alt.music.dead-c - coming soon
Dig Dug
The creation of a newsgroup alt.music.dead-c to discuss the music of New
Zealand rock band, The Dead C. The newsgroup is also designed to
facilitate discussion concerning projects by various Dead C members
including Gate, A Handful of Dust, Bruce Russell's solo work and the
Corpus Hermeticum record label. This newsgroup will not allow the posting
of binary files.
JUSTIFICATION
Traffic on a number of other alt.music newsgroups related to the band has
been increasing steadily over the last few months. Heavy traffic on
alt.music.sonic-youth and alt.noise shows that there needs to be a forum
for discussion on the band outside these groups. A major print article in
the June issue of the Wire magazine covering the band shows increased
awareness of the Kiwi group in international music circles.
------
More Dead C. news and information available at:
Junky
Dig Dug
<sl...@cheapdrugs.com> wrote:
> Can i be your drug dealer?
No.
Junky
Even Thurston Moore made fun of the way they played when there
Washingmachine tour was in Minneapolis.
BTW, i got some killer deals on some home made LSD.
HotelOpera
>Even Thurston Moore made fun of the way they played when there
>Washingmachine tour was in Minneapolis.
i haven't heard a whole lot of the Dead C, so i'm impartial- but i was under
the impression that Thurston is, as with Lee, a big fan/supporter of the Dead
C, and in Alternative Press he reccomended their album "Tusk," so i'm a little
curious about how exactly he "made fun" of them.
-al
Rufus
hotel...@aol.com (HotelOpera) wrote:
Too much bathtub LSD for this "Junky" character, methinks...
Minerva645
Washingmachine tour was in Minneapolis.
I was there. I can vouch for that.
~Lady Annik
"How do you decide what shade of black to wear in the morning?
Placebo trading forum. To subscribe, go to: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/
PlaceboTraders
NotoriouS: Bettie Page http://www.angelfire.com/mn/NightmusiC
destruKt
In the Sonic Youth Wire article May 1998... quote thurston "The Dead C and
all the bands follwing the Dead C are the best bands right now."
i'm pretty sure the dead c make fun of the way they themselves too.
Junky
Dig Dug
<removethi...@waste.org> wrote:
>It was probably a bit of a joke then.
>
>In the Sonic Youth Wire article May 1998... quote thurston "The Dead C and
>all the bands follwing the Dead C are the best bands right now."
>
>i'm pretty sure the dead c make fun of the way they themselves too.
Absolutely....
From the Dead C. WWW site.
-----
Despite the predominantly moody and ominous tenor of Dead C's work, the
threesome approach it with a sizable sense of humor and parody. "We were
laughing hysterically at our first practice, when we realized the three of
us could make this particular 'noise' which epitomized everything we'd
ever loved about 'music,' and in a sense we haven't stopped laughing yet,"
the New Zealand zine Alley Oop once quoted Russell as saying. "We laugh at
ourselves, we laugh at our peers, we laugh at America."
-------
and in an interview with Michael Morley:
D What's Thurston Moore like?
M Oh, he's great. They're all really wonderful, just such normal people.
We had such a good time touring with them. l'd known them since last time
they came. I met them in '89 when they came out because I was living in
Auckland. I went to dinner with them and gave them some Dead C. stuff that
we'd just self-released, The Sun Stabbed , then took them around Auckland
the next day. I've been writing to Lee ever since. We've been
communicating quite a bit, we're doing a collaborative record at the
moment - we send tapes to each other. That'll come out some time - it's a
longterm project, about an album's worth of material that we've got now.
We send tapes to one another and then fuck around with them and send them
back and se what happens.
-------
Plus, Sonic Youth picked Dead C. to open for them on a 1993 New Zealand tour...
Not to mention T. Moore/T. Surgal's release on Dead C. member Bruce
Russell's Corpus Hermeticum record label, Lee Ranaldo's "Spoken For
Geraldine" 7" on Michael Morley's Precious Metal label, and Michael Morley
providing music on Lee Ranaldo's new _Dirty Windows_ release, etc.
Perhaps T. Moore was having a laugh and attempting to confuse the punters
- seems to have worked!
gasp.
The Dead C is brilliant.
--
= = = = = = = = = K i n g N u S h o e s = = = = = = = = =
http://www.geocities.com/sunsetstrip/basement/1231/
Junky wrote in message <375446B2...@cheapdrugs.com>...
>Cause you must be on some major drugs if you think Dead C are any good.
>Even Thurston Moore made fun of the way they played when there
>Washingmachine tour was in Minneapolis.
Carloshead
ThHighRoad
>The Dead C is brilliant.
Check out the article about the Dead C in the new issue of the Wire. It's
pretty great. The writer mentions that Thurston Moore helped the Corpus
Hermeticum label become financially solvent, FYI.
James
George Gosset
reasons.
This band has no pretense of virtuosity and by some accounts do not
practice much together. They will admit to consistently having a smoke
before they perform -- the "muse" (if you think there's one there). This
methodology strikes this listener sufficient evidence to condemn the
band as simply businessmen qua artists. The embarrassing 'manifestos' in
some of the ..Dust packages and the name itself imply an obvious level
of lack of commitment, and by this I mean commitment to anything truly
artistic or musical. Russell's amusement at anyone in America taking
them seriously in the first place is fairly typical.
It's just a pity that such cynical operators, what with the deliberate
short supply 'instant collectors items', lack of performances on an
anything like useful basis if one wanted to have a good look at this
band, and carefully controlled PR and fake-idiosyncatic presentation,
all geared to allow this band to emerge as somehow 'legendary', have
been given the limelight; or perhaps it's that the real musicians were
just too obviously not from left field and perhaps trying to hard to be
appreciated as musicians to be noticed for the incredible stuff they
were doing.
For all the rhetoric about "free noise" in New Zealand, you'd be hard
pressed to see any members of the Dead C (except Yeats, who's at the pub
anyway) supporting local purported "free-noise"; they only go to their
own gigs or perhaps Roy's; but then they'll play on the same card with
each other, carefully avoiding comparison with "musicians" at all times.
The names they drop in the manifestos reveal an awareness of the greater
world of music that puts to rest the idea that this is some sort of
indigenous naive home-grown culture or musical way. On the contrary, the
Dead C have carefully positioned their product and their presence for
maximum art/cult impact in the US. There's no actual philosophy behind
the music beyond commercial/image considerations when it comes to any of
these bands (Gate, Dust ..). Forget the little booklets -- all part of
the fun.
Unfortunately it's not all just "funny"; the lack of interest in _real_
collaboration with real musicians with some experience around New
Zealand is symptomatic of the sort of nauseating art-clique the Dead C
have built for themselves that I had hoped rock music had killed in the
'60s. Americans wishing to know about "free-noise" should look closer to
home for any real invention and be careful about too quickly dismissing
what's there as "old" or "jazz". The Dead C and the related projects are
at their most annoyingly pretentious and most out of their depth when
they attempt to pigeonhole themselves. Magazines that are fanzines
obviously closely subsidised and linked with the marketing of this
"amazingly new phenomenon in music", magazines like Opprobrium, should
be read as if they were pamphlets from a large multi-national record
company circulating before the Grammy's. The mutual back-scratching is
part of what is known in New Zealand as "export drive". Even Thurston
will get bored if he isn't already; but then he did really get very
seriously boring some time ago, and probably doesn't want to back-track
on one of his own "proclamations".
Good luck Americans -- it'll be nice watching the Dead C try to get off
their arse for this one... "the party's over when the Dead C start
playing".
George Gosset
Christchurch
New Zealand
destruKt wrote:
>
> It was probably a bit of a joke then.
>
> In the Sonic Youth Wire article May 1998... quote thurston "The Dead C and
> all the bands follwing the Dead C are the best bands right now."
>
> i'm pretty sure the dead c make fun of the way they themselves too.
destruKt
Interesting comments George. Although I'm hard pressed to see where your
dislike of the Dead C stems.
I've just been reading the major Wire article about them. Interesting, and
certainly they make no pretense. Bruce's comments on his releasing of vinyl
for the "hard to find, real gold, collector scum mentality" is nothing if
transparently true.
As for lack of collaborative efforts. Fair enough I say... they do seem to
only work with people they like. i.e. Bruce's collaborations with Omit etc.
But who says we require some fucking big socialist-wank improv collective
arse-kissing duties going on? I mean, any record label is a vanity thing
anyhow... Corpus Hermeticum is intended to release artists chosen by Russell
for a) his personal like of.. and b) the ability to make a profit from.
