take this further
> parallel,
> > Pollock *wouldn't have been capable* of constructing the beautiful
surface
> of
> > Cubist art, with it's occasional references to figuaration - because his
> > painting wasn't up to it. He had to go completely away from figuration
to
> get
> > an art where he had true artistic control. A musician like that would
only
> be
> > able to play *completely* outside the standard techniques associated
with
> > production of melody, harmony etc on an instrument. I guess it would be
a
> > sound-space producer rather than a Jazz player.
> >
>
> representational work really "incompetent", or just not at the highest
> level. But that would probably be quibbling.
>
> I can't think of any free musicians who are not able to play competently
in
> a more conventional genre, be it "mainstream" jazz, classical, or
whatever.
> Can anyone else?
I recall talking to Roscoe Mitchell about how he moves his embrochure when
playing glisses and how it's not the type of thing you learn in Jr. High
Band. He responded, well, if I just wanted to play straight saxophone I
wouldn't do that, but playing straight saxophone would be BORING.
Lazaro Vega
>
>
Tom Walls
says...
>
>I can't think of any free musicians who are not able to play competently in
>a more conventional genre, be it "mainstream" jazz, classical, or whatever.
>Can anyone else?
>
>
I was under the impression that Joe Morris was unschooled in conventional
guitar technique.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Simon Weil
>>I can't think of any free musicians who are not able to play competently in
>>a more conventional genre, be it "mainstream" jazz, classical, or whatever.
>>Can anyone else?
>>
>>
>
>I was under the impression that Joe Morris was unschooled in conventional
>guitar technique.
>
albums it seems to have been pretty unconventional. Neverthless - and however
he got to it - he can *swing*. He has that fluid rhythmic thing (or whatever it
is). So he's connected up with Jazz (whatever way you want to think about it)
through that). To me, that's enough.
To go back to Jackson Pollock, it's that fluidity that is missing - until he
takes to his extended use of paint.
Simon Weil
Tom Walls
says...
>
>Faizal Ali wrote:
>>>I can't think of any free musicians who are not able to play competently in
>>>a more conventional genre, be it "mainstream" jazz, classical, or whatever.
>>>Can anyone else?
>>>
>>>
>>
>Tom Walls replied:
>>I was under the impression that Joe Morris was unschooled in conventional
>>guitar technique.
>>
>I don't know much about Morris's route, but, judging by the notes to the AUM
>albums it seems to have been pretty unconventional. Neverthless - and however
>he got to it - he can *swing*. He has that fluid rhythmic thing (or whatever
it
>is).
snip
I haven't really been following this thread, Simon, but I get the feeling that
this issue is likely tangential; nevertheless, I feel compelled to point out
that in order to participate in mainstream jazz a guitarist must necessarily
be able to play the changes -- which is quite demanding from a theoretical and
technical perspective -- or else they'll totally muck it all up.
Simon Weil
>>>I was under the impression that Joe Morris was unschooled in conventional
>>>guitar technique.
>>>
>>I don't know much about Morris's route, but, judging by the notes to the AUM
>>albums it seems to have been pretty unconventional. Neverthless - and
>however
>>he got to it - he can *swing*. He has that fluid rhythmic thing (or whatever
>
>it
>>is).
>
>snip
>
>I haven't really been following this thread, Simon, but I get the feeling
>that
>this issue is likely tangential; nevertheless, I feel compelled to point out
>that in order to participate in mainstream jazz a guitarist must necessarily
>be able to play the changes -- which is quite demanding from a theoretical
>and
>technical perspective -- or else they'll totally muck it all up.
>
sense it rather than anything else), it seems Morris knows what he's doing -
i.e extending what more traditional guitarists do with "changes", while
retaining the ability to play it straight if he wanted to.
And for all those Derek Bailey lovers (or otherwise) I just listened to the
Joseph Holbrooke CD single where I got to hear (a bit disconcertingly) Derek
play Miles Mode relatively traditionally. I quite like it.
Simon Weil
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
>I can't think of any free musicians who are not able to play competently in
>a more conventional genre, be it "mainstream" jazz, classical, or whatever.
>Can anyone else?
Well, how would you know, since most of them *don't* ever play in a
more conventional genre? I would think there are some who can and some
who can't, and to me it's irrelevant anyway. If a free musician can
make music that moves me within the context of free jazz, I don't care
whether or not he can play classical, rock, or Dixieland.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Bruce LeClaire
Simon Weil partly wrote:
>
> Bruce LeClaire wrote stuff like:
>
> > I stayed in my car to listen to Cecil, and he put me to sleep,
> > just like a baby!
>
>
> Yes, [Bruce] will be able to restrain himself just long enough.
> This, my friends, is the true way forward for Jazz.
"... fall asleep. Forever." Hmmm, ominous and vaguely disturbing, I
shaltn't be comparing Mr. Weil to Taylor anytime soon I assure you.
============================================
The Sound and the Fury - Painting and Music
============================================
In a previous post I used the word "limited"... which I am in cultural
matters such as these. Here then is an apropos quotation:
"Culture is wasted on me." -- me
Forging ahead nonetheless, "Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!"...
