Matthew Perry and Jazz
J Bongo Zed
being interviewed. He makes $1 million per episode of "Friends" .
Anyway, I'm thinking, "That's why there are so many struggling actors!
Does this fellow know how many people he's putting out of work by
making that much money? Does the the TV company know how many
second-rate actors they could hire instead, for the same total sum?".
But he's doing "entertainment", not "art"; so that's OK. Still it got
me thinking of all those jazz greats (and other musicians) who made
very little for what they produced. I've always considered it very
unfortunate that such talented people should have been rewarded in
such meagre terms. Of course, I now see it differently: keeping them
starving kept other jazz musicians in work -- or did it? -- and
prevented those greats from sinking from art into entertainment.
Except Miles Davis: he actually signed a $1 million deal a long time
ago (when 1 million was 1 million), but being Miles that didn't put
anyone out of work, and he still produced art.
Sideways Jaye
J Bongo Zed
> mr. zed, you DO know you are an idiot, right?
No; am I?
Hoofington P. McSnort
http://www.consumptionjunction.com/feat/cc/detail.asp?ID=12020
Enjoy!
Gary Smiley
should spread some of his money around. There are more deserving players
than him.
Luke Kaven
I think I see what analogy you're trying to make. And think there is
something plausible in the line you're pursuing. But I also think
you're falling into the same pits as your more vocal opponents
sometimes do. I think you concern yourself too much at times with
refuting the straw arguments, which does little to advance your views.
I suspect you are capable of admitting more into the picture, but
that the newsgroup is stuck in a rut with the perpetual back-and-forth
antagonism. [And all share a little responsibility I think.]
Unlike Marc and some others here, I do think that moral facts are on a
par with scientific facts, and that it is possible for our more mature
theories to converge to better approximations of truth, and that this
truth is independent of any theory (or non-causal contributions from
our minds, following Boyd's argument against constructivism).
However, this does not imply that moral realism can adjudicate on
particulars, such as in saying 'Artist X is *good*' as an objective
claim. The place to look for moral realism in action is in the
dialectic that is being played out here, which reflects a range of
sentiments (inluding the informed and the misinformed) and stresses.
Various forms of jazz are species in a diverse environment. One
should be a naturalist, and examine which forces influence the
survival of one species or another.
Of all the things that sustain a social species, financial incentive
is just one of them. We must also weigh in beliefs about the value of
life and what pursuits are right for one's life. It is possible for
beliefs and attendant tastes to consist in misinformation (just plain
untrue facts). I think there is reason to not value other people's
false beliefs, notably where they take away from the well-being of
another by contrast with counterfactual possibilities. Similarly, I
think there is reason to value true beliefs where they contribute to
the well-being of another, especially if they are the product of an
uncommon achievement.
I think you are correct that we should not be speaking about art
versus entertainment in strict dichotomy. But I think we have to
acknowledge that we are still talking about different species, and the
nature of those species requires more detailed examination.
The Kenny G phenomenon is driven by a number of things native to the
social constituency of which he is a figurehead. As it happens, these
things are not native to the constituency of many other jazz forms,
and in fact, many are allergic. This would be of no concern if it
were not for the fact that the Kenny-G-jazz species has causal
implications for the survival of some of these other species. This
comes from its ability to appropriate large numbers of listeners and
large amounts of money, thus potentially overwhelming the other
species. Its almost like a red tide. I would not deny Kenny G
himself any of the right to be rich and famous. What I would deny is
the right of *that species* (Smooth, pop, fuzak, what-have-you) to
impinge upon the survival of the social species of which I am a
constituent. So I am playing a part, along with others here and
elsewhere, in being a countervailing cause. But my aim is towards
biodiversity.
[Perhaps Peter King will come along and set my wayward naturalism
straight, but I suspect he also agrees up to a point, at last in
sharing the sentiments.]
Best, Luke
J Bongo Zed
>>
>
> I think I see what analogy you're trying to make. And think there is
> something plausible in the line you're pursuing. But I also think
> you're falling into the same pits as your more vocal opponents
> sometimes do. I think you concern yourself too much at times with
> refuting the straw arguments, which does little to advance your views.
Luke, I'm not sure that I was particularly trying to advance any
views, but something in some remote corner of my brain tells me you
could be right.
> I suspect you are capable of admitting more into the picture, but
> that the newsgroup is stuck in a rut with the perpetual back-and-forth
> antagonism. [And all share a little responsibility I think.]