You obviously don't seem to see the humor in their publications anyhow. I
mean, how the hell do you take the Logopandocy writings in AHoD releases
seriously? It's all just bollocks i'm sure.
Cynicism is a part of our society. Of all the things you've listed above, i
cant see how any of them make the Dead C and their related projects any less
substantial.
They still remain the most important band we've exported. Despite the fact
that others here are pushing the boundaries even further out.
See you on alt.music.dead-c then. You've just justified it.
--
There are plenty of people who have nothing better to do with themselves.
When they die, maybe they'll get a statue. I'm just hoping for a
fire-resistant pitchfork.
- Rick Bishop
Hamish Noonan
>It's hard to watch Dead C perform and not laugh, for a variety of
>reasons.
While I can't agree with George on all of this since I actually enjoy
listening to the Dead C for some unknown reason; it is hard to watch
the Dead C and not laugh. Not because of the band but because of the
line of earnest looking male devotees who crowd around the stage
watching their idols' every move. I'm sure the Dead C spend most of
their time with their backs to the audience to avoid laughing as well.
>This band has no pretense of virtuosity and by some accounts do not
>practice much together.
I hear AMM don't practice much together either.
>For all the rhetoric about "free noise" in New Zealand, you'd be hard
>pressed to see any members of the Dead C (except Yeats, who's at the pub
>anyway) supporting local purported "free-noise"; they only go to their
>own gigs or perhaps Roy's; but then they'll play on the same card with
>each other, carefully avoiding comparison with "musicians" at all times.
I think George is referring to Christchurch's exciting free-improv
scene that performs regularly in various combinations at a bar in
Lyttelton. I have to admit that the "new thing" these guys are doing
is much superior to the stoner-improv of yr average H Corp release.
==================================================================
High Tension House email: hia...@ihug.co.nz
PO Box 6283 webpage: http://unearth.octopig.org.nz/hth/
Dunedin telephone: (03)477-4058
New Zealand
==================================================================
Dig Dug
<removethi...@waste.org> wrote:
Indeed, an interesting argument. However, I can't help but think you're
taking things a bit too seriously...
I believe it is a bit drastic to look at H/Corp and Opprobrium as a
money-spinning enterprise in cahoots to bring in the American dollar;
these releases still mostly sell in the mid-to-high three figures.
Criticism such as "There's no actual philosophy behind the music beyond
commercial/image considerations when it comes to any of these bands (Gate,
Dust ..)" rings hollow - when you're releasing music on Majora, H/Corp,
X/Way, Siltbreeze, etc., the odds are quite good that you're going to have
to keep your day job. Dead C. have maintained an almost invisible presence
in NZ, so I'm not sure where the "commercial/image considerations" comes
into play.
"This band has no pretense of virtuosity and by some accounts do not
practice much together," but they still managed to perform the greatest
display of live "rock" music I've ever seen in San Francisco, 1995. Do
they have to have a heavily-regimented practice schedule and try harder at
being "professional" musicians to earn one's respect?
I've certainly never seen the Dead C. and offshoot projects as anything
other than people playing the flipped-out music they love. Bruce's quote
"We were laughing hysterically at our first practice, when we realized the
three of us could make this particular 'noise' which epitomized everything
we'd ever loved about 'music,' and in a sense we haven't stopped laughing
yet" really says it all, in my opinion, and I can certainly agree with
"They still remain the most important band we've exported. Despite the
fact that others here are pushing the boundaries even further out." I for
one rank Dead C. up there with greats like The Fall, Can, The Velvet
Underground and Captain Beefheart.
George Gosset
[snip]
> I've just been reading the major Wire article about them. Interesting, and
> certainly they make no pretense. Bruce's comments on his releasing of vinyl
> for the "hard to find, real gold, collector scum mentality" is nothing if
> transparently true.
>
> As for lack of collaborative efforts. Fair enough I say... they do seem to
> only work with people they like. i.e. Bruce's collaborations with Omit etc.
> But who says we require some fucking big socialist-wank improv collective
> arse-kissing duties going on? I mean, any record label is a vanity thing
> anyhow... Corpus Hermeticum is intended to release artists chosen by Russell
> for a) his personal like of.. and b) the ability to make a profit from.
>
> You obviously don't seem to see the humor in their publications anyhow. I
> mean, how the hell do you take the Logopandocy writings in AHoD releases
> seriously? It's all just bollocks i'm sure.
All bollocks ? Remember Bruce has put some time and effort into these
musings. Built his own soapbox, however ridiculous the claims appear.
> Cynicism is a part of our society. Of all the things you've listed above, i
> cant see how any of them make the Dead C and their related projects any less
> substantial.
>
> They still remain the most important band we've exported. Despite the fact
> that others here are pushing the boundaries even further out.
>
> See you on alt.music.dead-c then. You've just justified it.
I certainly don't take the attempted humour of those inserts seriouly
but I
still think the various 'essays' take themselves too seriously. In my
outlook, some of the humour is unintentional. As Hamish, noted a lot of
local 'fans' take these bands too seriously too. It would be nice
to see people taking said 'essays' contents less seriously as well.
The other problem is when to stop laughing at\with them and start
considering what these guys are saying about New Zealand and about their
'fans' to the rest of the world, which is implicit in the careful
self-pigeonholing et al. Same problem that hit Frank Zappa (there's a
joke for you).
George Gosset
the Grammy style American system in one small way only, and that is that
this is a very organised marketing effort, with small nos. of releases,
almost legendary "invisibility" and the other things I listed in the
previous posts constituting the marketing. A very different kind of
niche marketing I grant you, but well organised to appear a unique
artistic/rock phenomenon to be in on (the idea of "this is a one-off" is
an old artists trick -- in fact most of these strategies are).
It is not inconceivable that re-issues etc. form part of a long term
strategy, the initial phase of which is to create the "invisibility" (or
"inscrutability, making them both unavailable for analysis most of the
time and guaranteeing that "weird underground presence" that I'm sure
Can, Beefheart etc enjoyed in their day). Not that I believe they will
emerge as deserving the same critical acclaim. I believe they have made
sure they will be remembered, but as another "art-rock" strategy. A
deliberate strategy. Zappa, not Beefheart, or perhaps the Grateful Dead
(my guess), to a different now wealthy bunch of ageing 'stoners'. How
far they get, we'll have to wait and see.
The key to the strategy is that invisibility -- the lack of easy
access to allow the band to become too defined beyond the catalogue of
currently available stuff, which itself is oscillated -- again to bring
them in and out of focus. You will eventually find yourself buying the
whole collection because of the effect lack of supply has on demand. You
will want to know. And this is a band well aware of the changing methods
of supply and distribution, well aware of the technologies on the
horizon that will make your full participation easy, well aware how
difficult and ultimately how easy it will be for them to sell their
contribution to art/rock to you.
destruKt
> musings. Built his own soapbox, however ridiculous the claims appear.
By his own admission they're are just subjects he's interested in. I can't
see any pretense in that. The link between the music and the writings is
pretty much non-existant... which makes it all the more humourous.
> > Cynicism is a part of our society. Of all the things you've listed
above, i
> > cant see how any of them make the Dead C and their related projects any
less
> > substantial.
> >
> > They still remain the most important band we've exported. Despite the
fact
> > that others here are pushing the boundaries even further out.
> >
> > See you on alt.music.dead-c then. You've just justified it.
>
> I certainly don't take the attempted humour of those inserts seriouly
> but I
> still think the various 'essays' take themselves too seriously. In my
> outlook, some of the humour is unintentional. As Hamish, noted a lot of
> local 'fans' take these bands too seriously too. It would be nice
> to see people taking said 'essays' contents less seriously as well.
> The other problem is when to stop laughing at\with them and start
> considering what these guys are saying about New Zealand and about their
> 'fans' to the rest of the world, which is implicit in the careful
> self-pigeonholing et al. Same problem that hit Frank Zappa (there's a
> joke for you).
I mean even look at the title "The Journal of Vain Erudition"... it seems
pretty self depreciating to me. At the same time, while you can't really
take it all that seriously, its not some sort of giant in-joke (unlike
Zappa)... i think the philosophical interests are fine, but keep them in
perspective, their link to the music is vague. I'm thinking about some of
the tracks on "Musica Humana"... the Reagan samples... the car drive etc.
