Abair takes groove angle on jazz
Sum1
her show?
-----------------------
http://www.jsonline.com/onwisconsin/music/may03/139294.asp
Abair takes groove angle on jazz
Saxophonist opens summer concert series with own mix of music
By DAVE TIANEN
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Last Updated: May 7, 2003
Potawatomi Bingo Casino's Northern Lights Theater opened its Jazztrax series
of summer concerts Wednesday with new saxophonist Mindi Abair.
The series is sponsored by smooth jazz station WJZI-FM (93.3), and Abair's
debut album has topped Billboard's Contemporary Jazz chart among such
brother pipers as Kenny G. Indeed, Abair's first single, "Lucy's," has been
a huge hit on smooth jazz formats.
There's just one problem. Abair says she's not a smooth jazz musician.
And judging by Wednesday night, she's a honest woman.
Smooth jazz tends to be about mood and atmospherics. Abair is more about
groove. In that respect, she's closer to R&B-influenced players such as Tom
Scott and David Sanborn. She also has more than a little in common with
Candy Dulfer, most obviously a grounding in pop-rock songcraft. In that
regard, John Taylor of Duran Duran helped out on the album, and she counts
the Go-Go's as a major influence. And, of course, Dulfer and Abair both have
that whole blond babe with a horn thing.
Which is not to say she can't craft a pretty melody or a deft mood piece.
She can. When she wants, Abair has the great gift of being able to write a
simple, evocative pop tune. "Remember" falls in that camp. So did the a
slightly exotic ode to London night life, "Momo," and the sultry late night
nod to the Margarita, "Salt and Lime."
But mostly she's about groove. "Lucy," "As Good As It Gets," "Right On" and
"Flirt" are all first-rate dance fodder, boosted in no small measure by the
superlative skills of bassist Andre Berry, formerly with Tom Scott and TLC.
Although she's hardly a straight-ahead jazzer, she does count Cannonball
Adderley among her favorites, and Wednesday's set included a nod to
Cannonball's "Work Song." I never heard the original, but Abair's version
has kind of a heat-of-the-night-vintage-Jimmy-Smith lurid quality. It sounds
like it should have been on the soundtrack of "Body Heat."
Among her other charms, Abair occasionally sings. That happened mainly on
her version of Eagle Eye Cherry's "Save Tonight." She doesn't have the
greatest range in the world, but there's a certain girlish charm that's
disarming in small doses.
Judging from the performance of the album and the way she won over the
Northern Lights crowd, Abair has more than enough talent and appeal to give
the Boney James/Richard Elliot tribe some serious competition.
From the May 8, 2003 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Luke Kaven
[...]
>Although she's hardly a straight-ahead jazzer, she does count Cannonball
>Adderley among her favorites, and Wednesday's set included a nod to
>Cannonball's "Work Song."
> I never heard the original,
"That's why I'm a jazz critic!"
>but Abair's version
>has kind of a heat-of-the-night-vintage-Jimmy-Smith lurid quality. It sounds
>like it should have been on the soundtrack of "Body Heat."
It has a kind of Stravinsky quality. It sounds like it should have
been in a Disney musical.
It has a kind of Faulknerian quality. It sounds like it should have
been in a Hallmark greeting card.
Glenn Wilson
that there's a big difference between smooth jazz and r/b jazz. One is
about 'mood and atmospherics' and other is about 'groove'. Wow. The
Milwaukee Sentinel-Journal should be ashamed to publish such crap. On top
of everything else, we get a guy who can't even write. So he's not a writer
and he's doesn't know jazz, but he can read a press release and he can tell
a 'blond babe with a horn' from David Sanborn. Sounds qualified to me.
But at least Ms. Abair has her roots in the right place. 'She counts the
Go-Go's as a major influence'?????????
Also nice of the reviewer to use the term 'Boney James/Richard Elliot
_tribe_' while he's writing from an Indian reservation.
Glenn
--
www.jazzmaniac.com
"Sum1" <shridurga@-spamoff-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b9kc03$2uap$1...@nwall1.odn.ne.jp...
Brian Rost
up Ms. Aabir's new CD for my niece who is in elementrary school and on
her second year of alto sax. Not too many femlae sax players she can
have as role models, and I figured Jane Ira Bloom would be over her head :)
Has anyone actually HEARD this CD? The more rock/pop the better I would
think to keep the interest of a 10 year old gitl.
--
Brian Rost
Stargen, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Luke Kaven
>In a more serious vein, it just so happens I was interested in picking
>up Ms. Aabir's new CD for my niece who is in elementrary school and on
>her second year of alto sax. Not too many femlae sax players she can
>have as role models, and I figured Jane Ira Bloom would be over her head :)
>
>Has anyone actually HEARD this CD? The more rock/pop the better I would
>think to keep the interest of a 10 year old gitl.
Don't underestimate the intellect of a ten year-old, especially where
music is concerned!
Sum1
late. Much better than Candy Dulfer's new one. Maybe you can enjoy it
together, eh?
"Brian Rost" <ro...@stargen.com> wrote in message
news:3EBFCFA7...@stargen.com...
Glenn Wilson
'moanin altos', as I like to called them. That's the problem with smooth
jazz. There's so little personal interpretation that it really doesn't
matter who it is. Her stuff is extremely overproduced in my opinion which
is usually a sign that there's not much behind it.
BUT - the even bigger issue is how she is marketed. As an experiment, I had
my 9 year old daughter, who wants to play sax next year in band, and who is
a pretty good pianist look at the CD and hear some of it. She saw the cover
and remaked "That's sexist". In my opinion, little girls have enough of
that shit thrust upon them without hiding it behind a sax and calling it
jazz. It Mindi was a very plain looking woman who played like she does, you
can forget about ever hearing her.
There are some really good female saxists who really play the instrument
that she might dig.
As Luke said, don't underestimate her.
Glenn--
www.jazzmaniac.com
"Brian Rost" <ro...@stargen.com> wrote in message
news:3EBFCFA7...@stargen.com...
Sum1
"Glenn Wilson" <glenn.wil...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:wQVva.16884$TM6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Brian - I have heard her. So have you if you've heard any of 5 or 6
> 'moanin altos', as I like to called them. That's the problem with smooth
> jazz. There's so little personal interpretation that it really doesn't
> matter who it is. Her stuff is extremely overproduced in my opinion which
> is usually a sign that there's not much behind it.