To compare these two separate art forms, painting and music, is really
quite bold, bordering on impetuous. Consider the disparity, painting
being visual, music aural. Painting involves colors, music timbres. Is
there a rhythm present to the observer of a painting analogous to the
undeniable rhythm of even the most arrhythmic music? Music is a
visceral experience, reaching into the listener's very being to evoke
the most basic emotions. Painting, at least modern abstract painting,
with its irrepressible representation and symbolism, invokes the higher
modes of thinking, often necessitating years of study of art history and
evolution to appreciate a painting's references and true content. Music
is immediate and hot (even the cool varieties) whereas painting is cool
and detached, contemplative, analytic and reflective (even the most
provocative varieties). [After all, there are no fundamental
frequencies in the brain matching those of colors, unlike sound.]
And yet, painting is as primitive and ancient as the 17,000 year old
cave paintings in Lascaux, France. Surely, the totems used by the
tribal societies of primitive man invoke profound emotion reactions from
the visual content of the art itelf. And ironically, the more one
abstracts the attempts to understanding either of the two art forms, the
more the attempts share a common language. Moreover, as many readers in
this newsgroup already appreciate, the study of the history and
evolution of the forms and styles in music leads to a deeper, better
listening experience. So then, what is mandatory in art appreciation is
merely essential in music appreciation. And if you choose not to ignore
the musician and wish to understand both artist and art, you must
understand the art form, its context, the antecedents, precedents and
descendants of each work, exactly as for painting.
Now, of course, there are humans involved in the creation of each art
form. So there exist parallels between the bushes and paints of one and
the instruments and notes of the other. The creative process, and the
compositional features, also seem to have a strong parallel. Indeed,
the initial aspects of a painting are referred to as composition. But
now, let us consider jazz. Admittedly, as Ellington correctly stated,
"jazz is a meaningless word" insofar as what is or isn't jazz really is
impossible to define. But rather than cast ourselves adrift on a vast
sea of relativism, with no compass whatsoever, let us instead adopt the
stance that jazz involves improvisation. [It is one of my favorite
topics after all.] Have we reached a irresolvable point of divergence
between these two art forms? Is this the point beyond which no parallel
exists?
We've arrived at the conclusion of this post. I'll finish by posing a
question, for which I already have one answer via example, as seen in
an obscure(?) movie featuring a rather less obscure painter.
Today the question, tomorrow, the movie.
==> Does/can painting (ever) have a improvisational component?
--Bruce
"People respond or fail to respond to certain music by virtue
not only of what the music is, but of what they are"
Ernest Newman (A Music Critic's Holiday, 1925).
Simon Weil
>> > I stayed in my car to listen to Cecil, and he put me to sleep,
>> > just like a baby!
>>
bits of my reply:
>> If only I had realised that's what you wanted. [...]
>>
>> Yes, [Bruce] will be able to restrain himself just long enough.
>> He'll compare me to Taylor. Then he'll fall asleep. Forever.
>> This, my friends, is the true way forward for Jazz.
>
>"... fall asleep. Forever." Hmmm, ominous and vaguely disturbing, I
>shaltn't be comparing Mr. Weil to Taylor anytime soon I assure you.
But you at least you have (implicitly) compared me to Taylor for the second
time in my life - and by such wonderful people (my cup runneth over!) and
demonstrated that you can't take a joke.
Simon Weil
Bruce LeClaire
Simon Weil wrote:
>
> But you at least you have (implicitly) compared me to Taylor for the second
> time in my life - and by such wonderful people (my cup runneth over!) and
> demonstrated that you can't take a joke.
>
Actually, I was trying to play along.
No matter, I can explicitly palliate the implicit subcontext in this
context, in an attempt to prevent further misunderstandings. Back to
the matter at hand.
============================================
The Sound and the Fury - Painting and Music
============================================
I did think of one more parallel/contrast to be drawn between music and
painting and composition and improvisation. It concerns the act of
creation and the artist. As I stated before I tend to regard the
improvisational aspects of jazz within a group setting, involving the
flow of creative energy between all the performers on stage. Painting,
in general, involves the solitary effort of just the painter. (Although
this ignores the model if one is used-- what would the analogy there
be? Audience, participant, both?). What is slightly interesting is
that solo jazz piano allows the music to be created in both a
compositional and improvisational context by one artist unlike almost
any other jazz music (exceptions always exist-- Rollins playing solo
sax, but the fullest solo voice will be the piano).
Now yesterday I promised to discuss an interesting movie that I've
seen. Here it is:
Le Mystčre Picasso (1956)
Director: Henri-Georges Clouzot
Writer: Henri-Georges Clouzot, Pablo Picasso
Photography: Claude Renoir
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0049531
It is a French documentary in which we observe Picasso creating numerous
works of art directly in front of the camera. Many of the works are
created with the camera behind the canvas, and Picasso uses essentially
magic markers which bleed through the paper. Thus, we get a
time-elapsed clear view of the piece of art which is essentially the
same view that Picasso himself saw (mirror imaged). Picasso also
invites the camera into his studio in order to view him create a work in
his normal media of paint (here of course the creation of the work is
captured as a series of stills rather than continously).
To quote a commentor from imdb (Warren Stringer):
This is my favorite art film. The premise is simple: treat film
as though it were a canvas and witness the process of creating
a work -- brushstroke by brushstroke. The part where Picasso is
laying down a beach scene -- layer by layer -- where the characters
and background are continuously reworked is mesmerizing!
To see Picasso actually create a work, to see his mind halt, hestitate
and then guide his hand with a new idea, which is pursued and perhaps
subsequently abandoned is indeed mesmerizing. Much like watching a
master blow a great solo.
As an aside, I'll mention that I saw this film within the past year. It
was shown for free at the Newton library. There were perhaps a dozen
people at most in the audience at the start of the film. By the finish,
I was the only person left in the room.
--Bruce