How can you be po-faced about that sort of shit?
destruKt
> The idea is that the marketing strategies used could be compared to
> the Grammy style American system in one small way only, and that is that
> this is a very organised marketing effort, with small nos. of releases,
> almost legendary "invisibility" and the other things I listed in the
> previous posts constituting the marketing. A very different kind of
> niche marketing I grant you, but well organised to appear a unique
> artistic/rock phenomenon to be in on (the idea of "this is a one-off" is
> an old artists trick -- in fact most of these strategies are).
> It is not inconceivable that re-issues etc. form part of a long term
> strategy, the initial phase of which is to create the "invisibility" (or
> "inscrutability, making them both unavailable for analysis most of the
> time and guaranteeing that "weird underground presence" that I'm sure
> Can, Beefheart etc enjoyed in their day). Not that I believe they will
> emerge as deserving the same critical acclaim. I believe they have made
> sure they will be remembered, but as another "art-rock" strategy. A
> deliberate strategy. Zappa, not Beefheart, or perhaps the Grateful Dead
> (my guess), to a different now wealthy bunch of ageing 'stoners'. How
> far they get, we'll have to wait and see.
Again referring to this fucking wire article. Russell says "I can export to
Europe, America and Japan and my products are seen as exotic wherever they
go"
i think george is right.. its well organised niche marketing, by their own
admission. But where's the evil in that?? i mean god, its not like they're
making much of a living off it. If there are anal-retentive collectors and
completists out there.. then i say milk them for all they're worth.
i'm thinking these other free-noise people are seeing things in a shade of
green. do they have too much integrity to rip-off those rock nerds with
disposable income?
Its capitalism after all baby.
George Gosset
:
: > The idea is that the marketing strategies used could be compared to
Heard of the Xpressway compilation "Killing Capitalism with Kindness" ?
No matter how light-hearted in principle these philosophical tracts might
seem, don't forget that Dead C are a very politically correct band -- they
are into all the 'right' music' and espouse the liberal sentiments you'd
expect their fan base to share. You see once you start assuming there's some
acting, posturing and the like going on here, no band that does this could
philisophically be better off than the build-up of fans that you casually
admit deserve ripping off. The band talks the talk, but .. silence. How far
can you really accept what the mouthpiece of any band says once a band is
pursuing what I think is this long term strategy ?
The arch-seriousness is very annoying for this reason; serious-as-your-life
musicians who can articulate anything they can imagine on their chosen
instruments. These musicians have been drawn into this via the 'philosophy'
(written I might add in the same matter of fact style as the 'straight'
reviews Bruce wrote for Opprobrium). Bruce should not be joking when he
casually alligns himself with some "free noise" thing that he and Thurston
and the boys at Opprobrium have comparatively recently stumbled over. Bruce
might fit into his definition of the term, but's it's no joke when this
mock-serious posturing appears on the same piece of paper as someone like
Ornette Coleman, the guy who put his day job on the line for a form of free
expression. And He, Taylor, 'Trane and many others sacrificed unimaginable
career prospects in 'straight' music in the name of free expression.
Don't get the idea Bruce and co. are doing anything new that many musicians
with that real talent for playing instruments have not done better before
elsewhere. When one of these real musicians get's re-discovered via the
CD re-issue industry, try and imagine the money some future enthusiast forks
out in finding that weird little discovery "The Dead C" in the next re-issue
revolution. Nice little retirement fund sitting there waiting as music
distribution suddenly emerges from out of the carefully protected small
volumes of work and makes it possible for you to buy "Dead C -- The Box Set".
It's only the free playing spirits of the 20th century that are alive that
will reap any benefit out of their obscure experiments on the technology
of yesterday. The Dead C are just taking rock through one obvious logical
path, but in doing so, collecting themselves, as I've carefully explained,
"legendary status", through art-school and media tried-and-trues. Some
people have accused Beefheart of similar tactics, but of course "Grow Fins"
will settle that one -- don't expect The Dead C to let you get a sniff of
anything that doesn't fit with the 'angle' being pursued at the time. "World
Peace .." itself a rarities combo revealed just how thin on the ground good
music from the band really was. It's almost like they're the next great
"studio-only" band when it comes to their releases. I think continued
revelations will reveal the band for the hole-in-one outfit it seems to
be. Don't expect a deluge of releases; a work in progress would be out of
the question.
As I've said, we'll see how their long-term strategy pans out. I just
wish the band would shut up about it, and keep their naive ideas to themselves;
real art-rock visitations are rare and remember that the one we're in at the
moment is that deluge of fine un-cynically produced music -- music that
did not fit the fashionable and critical requirements of its times that is
now finally available to us in the CD-fest. Try and keep all the other stuff
in reasonable perspective -- there'll be plenty of Dead C re-issue hoopla
in the next century. As for them, we'll have to wait for them to think of
something they can do now -- witness the degradation in quality over the
last series of releases. Doing more of the same would prove them boring,
but I wonder can they do anything else ?
George Gosset
Christchurch
New Zealand
--
destruKt
> No matter how light-hearted in principle these philosophical tracts might
> seem, don't forget that Dead C are a very politically correct band -- they
> are into all the 'right' music' and espouse the liberal sentiments you'd
> expect their fan base to share. You see once you start assuming there's
some
> acting, posturing and the like going on here, no band that does this could
> philisophically be better off than the build-up of fans that you casually
> admit deserve ripping off. The band talks the talk, but .. silence. How
far
> can you really accept what the mouthpiece of any band says once a band is
> pursuing what I think is this long term strategy ?
Look if you want to be butt-fucked by musicians, just buy any top 40 hit. Go
buy the Rolling Stones latest.. or go kiss the ass of Bowie or any other
washed out old boys hunting down the "big new thing". I really don't give a
shit what their strategy is. They're honest about it... money comes into it.
But they have to make a living. I'm sure with a little bit of effort they
could be another Flying Nun poster band like Garageland or HDU or dare I
even say it, Chris Knox. They question is, why didn't they sell out years
ago? If they continued to make records along the lines of Eusa Kills, they
could be just another lo-fi pop group, and make a hell of a lot more money
than they do releasing weird improv records to such a small number of
obsessive collectors.
> The arch-seriousness is very annoying for this reason;
serious-as-your-life
> musicians who can articulate anything they can imagine on their chosen
> instruments. These musicians have been drawn into this via the
'philosophy'
> (written I might add in the same matter of fact style as the 'straight'
> reviews Bruce wrote for Opprobrium). Bruce should not be joking when he
> casually alligns himself with some "free noise" thing that he and Thurston
> and the boys at Opprobrium have comparatively recently stumbled over.
Bruce
> might fit into his definition of the term, but's it's no joke when this
> mock-serious posturing appears on the same piece of paper as someone like
> Ornette Coleman, the guy who put his day job on the line for a form of
free
> expression. And He, Taylor, 'Trane and many others sacrificed unimaginable
> career prospects in 'straight' music in the name of free expression.
I'd be very careful when elevating the likes of Coleman or Cecil Taylor to
some partheon of free-music gods. Its a totally different kettle of fish.
Needless to say we've seen how such musicians can be drawn into the
upper-crust educated jazz-fan circles. Look at the amount of corporate $
behind some of Taylor's performances over the last decade.
> people have accused Beefheart of similar tactics, but of course "Grow
Fins"
> will settle that one -- don't expect The Dead C to let you get a sniff of
> anything that doesn't fit with the 'angle' being pursued at the time.
"World
> Peace .." itself a rarities combo revealed just how thin on the ground
good
> music from the band really was. It's almost like they're the next great
> "studio-only" band when it comes to their releases. I think continued
> revelations will reveal the band for the hole-in-one outfit it seems to
> be. Don't expect a deluge of releases; a work in progress would be out of
> the question.
Yeah, but we've seen loads of musicians benefit from the reissue/lost works
scams. Look at Tony Conrad for instance. It doesn't make the music any less
important. As for the "hole in one outfit", where the hell was that hole?
Their latest recordings are getting further and further out. In my opinion
the likes of Tusk and Repent are the best things the band done. I'm waiting
to hear what comes next.
> As I've said, we'll see how their long-term strategy pans out. I just
> wish the band would shut up about it, and keep their naive ideas to
themselves;
> real art-rock visitations are rare and remember that the one we're in at
the
> moment is that deluge of fine un-cynically produced music -- music that
> did not fit the fashionable and critical requirements of its times that is
> now finally available to us in the CD-fest. Try and keep all the other
stuff
> in reasonable perspective -- there'll be plenty of Dead C re-issue hoopla
> in the next century. As for them, we'll have to wait for them to think of
> something they can do now -- witness the degradation in quality over the
> last series of releases. Doing more of the same would prove them boring,
> but I wonder can they do anything else ?