I didn't really hear that. What makes you think she's "extremely
overproduced"?
> BUT - the even bigger issue is how she is marketed. As an experiment, I
had
> my 9 year old daughter, who wants to play sax next year in band, and who
is
> a pretty good pianist look at the CD and hear some of it. She saw the
cover
> and remaked "That's sexist".
But what did she say about the music?
Brian Rost
>
> There are some really good female saxists who really play the instrument
> that she might dig.
>
Who did you have in mind? I have a lot of Jane Ira Bloom, but I think
she would be too abstract for a 10 year old to enjoy.
Sum1
"Glenn Wilson" <glenn.wil...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:wQVva.16884$TM6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> BUT - the even bigger issue is how she is marketed. As an experiment, I
had
> my 9 year old daughter, who wants to play sax next year in band, and who
is
> a pretty good pianist look at the CD and hear some of it. She saw the
cover
> and remaked "That's sexist". In my opinion, little girls have enough of
> that shit thrust upon them without hiding it behind a sax and calling it
> jazz. It Mindi was a very plain looking woman who played like she does,
you
> can forget about ever hearing her.
After I wrote my last message I was thinking about what you had written and
I really can't fathom your daughter's reaction to the cd cover. It's a
picture of a woman holding a saxophone. If you haven't seen it, look here:
http://www.vervemusicgroup.com/grp/product.asp?pid=10745
Perhaps you could elaborate on what qualities of the cover typify the "shit
thrust upon" little girls (presumably in the USA, I'm guessing).
Glenn Wilson
"shit
> thrust upon" little girls (presumably in the USA, I'm guessing).
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but, yeah in the USA, kids are
exposed to way more than they need to be at a young age.
I guess Britanny Spears would be a good example but there are many, many
more. All you need to do is visit a junior high or high school in the any
US city and you'll find girls dressing provacatively. The schools have to
have rules about showing the midrift, showing cleavage, etc. Kids are sent
home regularly to change clothes. I got my daughter a subscritpion to
Girl's Life magazine when her school was selling mags. This is a mag that's
supposed to be for pre-teens and teens. I was appalled by what I saw in
there. A good portion of the articles are about how to attract boys, get
boys, prevent pregnancy, wear makeup, etc. It's like Cosmopolitan for
little girls.
In the rock/pop world things are changing a little bit. There's sort of a
backlash against the Brittanys and some of the young female singers are
being promoted as an alternative to all the sex, etc. That's a good thing,
I guess.
As far as Mindi is concerned, I don't blame her, necessarily, for the way
she is marketed. Take a look at the her page on the Verve site and you'll
see a "Mindi Abair Photo Gallery" with a bunch (14) of what I would call
provocative photos that happen to have a sax in them. You can also win a
trip to LA to see Mindi perform, you can send a Mindi animated flash eCard
to your friends and be 'the talk of the town'. You can download pictures of
her for your wallpaper, you can watch a video of Mindi, etc. etc.
My point being, it's not about her music. Do you think the Backstreet Boys
would want, oh lets' say Tim Ries, whose a fantastic jazz saxophonist and
played with the Rolling Stones, on the gig? No. They want a hot, sexy
woman to play some licks and do the show. Same thing with Prince and Candy
Dulfer. Did Prince use Candy Dulfer for her saxophonistic abilities?
You'll never convince me of that.
I just don't think that we need to promote that type of stuff to young
girls. Most are not going to look like her and Candy and most are not going
to get the gigs because of the way they look, not how they play.
As far as being overproduced, I guess it depends on what you're used to
listening to. When I hear synths, etc. layered so thickly that's it's hard
to even pick out the sax sound, and the sax sound itself is so compressed
that it almost doesn't sound like a sax, I call that overproduced.
Hey, I could be wrong. Maybe she can play her ass off. If so, I hope we
get to hear it, but so far, GRP is going the other way and I don't blame
them. They want to sell records and, as we all know, sex sells.
Glenn
www.jazzmaniac.com
>
>
>
>
Glenn Wilson
big band sound if she's in school and it might get her interested in jazz
band.
There are many others I could mention but what I would suggest is searching
the archives in alt.music.saxophone. There are regular discussions of
female saxists and who's doing what. If you can't find that, let me know
and I'll get the specifics for you.
Glenn
www.jazzmaniac.com
"Brian Rost" <ro...@stargen.com> wrote in message
news:3EC0E541...@stargen.com...
JC Martin
will withhold commentary on this one.
-JC
ric
> > BUT - the even bigger issue is how she is marketed. As an experiment, I
> > had
> > my 9 year old daughter, who wants to play sax next year in band, and who
> > is
> > a pretty good pianist look at the CD and hear some of it. She saw the
> > cover
> > and remaked "That's sexist".
> After I wrote my last message I was thinking about what you had written and
> I really can't fathom your daughter's reaction to the cd cover. It's a
> picture of a woman holding a saxophone. If you haven't seen it, look here:
It's the "come hither" look she is giving, IMO. And I'll bet she wears
something different when she is performing.
--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...
Sum1
demeaning? Why? The only thing revealed is a bit of midriff; many women
show much more.
Obviously Mindi capitalizes on her looks, but why shouldn't she? Simply
because she chooses to use that angle in her marketing doesn't necessarily
mean its because she can't play. Sure the Backstreet boys want someone who
looks good on stage. But if thats all they want then the choices are
endless and there's no need to pay a graduate of Berklee College.
--------------
http://www.pauseandplay.com/abair.htm
IT JUST HAPPENS THAT WAY FOR MINDI ABAIR
"Even in college, my saxophone teacher, Joe Viola, he would constantly tell
me, 'Get out there with your own band. Go for it. Do your own music,' "
Abair said. "He knew I wrote a lot and he very much encouraged that.
"When I first moved to Los Angeles, no one would hire me or knew who I was.
One of the only ways I could get out there and play was to have my own band.
I'd write out charts for all my songs and hire different people and play all
the clubs."
The strategy paid off: It led to stints with Jonathan Butler, Adam Sandler,
the Backstreet Boys, Mandy Moore and Bobby Lyle.
Abair comments on a few of them:
BACKSTREET BOYS: "I had such a good time on the road with them. It was a
life experience; I had to soak it in, because who gets to do this, playing
in front of 40,000 people?