Hmmm. Interesting point. You will have noticed that certain
pro-Marsalis posts appeared *only after* the man's name was introduced
by others and subjected to slanderous attacks. I don't know if you
remember that strongly pro-jazz character called Amos, a truly devoted
jazz fan, a good and honest man, a jazz expert of the highest order
... Anyway, I think there was something to his style. Basically, his
response to unwarranted attacks on Marsalis and associates was to
attack the other side -- the avant-something, as represented by, say,
Cecil Taylor. (By the way, you will have noticed, through a couple of
recent posts, that in Amos's absence, his fans will seek him out.)
Me, I just praise Marsalis when he is attacked. Somebody wrote that I
just praise Marsalis just to get people worked up. Interesting, eh?
People don't stop to think: they are so driven by hatred that as soon
as they see the man's name, they will just go ballistic. I wonder if
it has ever occurred to them to do otherwise. But I'm sure you can
see how it makes our owrk easy: people piss us off with unwarranted,
vicious attacks on Wynton; to piss them off in return, all we have to
do is put "Marsalis" in the subject line and a few words of praise in
the body of the posting and then sit back and watch them lose it. In
future, I think I'll just put "W.M." in the header and "Go!" in the
body and save myself some typing.
Now, I'm sure you think all this is a silly waste of time, and, again,
something in some remote corner of my brain tells me that you could be
right. But here's the thing: that's the way the people want and love
it! They will announce killfiles all day long and shout "troll" all
night long, and then jump in with both feet. See that thread on
improvisation? You'd think that, this being a jazz newsgroup, people
would be piling onto that thread. But, no -- not when there are more
juicy threads elsewhere and more dodgy stories to be made up about
Wynton's background. I've seen it go on for year after year, for
something like a decade now. And here's my conclusion: discussing,
promoting, learning about jazz are a rather small part of what most
people are here for; mostly, they enjoy what they call "flame wars".
So people like me actually provide a great service. We give the
people what they want, in between the occasional remarks on jazz. I'm
like a hooker in these parts: everbody claims to dest me, but they all
keep wanting to have a piece. And, as is the case with all hookers,
the two-faced lack of gratitude for our services really rankles.
But don't give up yet, friend: somtime around The Second Coming, we'll
devote ourseles to mostly jazz.
> Unlike Marc and some others here, I do think that moral facts are on a
> par with scientific facts, and that it is possible for our more mature
> theories to converge to better approximations of truth, and that this
> truth is independent of any theory (or non-causal contributions from
> our minds, following Boyd's argument against constructivism).
You were doing really well -- until here. Isms usually just send my
head spinning. Yes, yes, I know I need to work on it. It's just that
I haven't yet got to that higher level, where my enjoyment of jazz is
increased by knowing that jazz is actually a post-expressionistic
parallel of non-causal cooking, as practiced by believers of
pre-modern constructive poetry. Admittedly, I am still influenced ny
impressionism in this regard.
> I would not deny Kenny G
> himself any of the right to be rich and famous. What I would deny is
> the right of *that species* (Smooth, pop, fuzak, what-have-you) to
> impinge upon the survival of the social species of which I am a
> constituent. So I am playing a part, along with others here and
> elsewhere, in being a countervailing cause.
Countervail away, friend; and good luck to you! It's only a matter of
time and plenty of countervailing, and before you know it Mr. G will
be handing back some of that green and turning away his followers --
all for the benefit of the impinged-upon species.
yours
Mr Zed
(But *you* may call me Bongo)
Luke Kaven
> Me, I just praise Marsalis when he is attacked. Somebody wrote that I
> just praise Marsalis just to get people worked up. Interesting, eh?
Sometimes it seems like both sides are determined to give 110% back of
what they receive. It seems like what a computer-scientist would call
a "race condition" (not a reference to skin color, obviously), and it
escalates to eventual chaos unless it is mitigated. To see this kind
of thing gone horribly wrong, one should look through the archives of
rec.audio.opinion. If this isn't a reductio ad absurdam in favor of
keeping a level head on USENET, I haven't seen one yet. My point is
that it is a mini-hysteria that infects people on both sides of the
argument. It involves all kinds of things, including mutual feeding
off attention, and it takes some mutual recognition of that to get
over it. Tonight I was thinking that the resolution of the situation
eventually rests on your devising an alternate strategy that still
allows you to make a point. This is not to say that you are wrong or
right, it is only to say that you are the One in a Many-to-One
conflict, and much of the power needed to defuse the conflict lies
mainly with you.
> But don't give up yet, friend: somtime around The Second Coming, we'll
> devote ourseles to mostly jazz.
> > Unlike Marc and some others here, I do think that moral facts are on a
> > par with scientific facts, and that it is possible for our more mature
> > theories to converge to better approximations of truth, and that this
> > truth is independent of any theory (or non-causal contributions from
> > our minds, following Boyd's argument against constructivism).