Come on.. where's this uncynical music? Everything seems to have a touch of
cynicism in it these days. What are the other alternatives? The anal
academicism of techno and new "electronica"? bah. Most of that stuff isn't
even vaguely interesting.
As i said... I hold those recent Dead C releases in high esteem... i'm all
for it. Bring the noise.
Dig Dug
gg...@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (George Gosset) wrote:
To look at the Dead C.'s career trajectory as anything resembling a
carefully-orchestrated plan for maximum cult impact doesn't ring true at
all. Were they supposed to emerge from the womb pressing their music in
huge editions? The limited, hand-dubbed nature of the early Dead C.
cassettes is simply indicative of the market for this music at that point
in time.
Even now, what with a respectable amount of international press, a US
tour, Sonic Youth endorsements, etc., I wouldn't imagine their recent
releases are topping the two thousand pressed mark, nor would I expect
their fan base to grow much beyond what it is at right now.
Perhaps in 20 years, a DC rediscovery will take place and some "from the
vaults" material will hit the racks, but other recent "out there"
CD-reissue era "discoveries" such as Tony Conrad, Nihilist Spasm Band,
Musica Elettronica Viva, etc. are hardly making the artists anything
beyond a modest profit.
The _World Peace Hope..._ Shock CD was spotty in parts, admittedly - let's
see what on the tracklist of the Flying Nun summer release DR503c...
George Gosset
--
destruKt wrote:
> > George Gosset wrote:
> > The arch-seriousness is very annoying for this reason;
> > serious-as-your-life
> > musicians who can articulate anything they can imagine on their chosen
> > instruments. These musicians have been drawn into this via the
> 'philosophy'
> > (written I might add in the same matter of fact style as the 'straight'
> > reviews Bruce wrote for Opprobrium). Bruce should not be joking when he
> > casually alligns himself with some "free noise" thing that he and Thurston
> > and the boys at Opprobrium have comparatively recently stumbled over.
> Bruce
> > might fit into his definition of the term, but's it's no joke when this
> > mock-serious posturing appears on the same piece of paper as someone like
> > Ornette Coleman, the guy who put his day job on the line for a form of
> free
> > expression. And He, Taylor, 'Trane and many others sacrificed unimaginable
> > career prospects in 'straight' music in the name of free expression.
>
> I'd be very careful when elevating the likes of Coleman or Cecil Taylor to
> some partheon of free-music gods. Its a totally different kettle of fish.
> Needless to say we've seen how such musicians can be drawn into the
> upper-crust educated jazz-fan circles. Look at the amount of corporate $
> behind some of Taylor's performances over the last decade.
>
Taylor's rewards have been a long time coming, and, as Braxton says,
it's more likely we'll only really tag onto his music [well within] the
21st Century. I sure hope those hands continue to keep doing their thing
for a long while ...
but more to your suggestions ..
my whole point here was that Bruce Russell pulled these "free-jazz"
guys into his discussions to begin via those little writing spells
included mock(?)-manifesto style with the Corpus stuff. I'll grant you
"Corpus" and "Manifesto" have unfortunate overtones, but is this a man
(in his mind at least) perhaps qualified to have a dig at the arts in
general ? I'm ambivalent about the "humour" some posters have _defended_
these writings with. His hobby ? His researches ? Well I imagine he's
been reading about the stuff and heard some of the names in the
free-jazz arenas, but his reviews were clearly influenced by the records
in a way that suggested these were his first exposure to many of these
new styles (for him) of such musics. If Opprobriums angle is of the
wide-eyed new listener to these musics, concentrating on CDs reviewers
didn't have to pay any money for, as if records grow on trees, then I
guess that's there prerogative.
There is an embarrassing arrogance though in Bruce Russell's narrow
philosophical rants in the "Hand .. Dust" and other releases on his own
label of which conveniently, he is his own editor. I took objection to
him sticking his neck out and bringing in the different "kettle of fish"
you refer to. Read his reviews of "free-jazz" that he gets to review in
Opprobrium. It's the same style -- serious as hell at times -- sometimes
he's almost _telling_ us what the thing to listen to is. I think there
was a deliberate editorial policy in Opprobrium towards getting him to
review records he might be able to understand after a while, and getting
people with some reasonably long-ish collector (!) and long-term enjoyer
(!) of free jazz mentalities for subsequent reviews. However serious he
was when he used the words "collector .. scum" in The Wire, he shouldn't
have been reviewing records that become peoples long term buddies (or
'sisters' -- Sonic Youth appear to understand this phenomenon) in the
first place, in Opprobrium.
That Nick Cain (his own editor again) continued to review free jazz
material ultimately let the mag. down however -- there's a reciprocal
relationship between his arrogant 'word-to-the-wise-guy' style of review
(almost bluster) and his prosaic skirting-of-the-subject and full-praise
mode styles of review, that reveal the reviews as the reaction of
another novice. The concept of spending a lot of time with a free jazz
record and allowing himself to become more intimate and friendly (or
bored) with it, of even simply being able to correctly classify it over
a long (versus short) period of time, these are modes of listening and
owning music lost on him. His inability to seperate the latest re-issues
from longer-standing records of which he had little awareness because he
hadn't been sent them free or read about meant that even he had to admit
he needed outside opinions from people with a long standing relationship
with the music -- thus experienced listeners and not reviewers had
replaced Bruce in the free-jazz review dept. by issue #4. But,
Nick still hasn't had long enough time as a mature listener -- selling
off half his record collection for his overseas trip means his reviews
will still lack that crucial comparative quality that might have
eventually replaced the typical "well I really don't know WHAT I can say
about this", for which Opprobrium is famous. It's abominable enough that
labels, who expect him to bring some wisdom to his reviews even from
within the "freebie-jazz-collector" phase of his life are still going to
have there "promotional copy only -- not for resale" CDs of limited runs
flogged off or given to someone else, as though they still have nowhere
but The Wire or Cadence (or Forced Exposure, uh, where is it ?) or
Opprobrium to send their releases for a glancing remark, however shallow
(compare The Wire -- a number of reviewers, apparently given a month or
maybe more to review very few releases each -- perhaps we can trust The
Wire reviewers beyond two spins -- or Forced Exposure thats reviewers
must be doing something all that time between issues). You would have
thought the readers of Opprobrium _were_ record collectors (I did),
since the music largely falls within that domain. But my feeling is that
of those reviewers both Bruce and Nick view music for it's instant (ie
"rock") qualities. For instance, Nick explained a lot of the limitations
of "Pulse of the Rooster" by critics darlings Wickham-Smith/Youngs, but
stopped short of expressing an actual "don't buy" order, something he's
all too happy to do with music from other less fashionable or more well
heard genres. That "Pulse .." revealed severe limitations in the mindset
or outlook or perhaps simply the aims for that record from
W-Smith/Youngs would not have been the thing for Nick to dwell on.
Wonder if he's sold it yet ?
Perhaps Nick's too overworked as a reviewer -- compare how many (free)
records he must have to contemplate reviewing and therefore must have to
listen seriously to in any case (I'm assuming he does) with the number
of records a typical paying customer (backbone of the industry) and/or
collector such as you or I might process within the same period of time.
Overworked, but is he a hack all the same ?
As for the Dead C in The Wire, note the spelling out for listeners
benefit of various artistic and political allusions connected to some
songs. These were not documented in the initial records -- the
"connection" between "Driver UFO" and Lilburn's electronic poem for
victims of war, both of which I own -- it was spelt out -- all the
hallmarks of those boorish internal references that the artistic elite
like to continue coming up with -- wanking over for most people hitherto
unknown "high art" from their own record collection; I thought the band
were turning there back on all of that. The tagging of "Power" to US
Central American policy -- I thought the song had universal resonance
and could have been left working just fine -- but no, high art
credentials are being sought here. Back to the "people will buy editions
of 50" art school stuff that's just SO incompatible with even the best
rock.
To be all thing to all people in these days of self-satisfaction based
on one's enjoyment of one's own "obscure" taste in the form of a
passive, escapist, maybe pot laced record collection -- these guys are
onto something.
George Gosset
> > George Gosset wrote:
> > serious-as-your-life
> > musicians who can articulate anything they can imagine on their chosen
> > instruments. These musicians have been drawn into this via the
> 'philosophy'
> > (written I might add in the same matter of fact style as the 'straight'
> > reviews Bruce wrote for Opprobrium). Bruce should not be joking when he
> > casually alligns himself with some "free noise" thing that he and Thurston
> > and the boys at Opprobrium have comparatively recently stumbled over.