"I played sax, keyboards and percussion for them. When they changed clothes,
and believe me it took a while, I got do a sax solo. What was cool for me
was a lot of girls in the audience loved to see a woman up there breaking
the rules. I got so many e-mails and letters from girls and even their
mothers saying 'I'm practicing more' or 'I'm taking up an instrument and
you've really inspired me to go after what I love, that it's possible to do
this.'
"There aren't many role models to show girls that, 'Hey, you can be whatever
you want to be.' "
"Glenn Wilson" <glenn.wil...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:fn7wa.22208$TM6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Sum1
"ric" <spam...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3EC15C26...@cox.net...
You could probably verify that by looking for some live photos on her
website.
I haven't seen Mindi live, but I did see Candy a few months back and she
wore a blouse that revealed her midriff together with a pair of olive green
cargo pants, the kinds with pockets on the legs.
Sum1
"JC Martin" <jcma...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:Ugawa.13975$JX2.8...@typhoon.sonic.net...
Tom Frey
I've seen Virginia Mayhew live at the SJ Jazz Festival a couple of times and
can vouch for her a serious sax player. Her albums have gotte decent reviews
(I haven't gotten around to a purchase yet, Nini Green is my incliniation).
Just a suggestion.
Tom
Luke Kaven
>But I still don't see why the picture is sexist - sexy, perhaps, but
>demeaning? Why? The only thing revealed is a bit of midriff; many women
>show much more.
>
>Obviously Mindi capitalizes on her looks, but why shouldn't she? Simply
>because she chooses to use that angle in her marketing doesn't necessarily
>mean its because she can't play. Sure the Backstreet boys want someone who
>looks good on stage. But if thats all they want then the choices are
>endless and there's no need to pay a graduate of Berklee College.
I wouldn't say it is necessarily sexist. There are plenty of women
who choose to present themselves provocatively without men controlling
their choices.
You wonder what reasons one would have for objecting to the kind of
presentation used in Mindi's 14 picture gallery on the Verve site.
The objections have more to do with aesthetic and artistic decisions
than they do with other concerns.
What is she telling people with that layout?
1) The music is not enough, you need the sexual innuendo.
2) I am willing to use extra-musical content to make you want to buy
my CD.
3) The artistic quality of the photographs is not important; what is
important is that they make you want me.
The questions about her performance are not of the "can she play?"
variety. They are of the "what does she have to say?" variety. All I
can hear her saying is "buy this fashionable image of me". The
photographs are not even artistic; they are pure fashion, cloying and
manipulative -- designed from the ground up to produce a conditioned
response from the male.
Consider what the artist confronts and is confronted with. You have
your entire life, every waking hour, to exemplify your art. In Ms
Abair's case, she has the money as well. So you've got your entire
life to use to make a point, and enough money to get by -- what have
you got to say dammit? Is this all she could do? If so, then she has
squandered herself as an artist. But one has to suspect that she does
not want to be an artist, and that in fact, she does what she does for
the money, the glamour, and the fame. While you might say that is art
to a degree, I would say that it is flawed because her art is getting
people to buy her art. Somewhere in that circular clause, the art
itself gets lost in an infinite regress.
Just so you don't think I can't distinguish within the genre, I have
heard Smooth Jazz that is somewhat pretty to my ears, and somewhat
artistic, even if I don't choose to buy it or listen to it on my own.
I think Yoshiaki Masuo is a talented guitarist with a nice touch, and
what he plays is musically interesting (just not my cup of tea).
Luke
Sum1
"Luke Kaven" <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote in message
news:ted3cv02525nnrp7j...@4ax.com...
>
> You wonder what reasons one would have for objecting to the kind of
> presentation used in Mindi's 14 picture gallery on the Verve site.
> The objections have more to do with aesthetic and artistic decisions
> than they do with other concerns.
>
> What is she telling people with that layout?
>
> 1) The music is not enough, you need the sexual innuendo.
> 2) I am willing to use extra-musical content to make you want to buy
> my CD.
> 3) The artistic quality of the photographs is not important; what is
> important is that they make you want me.
Well, that's certainly what YOU've read into it.
Sure, she looks good and she's using that to help sell her music. But isn't
the musician supposed to want to people to listen to her music? Is it not
acceptable to use all means available to get people to lend an ear?
> The questions about her performance are not of the "can she play?"
> variety. They are of the "what does she have to say?" variety. All I
> can hear her saying is "buy this fashionable image of me".
Possibly you were convinced of that before you ever heard the music. If
not, well, then that's what you hear. What I hear is a young woman having a
good time doing what she likes doing and what she has spent her life working
on.
> Consider what the artist confronts and is confronted with. You have
> your entire life, every waking hour, to exemplify your art.
Why would you want every waking hour to exemplify your art? Isn't that a
bit extreme? Do you mean to say that taking a dump, getting your hair cut,
and taking out the trash (just to name a few examples) should in some way be
consciously connected with your creative life?
> In Ms Abair's case, she has the money as well. So you've got your entire
> life to use to make a point, and enough money to get by -- what have
> you got to say dammit? Is this all she could do? If so, then she has
> squandered herself as an artist.
First of all, saying "Let's have a good time" is enough for me. I don't
always need music to have somber resonance.
Secondly, who are we to judge how this young lady has thus far spent her
life and used her abilities? Perhaps others would find you lacking on
examination. Are you prepared to bow to another's criticim of how you have
lived your life?
How old is Mindi? Is she at the beginning of her career or the end?
> But one has to suspect that she does
> not want to be an artist, and that in fact, she does what she does for
> the money, the glamour, and the fame.
Who says these are mutually exclusive categories?
> While you might say that is art
> to a degree, I would say that it is flawed because her art is getting
> people to buy her art.
So to be an artist you have to give up all thought of making money, or even
wanting people to listen to your music?
Luke Kaven
>"Luke Kaven" <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>>
>> You wonder what reasons one would have for objecting to the kind of
>> presentation used in Mindi's 14 picture gallery on the Verve site.
>> The objections have more to do with aesthetic and artistic decisions
>> than they do with other concerns.
>>
>> What is she telling people with that layout?
>>
>> 1) The music is not enough, you need the sexual innuendo.
>> 2) I am willing to use extra-musical content to make you want to buy
>> my CD.
>> 3) The artistic quality of the photographs is not important; what is
>> important is that they make you want me.
>Sure, she looks good and she's using that to help sell her music. But isn't
>the musician supposed to want to people to listen to her music? Is it not
>acceptable to use all means available to get people to lend an ear?