>
> You were doing really well -- until here. Isms usually just send my
> head spinning. Yes, yes, I know I need to work on it. It's just that
> I haven't yet got to that higher level, where my enjoyment of jazz is
> increased by knowing that jazz is actually a post-expressionistic
> parallel of non-causal cooking, as practiced by believers of
> pre-modern constructive poetry. Admittedly, I am still influenced ny
> impressionism in this regard.
I'm not doing badly, but I was a little overwrought.
> > I would not deny Kenny G
> > himself any of the right to be rich and famous. What I would deny is
> > the right of *that species* (Smooth, pop, fuzak, what-have-you) to
> > impinge upon the survival of the social species of which I am a
> > constituent. So I am playing a part, along with others here and
> > elsewhere, in being a countervailing cause.
> Countervail away, friend; and good luck to you! It's only a matter of
> time and plenty of countervailing, and before you know it Mr. G will
> be handing back some of that green and turning away his followers --
> all for the benefit of the impinged-upon species.
I'm not advocating that particular outcome. I think this is one of
the straw arguments that you pick up on, and I'm not sure that your
opponents have really made just that argument.
The Straw Argument: It is unjust for Wynton to receive $1M to make a
jazz record when that same money could be distributed more equitably
to a larger group of talented artists.
As emotionally compelling as this is (to me especially), I don't think
this is the proposition of import. But to find the proposition of
import, one has to understand the intuitions behind this sentiment
(which is expressed popularly here and elsewhere as we know).
I've said elsewhere that each artist is embedded within a social
superstructure (or several) in which they fulfill various roles. Each
of these social superstructures has different valuations. Which of
these social superstructures an artist finds herself in depends upon
who she is, what her beliefs are, and how these are expressed in her
musical works. [Music can express many things, but this invariable
*includes* expressions of one's own beliefs, even if trivially so.]
In some forms of music, youth and beauty are valued. In some forms,
simplicity is valued. In some forms, innovation is valued. In some
forms, independence is valued, and in other forms it is not.
I do not think there is a way to translate the economic strength that
is behind one social superstructure into equivalent strength of
another. The social causes behind the act of offering Wynton $1M to
make an instrumental jazz record do not have the same components of
value as those behind offerings to other artists. The etiology is
entirely different, and so are the risks and expectations.
As I've said before, my problem is not that pop-jazz exists per se, it
is whether it is destructive to the social superstructure(s) that I'm
embedded within. We talk a lot about C Sharpe as several of our
artists played with him. We talk a lot now about Frank Hewitt, who
passed away yesterday. We praise Frank for his uncompromising
courage, and his willingness to play his extraordinary brand of bebop,
which few in the audience ever understood. We value the mind, heart,
and combined talent that made him able to reach that high a level of
achievement. And, in a strange twist, we value that in him that was
willing to undergo economic hardship in maintaining his allegiance to
a complex and challenging musical idiom. His music always was
well-understood by other musicians, but only by a few members of the
listening public. Perhaps only small numbers of people ever will
appreciate him. But we do not want to see those values threatened.
As far as the economic potential of these artists is concerned, it
seems to depend partly upon the willingness of the listeners to engage
the music on its own terms. But nevertheless, I think there is a bit
more economic potential in it than some people suppose. I'm putting
that to the test, so we'll see.
Luke
void
>
> Sometimes it seems like both sides are determined to give 110% back of
> what they receive. It seems like what a computer-scientist would call
> a "race condition"
Are you sure? I don't see the analogy, but perhaps you can explain.
Now, if you called it an endless loop, I would not be inclined to argue.
From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02) [foldoc]:
Anomolous behavior due to unexpected critical dependence on
the relative timing of events.
For example, if one process writes to a file while another is
reading from the same location then the data read may be the
old contents, the new contents or some mixture of the two
depending on the relative timing of the read and write
operations.
[...]
--
Ben
"An art scene of delight
I created this to be ..." -- Sun Ra
Luke Kaven
I think I did make a mistake. I forgot this was commonly used to
refer to mutual exclusion cases. For some reason, I have it confused
with an infinite loop between two processes involving mutual
escalation. For ezample, A repeats everything B says and adds "so
there", and B repeats everything A says and adds "yeah right". Is
there a term for that condition (other than what you are tempted to
answer)?
Luke
void
>
> I think I did make a mistake. I forgot this was commonly used to
> refer to mutual exclusion cases. For some reason, I have it confused
> with an infinite loop between two processes involving mutual
> escalation. For ezample, A repeats everything B says and adds "so
> there", and B repeats everything A says and adds "yeah right". Is
> there a term for that condition (other than what you are tempted to
> answer)?
Yes, from control systems theory: "positive feedback loop".