> Bruce
> > might fit into his definition of the term, but's it's no joke when this
> > mock-serious posturing appears on the same piece of paper as someone like
> > Ornette Coleman, the guy who put his day job on the line for a form of
> free
> > expression. And He, Taylor, 'Trane and many others sacrificed unimaginable
> > career prospects in 'straight' music in the name of free expression.
>
> I'd be very careful when elevating the likes of Coleman or Cecil Taylor to
> some partheon of free-music gods. Its a totally different kettle of fish.
> Needless to say we've seen how such musicians can be drawn into the
> upper-crust educated jazz-fan circles. Look at the amount of corporate $
> behind some of Taylor's performances over the last decade.
>
Taylor's rewards have been a long time coming, and, as Braxton says,
George Gosset
Christchurch
New Zealand
Hamish Noonan
Gosset) wrote:
> As for the Dead C in The Wire, note the spelling out for listeners
>benefit of various artistic and political allusions connected to some
>songs. These were not documented in the initial records -- the
>"connection" between "Driver UFO" and Lilburn's electronic poem for
>victims of war, both of which I own -- it was spelt out -- all the
If you own both of them then why did you need it spelt out? Couldn't
you hear it?
destruKt
to
> > some partheon of free-music gods. Its a totally different kettle of
fish.
> > Needless to say we've seen how such musicians can be drawn into the
> > upper-crust educated jazz-fan circles. Look at the amount of corporate $
> > behind some of Taylor's performances over the last decade.
> >
>
> Taylor's rewards have been a long time coming, and, as Braxton says,
> it's more likely we'll only really tag onto his music [well within] the
> 21st Century. I sure hope those hands continue to keep doing their thing
> for a long while ...
Sure... but in my mind the music of Taylor, Coleman etc is no less important
than the music of Conrad, the Velvets or even the Dead C. Its a very
different arena thats all.
> my whole point here was that Bruce Russell pulled these "free-jazz"
> guys into his discussions to begin via those little writing spells
> included mock(?)-manifesto style with the Corpus stuff. I'll grant you
> "Corpus" and "Manifesto" have unfortunate overtones, but is this a man
> (in his mind at least) perhaps qualified to have a dig at the arts in
> general ? I'm ambivalent about the "humour" some posters have _defended_
> these writings with. His hobby ? His researches ? Well I imagine he's
> been reading about the stuff and heard some of the names in the
> free-jazz arenas, but his reviews were clearly influenced by the records
> in a way that suggested these were his first exposure to many of these
> new styles (for him) of such musics. If Opprobriums angle is of the
> wide-eyed new listener to these musics, concentrating on CDs reviewers
> didn't have to pay any money for, as if records grow on trees, then I
> guess that's there prerogative.
Firstly I believe anybody is "qualified" to have a dig at the arts. Free
critical expression and all that. I never got the opinion that Russell was
of a jazz background anyhow. I mean I can respect and enjoy the free-jazz
stuff, and understand it's place in avant-garde music history. That doesn't
mean i'm a huge free-jazz fan. I'm not. I also believe that there are other
writers for Nick's Opprobrium zine that concentrate on the jazz releases
anyhow. Rusells reviews seem to be on weird noise things anyhow.
The problem of reviewing albums for magazines is a whole different issue
anyhow. i dont know how we got onto it. Also how do you know that all these
albums were recieved as promos?
> There is an embarrassing arrogance though in Bruce Russell's narrow
> philosophical rants in the "Hand .. Dust" and other releases on his own
> label of which conveniently, he is his own editor. I took objection to
> him sticking his neck out and bringing in the different "kettle of fish"
> you refer to. Read his reviews of "free-jazz" that he gets to review in
> Opprobrium. It's the same style -- serious as hell at times -- sometimes
> he's almost _telling_ us what the thing to listen to is. I think there
> was a deliberate editorial policy in Opprobrium towards getting him to
> review records he might be able to understand after a while, and getting
> people with some reasonably long-ish collector (!) and long-term enjoyer
> (!) of free jazz mentalities for subsequent reviews. However serious he
> was when he used the words "collector .. scum" in The Wire, he shouldn't
> have been reviewing records that become peoples long term buddies (or
> 'sisters' -- Sonic Youth appear to understand this phenomenon) in the
> first place, in Opprobrium.
As i said, i haven't read many of his free-jazz reviews. I'm not really too
interested in the genre myself. I've listened to enough
Taylor/Coleman/Parker etc records to know i'm probably never going to enjoy
it the same way I do noise or rock.
As for Opprobrium... i mean its just a small circle of people not even
trying to pretend they are objective about the music they review (unlike the
Wire scribes)... i mean look at Nick's reviews, hardly even-handed. But
thats fine, its his magazine, just take it all with a grain of salt.
Theres no such thing as objectivity anyhow.
> That Nick Cain (his own editor again) continued to review free jazz
> material ultimately let the mag. down however -- there's a reciprocal
> relationship between his arrogant 'word-to-the-wise-guy' style of review
> (almost bluster) and his prosaic skirting-of-the-subject and full-praise
> mode styles of review, that reveal the reviews as the reaction of
> another novice.
Yeah, he's good at that. Its in that forced-exposure style. A review that
contains little or no information about the album in question.
But the Wire is so fucking dry at times. I like some of these other small
time zines for their entertainment value. I really dont care how many
excellent "critics" write for them. Where's the humour for god sake. The
americans seem to be better at that.
> You would have
> thought the readers of Opprobrium _were_ record collectors (I did),
> since the music largely falls within that domain. But my feeling is that
> of those reviewers both Bruce and Nick view music for it's instant (ie
> "rock") qualities. For instance, Nick explained a lot of the limitations
> of "Pulse of the Rooster" by critics darlings Wickham-Smith/Youngs, but
> stopped short of expressing an actual "don't buy" order, something he's
> all too happy to do with music from other less fashionable or more well
> heard genres. That "Pulse .." revealed severe limitations in the mindset
> or outlook or perhaps simply the aims for that record from
> W-Smith/Youngs would not have been the thing for Nick to dwell on.
> Wonder if he's sold it yet ?
Opprobrium has quite a particular style. I read it for some reviews and some
articles, but not a lot else. I also supported it because it's home grown.
I've been a bit disappointed in recent issues... its really going into the
jazz territories a bit further than i like. However articles with Neil
Campbell, Tony Conrad etc continue to be far more enlightening than anything
published by the Wire.
> As for the Dead C in The Wire, note the spelling out for listeners
> benefit of various artistic and political allusions connected to some
> songs. These were not documented in the initial records -- the
> "connection" between "Driver UFO" and Lilburn's electronic poem for
> victims of war, both of which I own -- it was spelt out -- all the
> hallmarks of those boorish internal references that the artistic elite
> like to continue coming up with -- wanking over for most people hitherto
> unknown "high art" from their own record collection; I thought the band
> were turning there back on all of that. The tagging of "Power" to US
> Central American policy -- I thought the song had universal resonance
> and could have been left working just fine -- but no, high art
> credentials are being sought here. Back to the "people will buy editions
> of 50" art school stuff that's just SO incompatible with even the best
> rock.
Er... i'm pretty sure Morley wrote "Power" in regards to that issue anyhow.
However the article seems to have shattered your belief in the universal
resonance of their music. They're just a fucking rock band for god sake. As
didatic as the next. I also wouldn't consider political beliefs to be
"high-art". Look at all those terrible psuedo-political mainstream rock
bands that exist today.
> To be all thing to all people in these days of self-satisfaction based
> on one's enjoyment of one's own "obscure" taste in the form of a
> passive, escapist, maybe pot laced record collection -- these guys are
> onto something.
Or ON something. But thats well documented.
I wouldn't call the Dead C passive. Pot laced yeah.
You can't be all things to all people anyhow. End of the great narrative and
all that shit.
While these niche markets may appear exclusive, its kind of a community in
some ways... with the massive deluge of music that we've seen, getting into
very specific tastes can be one of the only ways to deal with it.
George Gosset
: > > I'd be very careful when elevating the likes of Coleman or Cecil
Taylor
: to
: > > some partheon of free-music gods. Its a totally different kettle
of
: fish.
: > > Needless to say we've seen how such musicians can be drawn into
the
: > > upper-crust educated jazz-fan circles. Look at the amount of
corporate $
: > > behind some of Taylor's performances over the last decade.