You're conflating normative notions with aesthetic notions. It is not
a matter of the deontology of it (what's forbidden, obligatory,
permissible, supererogatory, etc.). Within legal limits, she can do
what she wishes. One could even be deceptive up to a point, for
example, and still be within the limits of the law.
But when it comes to aesthetics, there is a difference. Are all means
of getting people to lend an ear equally good in aesthetic terms?
>> The questions about her performance are not of the "can she play?"
>> variety. They are of the "what does she have to say?" variety. All I
>> can hear her saying is "buy this fashionable image of me".
>
>Possibly you were convinced of that before you ever heard the music. If
>not, well, then that's what you hear. What I hear is a young woman having a
>good time doing what she likes doing and what she has spent her life working
>on.
I am not taking issue with the fact that (ex hypothesi) she has a good
time doing what she likes doing after spending her life working on it.
It is the aesthetic value of that (given the particulars) which is in
question.
>> Consider what the artist confronts and is confronted with. You have
>> your entire life, every waking hour, to exemplify your art.
>
>Why would you want every waking hour to exemplify your art?
These are the resources you have as an artist. Of course, how many
use every waking hour to exemplify their art. But those are the
resources, and that is the challenge. Everything a musician plays is
an opportunity to be artful.
>> In Ms Abair's case, she has the money as well. So you've got your entire
>> life to use to make a point, and enough money to get by -- what have
>> you got to say dammit? Is this all she could do? If so, then she has
>> squandered herself as an artist.
>
>First of all, saying "Let's have a good time" is enough for me. I don't
>always need music to have somber resonance.
How do you distinguish between Danielle Steele and Shakespeare? If
you want to say that they are both artists, I'm not going to take
issue. But surely, you would distinguish between them in terms of
aesthetic value. Shakespeare was popular, funny, entertaining -- but
there was a lot more to it. Doesn't that figure into your aesthetic
judgments? If not, then how *do* you distinguish between them? Would
you throw Shakespeare out of the English Literature courses in favor
of Danielle Steele in the belief that they are of equal value? It
seems you commit yourself to such.
>Secondly, who are we to judge how this young lady has thus far spent her
>life and used her abilities? Perhaps others would find you lacking on
>examination. Are you prepared to bow to another's criticim of how you have
>lived your life?
I wouldn't doubt that others would/have/will find me lacking on
examination. But I'm not a career artist, and these judgments would
not be concerned with art.
>> But one has to suspect that she does
>> not want to be an artist, and that in fact, she does what she does for
>> the money, the glamour, and the fame.
>
>Who says these are mutually exclusive categories?
I didn't say that they were. I was suggesting that in her case, she
does what she does *merely* for money, glamour, and fame. What she
gives in return is more Danielle Steele than Shakespeare.
>> While you might say that is art
>> to a degree, I would say that it is flawed because her art is getting
>> people to buy her art.
>
>So to be an artist you have to give up all thought of making money, or even
>wanting people to listen to your music?
There is no such entailment, so I can't really respond.
Luke
Pgonzo98
Sum1
> >Sure, she looks good and she's using that to help sell her music. But
isn't
> >the musician supposed to want to people to listen to her music? Is it
not
> >acceptable to use all means available to get people to lend an ear?
>
> You're conflating normative notions with aesthetic notions.
I usually do that only after eating too much cabbage. My apologies.
What I should have said is, if she can use her good looks to get the public
to give her music a listen, then more power to her. Other musicians should
be as fortunate.
> Are all means
> of getting people to lend an ear equally good in aesthetic terms?
I can't think of a negative example. Maybe you can.
> >Why would you want every waking hour to exemplify your art?
>
> These are the resources you have as an artist. Of course, how many
> use every waking hour to exemplify their art. But those are the
> resources, and that is the challenge. Everything a musician plays is
> an opportunity to be artful.
When you're on the squatter squeezing out a loaf, are you working on the art
of your recording business? Or is it possible that you're enjoying the
comics page or even a skin mag?
> How do you distinguish between Danielle Steele and Shakespeare?
There are lots of ways to distinguish between the two, but probably the most
useful is that many people would rather read read the former than the
latter. In fact, most people can more accurately comprehend the former than
the latter.
> Would
> you throw Shakespeare out of the English Literature courses in favor
> of Danielle Steele in the belief that they are of equal value?
For an English Lit course I would presume that the purpose is to give
students some understanding of the history and development of English
literature, in which case Shakespeare weighs more heavily.
But what is this analogy meant to represent? Mindi is Danielle, and
Shakespeare is ?
> I wouldn't doubt that others would/have/will find me lacking on
> examination. But I'm not a career artist
Depends on how you define art, eh?
> >> But one has to suspect that she does
> >> not want to be an artist, and that in fact, she does what she does for
> >> the money, the glamour, and the fame.
> >
> >Who says these are mutually exclusive categories?
You. "She does what she does for money, not becasue she wants to be an
artist." In other words, to be an artist requires giving up any interest
in financial gain.
Sum1
"Pgonzo98" <pgon...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030516055359...@mb-m24.aol.com...
> just more smooth crap!!
just another retarded poster to rmb!!
Luke Kaven
instead of one wayward thread, there arise a half dozen or more
wayward threads. I'm going to consolidate my response instead.
1) I said that one typically does not exemplify themselves as an
artist at every waking moment. But I did say that these are the
resources that the artist has, and the challenge that they face is how
to make use of their resources. Being an artist does also entail
living in the broad sense and being receptive to experience, so that
when one is producing art, one has something to talk about besides
life in the practice room or studio. In that sense, an artist *can*
be exemplifying themselves as an artist during much of their waking
life, and many do. [Your scatological parodies aside.]
2) You are evasive, or at least incomplete, on the question of
aesthetic value. You do acknowledge that Shakespeare was influential
on English literature. Yet you seem to imply that this is like a
"mere historicism", viz., that it's only value is to talk about the
past. Certainly there are a lot of people who read Shakespeare and
see his plays performed because they are among the most sublime
experiences, sublime enough for the plays to be presented and enjoyed
continuously for five hundred years going. You are missing the sense
in which a work of art is preserved (or carried over into succesive
generations) because it demonstrates persistent value. Aristotle,
Plato, Locke, Hume, Kant (and Shakespeare) are all read today because
they still say something important to us today, as much as they are
read because they played a role in a chain of historical
developments..