: >
: > Taylor's rewards have been a long time coming, and, as Braxton says,
: > it's more likely we'll only really tag onto his music [well within]
the
: > 21st Century. I sure hope those hands continue to keep doing their
thing
: > for a long while ...
Hey, Bruce is the one drawing the I agree most unlikely comparisons here
by
'muscling in' on these players of a much superior free noise music via
those
phisophical ramblings.
And these player aren't 'gods'; they're just universally acknowledged as
great
players of their instruments and great composers. Not just me saying
this, you
know, but in the case of a lot of the free jazz casees I find myself
agreeing
to an extent with what appears to be concensus opinion of these players
worth.
: Sure... but in my mind the music of Taylor, Coleman etc is no less
important
: than the music of Conrad, the Velvets or even the Dead C. Its a very
: different arena thats all.
Yeah, but as far as 'artful noise' these guys can not be dismissed as
jazz;
they so far take the noise players crown. Why, well I'll explain further
down, but it does come down to considerations of the notes played, the
shape of the compositions. To assume that The Dead C et. al. are mapping
out some new area of freely expressed noise is to avoid so many obvious
outfits and individuals that have come before. And that goes for the
Velvet
Underground too -- farely crude given the larger scheme of things and
events
that simply have not been as news-worthy or 'rock' based but have been
examples of artfully deployed noise.
: > my whole point here was that Bruce Russell pulled these
The style of arrogant review that I'm referring to here in the post
you're
replying to. Bruce and Nick have got too much respect for their own
opinions.
It's all over Opprobrium (well you kind of admit that). It's all over
the
bullshit accompanying virtually half Corpus Hermeticum releases. Both
guys
scratch each others backs in promoting what they'd like us to see as
sort
of new phenomena emerging in New Zealand. And people believe it. Wire
article
headlines something about New Zealand _now_ a crucial 'link' in some
sort of
free noise network. Well what have we here -- a couple of self-serving
advertisements of opinion -- Oppobrium is a lot like another magazine in
New
Zealand "The Free Radical", a magazine that while wearing its bias on
it's
sleeve tries to link ideas of personal freedom with the absurd ideology
of
the freemarket espoused by "the New Right" -- hard core monetarists. I'm
not a fan of "The Free Radical". However, "Opprobrium" and its little
gang
exhibit the same nauseating arrogance in its own less obviously stated
bias
towards some forms of music -- arrogance in use of superlative treatment
for
various buddies and darlings in the reveiw section -- arrogance in it's
word to the wise guy advice about what's so amazingly not just good, but
better than any other form of music. This arrogance is particularly
dangerous
if one considers Opprobrium a guide for consumers towards the sensible
music
purchase -- in a climate where CDs have to be paid for by the average
reader
and often purchased clumsily yet carefully through mail order outfits.
Note
Bruce Russel's Corpus Hermeticum offers one of these 'handy' mail order
services. The reader of Corpus Hermeticum and Opprobrium might wish to
rely
on the opinions expressed therein in an environment were you can't just
pop
down to your local recrd store and check said CD whatever for yourself.
The
most dangerous factor -- Opprobrium reviewers usually don't pay for the
things
they reveiew, so they don't have that 'fork out the readys' feeling
attached
to the item under scrutiny. This whole arrangement strikes this record
collector
and so consumer of CDs and records as quite misleading -- I consider it
dangerous -- the sort of arrangement that promotes cronies helping each
other
out with releases of all the material CDs have allowed in these days --
mags
like Opprobrium could very easily be misread as "the quality control".
As my
posts you're replying to have explained, I believe expressions of
opinion
in Hermes Corp and Opprobrium on the value of various commercially
saleable
items to be at best knowledgeable and reliable (Dave Ramsden, Jon
Bywater,
some other guys who've reveiwed for Cadence and other _collectors_) but
at
worst cheap advertising -- editorial bias bought to you by some
advertisers.
As to the promos, see below.
As to my problem with Bruce Russell he's so clearly not of a jazz
background
his views don't qualify except as 'enthusiastic newcomer to this sort of
jazz offers opinion'. It is his willingness to attempt to allign himself
with these other noise-makers that I find precocious in both his lack of
understanding of the music involved and his forthrightness in
expressions of
opinion -- the allignment looks embarrasingly like a credibility gambit.
People who have not heard the other free noise he apparently knowingly
refers to might even believe him ! Look at it this way : "artist
presents
treatise as blueprint for his idea of what his music is or does, and
presents
it to his listeners" -- you'd expect this sort of meglomaniac rubbish
from
Stockhausen. How about "artist includes names of genres he feels his
music
is aligned with in some way as part of packaging to initial releases
from
his band Dust Handful". Go away and compare that "..Mercury" with the
crap
about how "the present day composer refues to die" (Varese) and the
other
careful referencing and mock seriosness contained within the gatefold
sleeve
of "Freak Out" by The Mothers of Invention. The mix of seriousness and
jest is
so similar as to suggest that this sort of self-important composer (or
the more
fashionable 'improvisor', implying as it does serious virtuostic ability
and
control over the translation of ideas into musical sounds (including
notes))
is alive and well in the personage of one Bruce Russell.
: > There is an embarrassing arrogance though in Bruce Russell's
Well, it's nice of you to see it as a close circle of friends. Why the
hell
it has to be so auhoritative in its mock serious way is what lets it
down.
: > That Nick Cain (his own editor again) continued to review free
jazz
: > material ultimately let the mag. down however -- there's a
reciprocal
: > relationship between his arrogant 'word-to-the-wise-guy' style of
review
: > (almost bluster) and his prosaic skirting-of-the-subject and
full-praise
: > mode styles of review, that reveal the reviews as the reaction of
: > another novice.
:
: Yeah, he's good at that. Its in that forced-exposure style. A review
that
: contains little or no information about the album in question.
I think Forced Exposure reviews were better than that. Those reveiwers
had years of experience to draw on. Nick and Bruce, who're my subjective
distaste here, are new boys on the block. As the other posts of mine
have
attempted to point out, there points of reference are music that's
stuffed
in there face, free and likely sent from friendly labels who may even be
advertisers. Ignorance, naivete, kick-backs, ther're all part of this
little
clique. Have you ever considered a record reveiwing oppurtunity as a
bribe.
A mistake many new reveiwers have made is to view a freebie as already
somehow
better, or more fun, or easier, or like-able. I find the arrogance and
ignorance with which the 'gool ole boys' trade in-jokes and slap their
friends on the back quite at odds with the well targetted viciousness of
many Forced Exposure reveiws, reviews that often seemd to even
compensate
by way of neutral or negative appraisal the releases of friends,
contacts,
once were new kids on the block up for re-assessment (compare the
treatment Sonic Youth get in later Forced Exposure issues with the
treatment
the Dead C get from Nick in Opprobrium -- once again almost unable to
contain
his overwhelment).
: > The concept of spending a lot of time with a free jazz
Do you consider some of the terrible art bands of the past as any better
?
Mainstream politics is one of the few things mainstream rock can do well
sometimes (as demonstrated by The Beatles). The band's presence, as I've
already posted, is image-set to be the opposite of "just a fucking rock
band". Why else we would be arguing abou this. What's worth dicussing
about an average fucking rock band ? I think some discussion groups are
better than others, and I think some groups are better than others.
"The Case" has already been made for The Grateful Dead. The Dead C is
a 'presence' worth examining. Why alt.music.dead-c indeed ? Just so you
can
compare your list of favourites to mine ?
: > To be all thing to all people in these days of self-satisfaction
based
: > on one's enjoyment of one's own "obscure" taste in the form of a
: > passive, escapist, maybe pot laced record collection -- these guys
are
: > onto something.
:
: Or ON something. But thats well documented.
: I wouldn't call the Dead C passive. Pot laced yeah.
: You can't be all things to all people anyhow. End of the great
narrative and
: all that shit.
: While these niche markets may appear exclusive, its kind of a
community in
: some ways... with the massive deluge of music that we've seen, getting
into
: very specific tastes can be one of the only ways to deal with it.
:
My point was that Russell namechecks various "free-jazz" ideas and cats
in
his "free-noise" manifesto. I think there's a big problem with that --
it bought
these cats in whose infuence has not petered out and whose works
continue to
confound and inspire. I just can't see anything these Dead C/ Opprobrium
oriented self-proclaimed "free-noise" makers coming close to the
mindbending
force of the cats Russell name-checked.