By contrast, I would wager that in the future, nobody will judge
Danielle Steele to be of sufficient value to be included in the canon
of literature. Similarly, in the future, nobody will judge Mindi
Abair to be of sufficient value to be included in the musical canon.
However, I would wager that Charlie Parker, and Thelonious Monk, and
John Coltrane will still be judged worth preserving.
3) I think there is a danger in buying into the cult of glamour and
fashion when it comes to art, even popular art, or even journalism for
that matter. A friend of mine used to produce programs for Lifetime.
She located the world's foremost acknowledged expert on the subject of
a given documentary for inclusion in the program. The executive
producers refused to include this expert, and the reasons they cited
were that she was "too old, and too ugly". The producer was forced to
get a commentator of no particular distinction, specifically because
she happened to be younger and "prettier". This also happens in
music. Younger and prettier talents are selected over older and less
photogenic ones, who often don't even make the cut for that very
reason, and that reason alone.
Giving people whatever they want is sometimes pathological. We should
educate people to not abuse cocaine or heroin, or else they are not
sufficiently the agents of their own actions, and society breaks
down. We should also prefer that investors determine their
investments on the basis of true information, or else the markets will
collapse.
4) You attribute to me the belief that being well off and being a food
artist are mutually exclusive. I never did say that the pursuit of
money and fame was in and of itself a bad thing. I said that the MERE
pursuit of money, fame, and glamour had a low aesthetic value.
Luke
Dez Dankworth
> Similarly, in the future, nobody will judge Mindi
> Abair to be of sufficient value to be included in the musical canon.
If I may use an argument that supporters of avant-garde "jazz" often use
when their favourites are challenged: Hey, that's what they said about
Charlie Parker! And look now!
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
void
>
> 4) You attribute to me the belief that being well off and being a food
> artist are mutually exclusive.
To find out for real, ask these people:
http://www.gemueseorchester.org/anfang_e.htm
--
Ben
"An art scene of delight
I created this to be ..." -- Sun Ra
void
<dez_da...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Luke Kaven" <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote in message
> news:rpcacv8kbqih1u1n4...@4ax.com
>
>> Similarly, in the future, nobody will judge Mindi
>> Abair to be of sufficient value to be included in the musical canon.
>
> If I may use an argument that supporters of avant-garde "jazz" often use
> when their favourites are challenged: Hey, that's what they said about
> Charlie Parker! And look now!
Even people who didn't like what Parker was doing knew he was doing
something, and they felt strongly about it. The same cannot be said
of Ms. Abair.
Luke Kaven
>On Fri, 16 May 2003 18:57:37 -0400, Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote:
>>
>> 4) You attribute to me the belief that being well off and being a food
>> artist are mutually exclusive.
>
>To find out for real, ask these people:
>
> http://www.gemueseorchester.org/anfang_e.htm
I am really bad at proofreading my own stuff.
Entertaining link, though.
Luke Kaven
>"Luke Kaven" <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote in message
>news:rpcacv8kbqih1u1n4...@4ax.com
>
>> Similarly, in the future, nobody will judge Mindi
>> Abair to be of sufficient value to be included in the musical canon.
>
>If I may use an argument that supporters of avant-garde "jazz" often use
>when their favourites are challenged: Hey, that's what they said about
>Charlie Parker! And look now!
Somehow, Amos, I don't think we'll ever see Mindi Abair on your
listening suggestions.
OspreyJazz
respected. One can't have any sex appeal or use it to make an
increasingly visual world take notice of what you are doing in music.
Let's be honest here, if a woman is plain or ugly and plays well do
you think she would get any notice or respect? Mindy Abair does what
she does well enough and that she is attractive is just icing on the
cake. Of course if you believe that attractive females cannot have
opinions, talent, or dedication to become top selling artists, then
you are truly sad.
Luke Kaven
This seems contradictory. At first you say that a musician has to be
geeky, ugly, or average to be respected as a musician. Then you imply
the contradiction--that if a woman is ugly, she would NOT be respected
as a musician. Then you reverse again saying that people believe that
attractive females cannot have talent. I can't tell whether you are
coming or going.
Whatever Mindy does "well enough", it isn't anything that *a lot* of
other saxophonists can't do at least as well. The packaging is the
product in large part in her case. She needs it. And her photograph
spread says it--her music isn't enough, she has to cloy for attention.
That _is_ her art.
Sum1
> 1) I said that one typically does not exemplify themselves as an
> artist at every waking moment. But I did say that these are the
> resources that the artist has, and the challenge that they face is how
> to make use of their resources. Being an artist does also entail
> living in the broad sense and being receptive to experience, so that
> when one is producing art, one has something to talk about besides
> life in the practice room or studio. In that sense, an artist *can*
> be exemplifying themselves as an artist during much of their waking
> life, and many do. [Your scatological parodies aside.]
My scatological quips aside, I misunderstood you and must say I agree with
what you have said above.
> 2) You are evasive, or at least incomplete, on the question of
> aesthetic value. You do acknowledge that Shakespeare was influential
> on English literature. Yet you seem to imply that this is like a
> "mere historicism", viz., that it's only value is to talk about the
> past. Certainly there are a lot of people who read Shakespeare and
> see his plays performed because they are among the most sublime
> experiences, sublime enough for the plays to be presented and enjoyed
> continuously for five hundred years going. You are missing the sense
> in which a work of art is preserved (or carried over into succesive
> generations) because it demonstrates persistent value. Aristotle,
> Plato, Locke, Hume, Kant (and Shakespeare) are all read today because
> they still say something important to us today, as much as they are
> read because they played a role in a chain of historical
> developments..
I'd wager that the vast majority of people who read Shakespeare or attend
performances of his plays are people who have been coerced into doing so,
namely students. I'd also wager that the vast majority of Shakespeare
related publishing is sold to students and academics. That's not to deny
that his work doesn't address issues relevant to today's society, only that
the form is inaccessible to most, making the preservation of his work
largely an historical endeavor.
If Shakespeare were dropped from the curriculm of most schools, do you think
even a fraction of the people living who have read Shakespeare would bother
to pick up a collection of sonnets or attend a play that was not dressed up
in contemporary language or costuming?
> By contrast, I would wager that in the future, nobody will judge
> Danielle Steele to be of sufficient value to be included in the canon
> of literature. Similarly, in the future, nobody will judge Mindi
> Abair to be of sufficient value to be included in the musical canon.