Nice to see some concessions made here though; ther're just another band
--
real progress. The grandiose yet inward mindsets of Oppobrium we seem to
agree
on. Yet I will say this -- those free jazz guys that may or may not turn
up in
Opprobrium or in Bruce Russell's groping for some cool guys to allign
his own
outfits with -- they _know_ how to rock, and the foundations of
"free noise" were most definitely not just laid but acted upon by these
cats,
all 20-30 years ago. You know the line from "Le Jazz Non" .. " ..it's
the new
thing" -- tounge in cheek, but Hermes Corp/Opprobrium -- the guys from
lyttleton would like to set themselves aside these true luminaries. No
independant critics here, no, _they_ want to somehow continue the great
tradition. It's clear they are in a different ballpark -- virtuosity
does
seperate the jazz guys, the orchestral range musicians, the guys who can
meld correctly chosen pitch and sound into one -- real free expression
in
noise relying on actual physical dexterity -- the sort of virtuosity
members of this local clique could only dream about possesing.
Check out the real free noise greats -- the jazz element dissapears as
does
the classical elements, when the real composition emerges, that's when
it's
good. Sun Ra might be a good kicking off point -- check out "Atlantis",
or
even Parker/Guy/Lytton and there record "Atlanta" (to keep things simple
to remember) -- real artful use of notes, the missing part of the noise
in so many rock-originated groups.
Oh, and how do I know that all those promos with "promo only not for
resale"
get the flick ? Because I buy them when Nick, Bruce or Nathan (a big
offender)
knock off their Opprobrium review-only copies at my local record store..
It's not like a big secret.
e.g. check out Nick reviewing 3 Vandermark Five/NRG releases in issue
five; the
bottom two on that page, on the highly priced (to you or I) Atavistic
releases
Nick praises ("the best NRG yet" or something to that effect) he flicks
off
at the local record store, having failed to sell them to his friends or
over
the internet. As other posters have noted, it's a real pity for the
Christchurch
second-hand record scene that Oppobrium moved out (sorta) -- we've only
got
Bruce and Nathan to rely on now (Nathan reviewed several CIMP releases,
a
"mom'n'dad" record label if there ever was one, and then just flogged
them
off -- well there's no money in being a mind-altering drug lab
technician
when the music reflects, once again, that "out-of-it musicians for
out-of-it
listeners" mentality. Wonder what Nathan bought with the proceeds -- R&D
for
the next Sandoz practise session ?).
Another band, another kick back, nothing new on the horizon, no new
noise
that could possible compare with what listeners who do there own
researches or
who don't get records free in the mail haven't already heard.
George Gosset
: > > I'd be very careful when elevating the likes of Coleman or Cecil Taylor
: to
: > > some partheon of free-music gods. Its a totally different kettle of
: fish.
: > > Needless to say we've seen how such musicians can be drawn into the
: > > upper-crust educated jazz-fan circles. Look at the amount of corporate $
: > > behind some of Taylor's performances over the last decade.
: > >
: >
: > Taylor's rewards have been a long time coming, and, as Braxton says,
: > it's more likely we'll only really tag onto his music [well within] the
: > 21st Century. I sure hope those hands continue to keep doing their thing
: > for a long while ...
Hey, Bruce is the one drawing the I agree most unlikely comparisons here by
'muscling in' on these players of a much superior free noise music via those
phisophical ramblings.
And these player aren't 'gods'; they're just universally acknowledged as great
players of their instruments and great composers. Not just me saying this, you
know, but in the case of a lot of the free jazz casees I find myself agreeing
to an extent with what appears to be concensus opinion of these players worth.
: Sure... but in my mind the music of Taylor, Coleman etc is no less important
: than the music of Conrad, the Velvets or even the Dead C. Its a very
: different arena thats all.
Yeah, but as far as 'artful noise' these guys can not be dismissed as jazz;
they so far take the noise players crown. Why, well I'll explain further
down, but it does come down to considerations of the notes played, the
shape of the compositions. To assume that The Dead C et. al. are mapping
out some new area of freely expressed noise is to avoid so many obvious
outfits and individuals that have come before. And that goes for the Velvet
Underground too -- farely crude given the larger scheme of things and events
that simply have not been as news-worthy or 'rock' based but have been
examples of artfully deployed noise.
: > my whole point here was that Bruce Russell pulled these "free-jazz"
: > guys into his discussions to begin via those little writing spells
: > included mock(?)-manifesto style with the Corpus stuff. I'll grant you
: > "Corpus" and "Manifesto" have unfortunate overtones, but is this a man
: > (in his mind at least) perhaps qualified to have a dig at the arts in
: > general ? I'm ambivalent about the "humour" some posters have _defended_
: > these writings with. His hobby ? His researches ? Well I imagine he's
: > been reading about the stuff and heard some of the names in the
: > free-jazz arenas, but his reviews were clearly influenced by the records
: > in a way that suggested these were his first exposure to many of these
: > new styles (for him) of such musics. If Opprobriums angle is of the
: > wide-eyed new listener to these musics, concentrating on CDs reviewers
: > didn't have to pay any money for, as if records grow on trees, then I
: > guess that's there prerogative.
:
: Firstly I believe anybody is "qualified" to have a dig at the arts. Free
: critical expression and all that. I never got the opinion that Russell was
: of a jazz background anyhow. I mean I can respect and enjoy the free-jazz
: stuff, and understand it's place in avant-garde music history. That doesn't
: mean i'm a huge free-jazz fan. I'm not. I also believe that there are other
: writers for Nick's Opprobrium zine that concentrate on the jazz releases
: anyhow. Rusells reviews seem to be on weird noise things anyhow.
: The problem of reviewing albums for magazines is a whole different issue
: anyhow. i dont know how we got onto it. Also how do you know that all these
: albums were recieved as promos?
The style of arrogant review that I'm referring to here in the post you're
: > There is an embarrassing arrogance though in Bruce Russell's narrow
: > philosophical rants in the "Hand .. Dust" and other releases on his own
: > label of which conveniently, he is his own editor. I took objection to
: > him sticking his neck out and bringing in the different "kettle of fish"
: > you refer to. Read his reviews of "free-jazz" that he gets to review in
: > Opprobrium. It's the same style -- serious as hell at times -- sometimes
: > he's almost _telling_ us what the thing to listen to is. I think there
: > was a deliberate editorial policy in Opprobrium towards getting him to
: > review records he might be able to understand after a while, and getting
: > people with some reasonably long-ish collector (!) and long-term enjoyer
: > (!) of free jazz mentalities for subsequent reviews. However serious he
: > was when he used the words "collector .. scum" in The Wire, he shouldn't
: > have been reviewing records that become peoples long term buddies (or
: > 'sisters' -- Sonic Youth appear to understand this phenomenon) in the
: > first place, in Opprobrium.
:
: As i said, i haven't read many of his free-jazz reviews. I'm not really too
: interested in the genre myself. I've listened to enough
: Taylor/Coleman/Parker etc records to know i'm probably never going to enjoy
: it the same way I do noise or rock.
: As for Opprobrium... i mean its just a small circle of people not even
: trying to pretend they are objective about the music they review (unlike the
: Wire scribes)... i mean look at Nick's reviews, hardly even-handed. But
: thats fine, its his magazine, just take it all with a grain of salt.
: Theres no such thing as objectivity anyhow.
Well, it's nice of you to see it as a close circle of friends. Why the hell
it has to be so auhoritative in its mock serious way is what lets it down.
: > That Nick Cain (his own editor again) continued to review free jazz
: > material ultimately let the mag. down however -- there's a reciprocal
: > relationship between his arrogant 'word-to-the-wise-guy' style of review
: > (almost bluster) and his prosaic skirting-of-the-subject and full-praise
: > mode styles of review, that reveal the reviews as the reaction of
: > another novice.
:
: Yeah, he's good at that. Its in that forced-exposure style. A review that
: contains little or no information about the album in question.
I think Forced Exposure reviews were better than that. Those reveiwers
had years of experience to draw on. Nick and Bruce, who're my subjective
distaste here, are new boys on the block. As the other posts of mine have
attempted to point out, there points of reference are music that's stuffed
in there face, free and likely sent from friendly labels who may even be
advertisers. Ignorance, naivete, kick-backs, ther're all part of this little
clique. Have you ever considered a record reveiwing oppurtunity as a bribe.