> However, I would wager that Charlie Parker, and Thelonious Monk, and
> John Coltrane will still be judged worth preserving.
You may be right about Danielle Steele, then again Shakespeare was massively
popular in his day, too. It's worth noting that Shakespeare wrote in the
contemporary language of his day and employed quite a bit of vernacular.
> 4) You attribute to me the belief that being well off and being a food
> artist are mutually exclusive. I never did say that the pursuit of
> money and fame was in and of itself a bad thing. I said that the MERE
> pursuit of money, fame, and glamour had a low aesthetic value.
And you said Ms Abair seemed to be pursuing money and fame, without any
evidence to support the argument that she is not interested in the aesthetic
value of her musical pursuits, except to point to a few glamour photos.
OspreyJazz
> bmdoug...@hotmail.com (OspreyJazz) wrote:
>
> >I'm guessing musicians have to be geeky, ugly, or average to be
> >respected. One can't have any sex appeal or use it to make an
> >increasingly visual world take notice of what you are doing in music.
> >Let's be honest here, if a woman is plain or ugly and plays well do
> >you think she would get any notice or respect? Mindy Abair does what
> >she does well enough and that she is attractive is just icing on the
> >cake. Of course if you believe that attractive females cannot have
> >opinions, talent, or dedication to become top selling artists, then
> >you are truly sad.
>
> This seems contradictory. At first you say that a musician has to be
> geeky, ugly, or average to be respected as a musician. Then you imply
> the contradiction--that if a woman is ugly, she would NOT be respected
> as a musician. Then you reverse again saying that people believe that
> attractive females cannot have talent. I can't tell whether you are
> coming or going.
The whole "looks" & appearences is a contradictory argument to begin
with and I wish people would just drop it by seeing how stupid it is.
>
> Whatever Mindy does "well enough", it isn't anything that *a lot* of
> other saxophonists can't do at least as well. The packaging is the
> product in large part in her case. She needs it. And her photograph
> spread says it--her music isn't enough, she has to cloy for attention.
> That _is_ her art.
Sorry, but you are wrong. First, Mindy Abair doesn't have video play;
only radio play. People who enjoy smooth jazz bought her album and it
has done very well because they like what they heard. If it is so easy
for other saxophonists to do what she does, then prove it. Write music
that will sell as well as or better as hers. IF it were so easy, then
let them have a go at it. I'm sure they wouldn't mind the success or
money that goes with having a top ten album. But of course that is the
arrogance of some who think it is so easy. You know the ones who think
they can write a pop tune or country ballad and call all other music
primitive. As bluesman Buddy Guy once said, "The hardest music to play
is the easiest."
Second, Jazz musicians (straight ahead/bebop/big band)put beautiful
women on their album covers and sell nada. Is not that a cloy for
attention? Heck, some even put naked women on their albums and it
doesn't do anywhere near the sales Mindy's album. Mindy's album is
selling because people like and relate to it, regardless of what she
looks like. She wrote tunes that smooth jazz fans like and they voted
with their wallets. You can put Playboy Bunnies on Winton's next album
and I doubt that it would come close to Mindy Abair's success.
I am not a big fan of smooth jazz and don't listen to it often.
However, I respect musicians who play it. They work hard for their
success. Smooth Jazz is a tributary that leads to the river that leads
to the ocean of Jazz. Stop putting down someone, who has the luck to
be beautiful, who is dedicated to playing her music and has proven she
can connect with a larger audience.
Luke Kaven
>> Whatever Mindy does "well enough", it isn't anything that *a lot* of
>> other saxophonists can't do at least as well. The packaging is the
>> product in large part in her case. She needs it. And her photograph
>> spread says it--her music isn't enough, she has to cloy for attention.
>> That _is_ her art.
>
>Sorry, but you are wrong. First, Mindy Abair doesn't have video play;
>only radio play. People who enjoy smooth jazz bought her album and it
>has done very well because they like what they heard. If it is so easy
>for other saxophonists to do what she does, then prove it. Write music
>that will sell as well as or better as hers. IF it were so easy, then
>let them have a go at it. I'm sure they wouldn't mind the success or
>money that goes with having a top ten album. But of course that is the
>arrogance of some who think it is so easy. You know the ones who think
>they can write a pop tune or country ballad and call all other music
>primitive. As bluesman Buddy Guy once said, "The hardest music to play
>is the easiest."
I've only seen her on video.
You suggest that other mainstream jazz musicians "wouldn't mind the
'success' or money that goes with having a top ten album". But you
have mistaken the aims of mainstream jazz musicians, who have chosen
to play jazz and explicitly rejected pop instrumental music. Their
concept of 'success' is entirely different. There are a lot of
saxophonists who have the ability to play instrumental pop and sell a
lot of records -- if musical ability were the only criterion for such.
Greg Tardy, Mark Turner, Joel Frahm, Grant Stewart, to name a few, all
have impeccable sound and instrumental skills, more than enough to fit
the bill. The fact is, they wouldn't be caught dead doing it.
>Second, Jazz musicians (straight ahead/bebop/big band)put beautiful
>women on their album covers and sell nada. Is not that a cloy for
>attention? Heck, some even put naked women on their albums and it
>doesn't do anywhere near the sales Mindy's album. Mindy's album is
>selling because people like and relate to it, regardless of what she
>looks like. She wrote tunes that smooth jazz fans like and they voted
>with their wallets. You can put Playboy Bunnies on Winton's next album
>and I doubt that it would come close to Mindy Abair's success.
You make the same mistake again here. You cite a few mainstream jazz
artists who put beautiful women on their album covers and don't sell
nearly as well. First of all, the artist is not himself/herself the
subject of the cover, and isn't putting themselves forth as a package
deal. Second, you have correctly gauged the tastes of the mainstream
jazz audience, which rejects that kind of cloying manipulation when it
comes to choosing music. They are more interested in the music, and
such ploys do not work well with them. Ms. Abair's audience is a pop
instrumental audience, which is more likely to respond to her image as
much as her music. In fact they require it.
>I am not a big fan of smooth jazz and don't listen to it often.
>However, I respect musicians who play it. They work hard for their
>success. Smooth Jazz is a tributary that leads to the river that leads
>to the ocean of Jazz. Stop putting down someone, who has the luck to
>be beautiful, who is dedicated to playing her music and has proven she
>can connect with a larger audience.
From where I sit, pop instrumental music, aka "Smooth Jazz" is the
arroyo, an insurgent force that eradicates jazz by remanufacturing the
bounds of the jazz category, remaking it in its own image, and
overwhelming it by numbers. It is a hostile takeover. While Ms Abair
says that she's listened to some of the mainstream jazz artists, she
plays strictly pop and shows no discernible influence from mainstream
jazz. She would not make it on the same bandstand. And she thinks
Ayn Rand is incredible, which tells me that she's somewhat adrift
philosophically.
Luke
Mr Zed
> You suggest that other mainstream jazz musicians "wouldn't mind the
> 'success' or money that goes with having a top ten album". But you
> have mistaken the aims of mainstream jazz musicians, who have chosen
> to play jazz and explicitly rejected pop instrumental music.
Believe, me, friend, the jazz musicians too want big bucks. The idea
that they are artists who don't mind starving for their art most
frequtnly comes from those who aren't doing the starving.
> Their
> concept of 'success' is entirely different. There are a lot of
> saxophonists who have the ability to play instrumental pop and sell a
> lot of records -- if musical ability were the only criterion for such.
> Greg Tardy, Mark Turner, Joel Frahm, Grant Stewart, to name a few, all
> have impeccable sound and instrumental skills, more than enough to fit
> the bill.
You seem to assume that being good at jazz necessarily equips one to
be a success at pop. What data do you use to support that? Has it
occurred to you that being sucessful at pop might require skills that
those good jazz musicians might not have?
> You make the same mistake again here. You cite a few mainstream jazz
> artists who put beautiful women on their album covers and don't sell
> nearly as well. First of all, the artist is not himself/herself the
> subject of the cover, and isn't putting themselves forth as a package
> deal.
But that's only because they are not beautiful women!
> Second, you have correctly gauged the tastes of the mainstream
> jazz audience, which rejects that kind of cloying manipulation when it
> comes to choosing music. They are more interested in the music, and
> such ploys do not work well with them.
That's only one possible interpretation. Here's another one: the lack
of quality in the music is such that the album is not saved by having
a beautiful woman on the cover.
Luke Kaven
>> 'success' or money that goes with having a top ten album". But you
>> have mistaken the aims of mainstream jazz musicians, who have chosen
>> to play jazz and explicitly rejected pop instrumental music.
>
>Believe, me, friend, the jazz musicians too want big bucks. The idea
>that they are artists who don't mind starving for their art most
>frequtnly comes from those who aren't doing the starving.
I did not say that mainstream jazz musicians do not want money. I
said that they (for the most part) explicitly reject pop instrumental
music.
While rejecting pop instrumental music isn't in itself sufficient to
preclude wealth, that does take care of the most obvious paths to
wealth and fame (in the mass-media sense). There are undoubtedly
other ways of achieving wealth in jazz, but those ways are not at all
obvious, or they would be exploited more.
Wynton Marsalis achieved this to a great extent, and some rode in on
his coat-tails, but not that many. It would be hard to repeat. I
suspect the public at large (outside of hard core jazz fans) does not
have much of a capacity to recognize more than a couple of jazz
musicians. They keep one or two names in their head that they can
drop at cocktail parties when they need to appear to be knowledgeable.
People feel safe dropping Wynton's name, and for Wynton to get into
that space was a major coup.
But in another sense, you are also missing the point. For many, many
mainstream artists, the thing that they want first and foremost is to
play their music their way. When it comes to money, such artists will
play the hand they were dealt as best they can. But they won't give
up playing their music their way in order to achieve commercial
success. Very often such artists could achieve great financial
success, but they are not self-promoters, and they require someone to
mediate between them and the listening public. This is a part of what
I do. Clearly I want artists whose records I produce to be
financially successful. But they will not play pop instrumental music
to do it. So my job is to make them successful at playing the music
that they want to play, and play very well.
>> Their
>> concept of 'success' is entirely different. There are a lot of
>> saxophonists who have the ability to play instrumental pop and sell a
>> lot of records -- if musical ability were the only criterion for such.
>> Greg Tardy, Mark Turner, Joel Frahm, Grant Stewart, to name a few, all
>> have impeccable sound and instrumental skills, more than enough to fit
>> the bill.
>
>You seem to assume that being good at jazz necessarily equips one to
>be a success at pop. What data do you use to support that? Has it
>occurred to you that being sucessful at pop might require skills that
>those good jazz musicians might not have?
There are those who have the ability, I said, "if musical ability were
the only criterion for such". Obviously one of the qualifications for
being good at pop music is a desire to play it. Looking the part is
apparently another extramusical qualification, among others.
>> You make the same mistake again here. You cite a few mainstream jazz
>> artists who put beautiful women on their album covers and don't sell
>> nearly as well. First of all, the artist is not himself/herself the
>> subject of the cover, and isn't putting themselves forth as a package
>> deal.
>
>But that's only because they are not beautiful women!
Even if they were, I would not expect them to present themselves that
way by and large. It is not considered to be in good taste.
>> Second, you have correctly gauged the tastes of the mainstream
>> jazz audience, which rejects that kind of cloying manipulation when it
>> comes to choosing music. They are more interested in the music, and
>> such ploys do not work well with them.
>
>That's only one possible interpretation. Here's another one: the lack
>of quality in the music is such that the album is not saved by having
>a beautiful woman on the cover.
You can have it either way. The sales of a mainstream album are
usually not enhanced in any substantial way when packaged that way.
Bad albums are not made to sell well, and good albums are not made to
sell better, and may sell worse in fact.
Luke
J Bongo Zed
>
> I did not say that mainstream jazz musicians do not want money. I
> said that they (for the most part) explicitly reject pop instrumental
> music.
Sorry, I misunderstood you.
> But in another sense, you are also missing the point. For many, many
> mainstream artists, the thing that they want first and foremost is to
> play their music their way.
Perhaps you too are, in another sense, missing the point. It it
possible that for pop musicians too, what matters first and foremost is
playing
their music their way?
> But they won't give
> up playing their music their way in order to achieve commercial
> success.
I'm not so sure about this. Look at jazz musicians in the 1970s
and the shouts of "sellout!" that we still hear nowadays.
> >
> >But that's only because they are not beautiful women!
>
> Even if they were, I would not expect them to present themselves that
> way by and large. It is not considered to be in good taste.
Sure, but people sometimes do things that we don't expect them to.
And lack of taste is not always a sufficient retraint; jazz albums
abound with the most horrible of tastes in cover design, choice of
material, etc.
> Bad albums are not made to sell well
Not sure I understand what this means. I've heard albums that were bad,
produced and made by people who obviously knew better, and they still
sold
quite well.
Sum1
"J Bongo Zed" <dez_da...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:372ab55d46366476a4a...@mygate.mailgate.org...
>
> > But in another sense, you are also missing the point. For many, many
> > mainstream artists, the thing that they want first and foremost is to
> > play their music their way.
>
> Perhaps you too are, in another sense, missing the point. It it
> possible that for pop musicians too, what matters first and foremost is
> playing their music their way?
>
Exactly the point I wanted to make.
Luke Kaven
>> > mainstream artists, the thing that they want first and foremost is to
>> > play their music their way.
>>
>> Perhaps you too are, in another sense, missing the point. It it
>> possible that for pop musicians too, what matters first and foremost is
>> playing their music their way?
>>
>Exactly the point I wanted to make.
What I wrote was not precise enough to make the point that I intended
to make. I will try again after a few hours sleep.
Luke
Sum1
Sweet dreams, my friend.
Carnak
two groups of musicians this way. There is a qualitative
difference in the music---Jazz is much more difficult to
play and requires soul, not to mention the struggle and
sacrifice required to maintain a life as an jazz artist
in a culture that murders jazz and art.
So it is frivolous and hypocritical to say "well, these
guys over here are doing the exactly same thing, they're
just as committed to doing it their way." Ridiculous.
The game is not even in the same stadium.
The expression "their way" in Jazz implies serious
artistic achievement, individuality of style and a high
degree of exclusivity---this jazz artist sounds
exclusively like himself, etc. Instrumental pop is not
nearly as complex and tends to sound exactly the same no
matter who plays it. So to say about these fundamentally
commercial craftsmen that "what matters first and
foremost is playing their music their way" is indeed
laughable---a sick joke.
Carnak.
Sum1
"Carnak" <Car...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3ec8d03a...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Mon, 19 May 2003 "Soma" wrote:
> >
> >"J Bongo Zed" <dez_da...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:372ab55d46366476a4a...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> >>
> >> > But in another sense, you are also missing the point. For many, many
> >> > mainstream artists, the thing that they want first and foremost is to
> >> > play their music their way.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you too are, in another sense, missing the point. It it
> >> possible that for pop musicians too, what matters first and foremost is
> >> playing their music their way?
> >
> >Exactly the point I wanted to make.
> >
> It is irrelevant, cynical and misleading to compare the
> two groups of musicians this way. There is a qualitative
> difference in the music---Jazz is much more difficult to
> play and requires soul,
Soul is not the exclusive province of jazz.
> not to mention the struggle and
> sacrifice required to maintain a life as an jazz artist
> in a culture that murders jazz and art.
The majority of musicians performing across all genres are not making huge
piles of money. Most live the life of struggle and sacrifice that you
describe.
> So it is frivolous and hypocritical to say "well, these
> guys over here are doing the exactly same thing, they're
> just as committed to doing it their way." Ridiculous.
Not at all. Until you have the power to peer into the souls of men and
divine their true intentions, it would be better for everyone if you simply
gave them the benefit of the doubt. In the end, what does it cost you?
> The expression "their way" in Jazz implies serious
> artistic achievement, individuality of style and a high
> degree of exclusivity---
Same could be said for any genre of music.
> this jazz artist sounds
> exclusively like himself, etc. Instrumental pop is not
> nearly as complex and tends to sound exactly the same no
> matter who plays it.
Probably that's because you don't listen to much of this genre so you have
difficulty telling the players apart. As for complexity, music need not be
complex to be good, or to have soul, or to be inspiring.
> So to say about these fundamentally
> commercial craftsmen that "what matters first and
> foremost is playing their music their way" is indeed
> laughable---a sick joke.
What is sick here is your heart, that is quick to judge and unwilling to
accept the good intentions of others.
Mr Zed
> >
> It is irrelevant, cynical and misleading to compare the
> two groups of musicians this way. There is a qualitative
> difference in the music---Jazz is much more difficult to
> play and requires soul, not to mention the struggle and
> sacrifice required to maintain a life as an jazz artist
> in a culture that murders jazz and art.
But you too admitted that there may be more to being a successful pop
artist, and I see no reason to believe that being that is any more
easier than being a successful jazz artists.
>
> So it is frivolous and hypocritical to say "well, these
> guys over here are doing the exactly same thing, they're
> just as committed to doing it their way." Ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is you twisting our words. We never claimed that
they were playing the same thing. What we did say is that their is no
reason to believe that the committment of pop artists to their art is
any less than that of jazz artists to theirs. Committment has nothing
to do with the difficulty of anything.
>
> The expression "their way" in Jazz implies serious
> artistic achievement, individuality of style and a high
> degree of exclusivity---this jazz artist sounds
> exclusively like himself, etc. Instrumental pop is not
> nearly as complex and tends to sound exactly the same no
> matter who plays it. So to say about these fundamentally
> commercial craftsmen that "what matters first and
> foremost is playing their music their way" is indeed
> laughable---a sick joke.
Why do you assume that "their way" in pop is the same as "their way"
in jazz? It is you who is comparing different things. Here is a
simple fact: different people may be equally committed to what hey do,
even i fthey do different things.
Carnak
>
>> this jazz artist sounds
>> exclusively like himself, etc. Instrumental pop is not
>> nearly as complex and tends to sound exactly the same no
>> matter who plays it.
>
>Probably that's because you don't listen to much of this genre so you have
>difficulty telling the players apart.
If I have to listen to a lot of that genre to tell those
players apart, I'll take Jazz every time.
>
>What is sick here is your heart, that is quick to judge and unwilling to
>accept the good intentions of others.
>
Gee, thanks...I'll try to remember that when I get to the
Pearly Gates.... (:>
Carnak.
Carnak
>
>Why would you want every waking hour to exemplify your art? Isn't that a
>bit extreme? Do you mean to say that taking a dump, getting your hair cut,
>and taking out the trash (just to name a few examples) should in some way be
>consciously connected with your creative life?
>
Why would you want to make a fool of yourself by showing
the world how absolutely clueless you are ?