A mistake many new reveiwers have made is to view a freebie as already somehow
better, or more fun, or easier, or like-able. I find the arrogance and
ignorance with which the 'gool ole boys' trade in-jokes and slap their
friends on the back quite at odds with the well targetted viciousness of
many Forced Exposure reveiws, reviews that often seemd to even compensate
by way of neutral or negative appraisal the releases of friends, contacts,
once were new kids on the block up for re-assessment (compare the
treatment Sonic Youth get in later Forced Exposure issues with the treatment
the Dead C get from Nick in Opprobrium -- once again almost unable to contain
his overwhelment).
: > The concept of spending a lot of time with a free jazz
Do you consider some of the terrible art bands of the past as any better ?
Mainstream politics is one of the few things mainstream rock can do well
sometimes (as demonstrated by The Beatles). The band's presence, as I've
already posted, is image-set to be the opposite of "just a fucking rock
band". Why else we would be arguing abou this. What's worth dicussing
about an average fucking rock band ? I think some discussion groups are
better than others, and I think some groups are better than others.
"The Case" has already been made for The Grateful Dead. The Dead C is
a 'presence' worth examining. Why alt.music.dead-c indeed ? Just so you can
compare your list of favourites to mine ?
: > To be all thing to all people in these days of self-satisfaction based
: > on one's enjoyment of one's own "obscure" taste in the form of a
: > passive, escapist, maybe pot laced record collection -- these guys are
: > onto something.
:
: Or ON something. But thats well documented.
: I wouldn't call the Dead C passive. Pot laced yeah.
: You can't be all things to all people anyhow. End of the great narrative and
: all that shit.
: While these niche markets may appear exclusive, its kind of a community in
: some ways... with the massive deluge of music that we've seen, getting into
: very specific tastes can be one of the only ways to deal with it.
:
:
George Gosset
Christchurch
New Zealand
--
Hamish Noonan
>that
>: contains little or no information about the album in question.
>
>I think Forced Exposure reviews were better than that. Those reveiwers
I beg to differ. Its quite clear from reading FE that the reviewers
have barely listened to many of the recordings and would prefer to
rely on inane hip-speak and made up words.
Nick Cain, not having the musical knowledge to back up his writing
ends up relying on unfunny in-jokes and personal jabs against people
hes never met who make music he'll never understand
[....]
>ignorance with which the 'gool ole boys' trade in-jokes and slap their
>friends on the back quite at odds with the well targetted viciousness of
>many Forced Exposure reveiws, reviews that often seemd to even
>compensate
>by way of neutral or negative appraisal the releases of friends,
>contacts,
>once were new kids on the block up for re-assessment (compare the
>treatment Sonic Youth get in later Forced Exposure issues with the
>treatment
>the Dead C get from Nick in Opprobrium -- once again almost unable to
>contain
>his overwhelment).
I don't see whats so clever about Forced Exposure panning things for
being popular and raving about things for being obscure.
>all 20-30 years ago. You know the line from "Le Jazz Non" .. " ..it's
>the new
>thing" -- tounge in cheek, but Hermes Corp/Opprobrium -- the guys from
>lyttleton would like to set themselves aside these true luminaries. No
"Its the new thing" is a much more revealing statement about the
origins of the C's musical influence and philosphy than the endless
Alber Ayler namechecks. You could say the Dead C picked up on the work
the Fall gave up on when Brix joined, by espousing Mark E Smith's
anti-musicianship and production values. I thought Bruce Russell did
himself a great disservice when he started trying to align himself
with free music. When comparing "Tusk" with any AMM album all the C
can offer is stoned, undisciplined, thoughtless jamming. But when
comparing "DR503" with any Godz album they offer beautiful heartfelt
songs with a sense of creativity and home-made experimentalism.
I understand that Bruce and Michael may feel silly playing pop music
at their age or maybe they don't have the time and energy to push
their music anymore. Either way its not going to make me buy an album
with a title like "Project for a Revolution in New York".
George Gosset
[snip]
Well have to agree to differ on the merits of Forced Exposure reviews; I
believe by in large they had the needed experience as reviewers to go
with the music or go off on tangents and make it enjoyable. Perhaps
we're thinking of different issues of FE anyway. I think it changed a
bit over the years, but I like the reviews that I own of theirs -- pity
I don't have all of them. I do agree that Nick's reviews are a pale
imitation (if that's where you were putting them -- perhaps he'll
understand the music someday, but if he's already sold the CDs, well,
you have a point).
> >all 20-30 years ago. You know the line from "Le Jazz Non" .. " ..it's
> >the new
> >thing" -- tounge in cheek, but Hermes Corp/Opprobrium -- the guys from
> >lyttleton would like to set themselves aside these true luminaries. No
>
> origins of the C's musical influence and philosphy than the endless
> Alber Ayler namechecks. You could say the Dead C picked up on the work
> the Fall gave up on when Brix joined, by espousing Mark E Smith's
> anti-musicianship and production values. I thought Bruce Russell did
> himself a great disservice when he started trying to align himself
> with free music. When comparing "Tusk" with any AMM album all the C
> can offer is stoned, undisciplined, thoughtless jamming. But when
> comparing "DR503" with any Godz album they offer beautiful heartfelt
> songs with a sense of creativity and home-made experimentalism.
I completely agree with you here -- when the hand-crafted stuff of DR503
and some of Trapdoor, some of Harsh '70s is set against what the Dead C
would like to call "impov", they're suddenly out of their depth. But
perhaps the new stoner-what-the-fuck noise market _is_ "where it's at".
My favourite Dead C pieces come from those early releases, before the
ball was rolling. Now "It's to do with drugs and breathing and
concentration, that and the physical effort of wringing noises out of
machinery for prolonged periods of time"(Bruce Russell, The Wire, June
'99) looks like just more drugged out jamming slobs. I would have
thought their age would have provided more insightful thoughts, less
punk-ish and childish and new-age-ish sham talk. What Morley says about
gigs -- [what's the point], maybe he's right. If they're going to
produce that studio manipulated craft we seem to agree we like, why
bother with performance ? But that seems like an admission that this
newer drugged improv is going nowhere. Perhaps the band should quit
while they're comparatively ahead, split off in what seem to be two
clearly different directions and produce some fine music once again.
I don't want to sound too negative -- I was always a fan -- but Hamish
has nailed the "heads" -- this band has gone off.
> I understand that Bruce and Michael may feel silly playing pop music
> at their age or maybe they don't have the time and energy to push
> their music anymore. Either way its not going to make me buy an album
> with a title like "Project for a Revolution in New York".
Perhaps separate ways will be best, despite dilution of necessary talent
(however much diluted right now) at any given sitting.
Hamish, I'll get back to you and the group re Lilburn and Driver UFO.
I'm still re-listening and deciding, but I don't think it mattered to
what I was saying whether the link was discernible or not. My point was
that the Lilburn is going to be inaccessible to anyone not from New
Zealand and hard enough to track down here anyway, making it an esoteric
"high art" reference, not something I thought this revolutionary band
were into. Editions of fifty(like limited edition prints), arcane
references to philosophers and artists -- very close to some modern art
-- art that caters to the cognoscenti, and not your everyday music
listener; Morley apparently wanted a real "art band".
destruKt
> Yeah, but as far as 'artful noise' these guys can not be dismissed as
> jazz;
> they so far take the noise players crown. Why, well I'll explain further
> down, but it does come down to considerations of the notes played, the
> shape of the compositions. To assume that The Dead C et. al. are mapping
> out some new area of freely expressed noise is to avoid so many obvious
> outfits and individuals that have come before. And that goes for the
> Velvet
> Underground too -- farely crude given the larger scheme of things and
> events
> that simply have not been as news-worthy or 'rock' based but have been
> examples of artfully deployed noise.
Well exactly what i'm getting at. The Dead C are "rock based" (even though
they may no longer like to admit it). I certainly don't see what they're
doing as having much relation to jazz.
re: Opprobrium. I quite enjoy the style of the reviewing actually, although
I take it all with a grain of salt. It does ignore or blatantly attack some
music I enjoy listening to. But Nick's reviews are amusing... Donald
Miller's are even better.
I certainly don't think publications like the Wire should concentrate on the
NZ "noise phenomena" (Popwatch magazine is even worse for that shit). Its
happening everywhere... maybe its just a little more exotic for Thurston
Moore or whoever to say he's into NZ noise... just like the whole Jap-noise
thing. There are some good artists working here though... world quality
stuff.
As for mail order records. Well i do buy through Bruce's and some other
labels. I have much more success that way than trying to find this music in
the local stores. They just don't stock it here. I'd rather trust the people
running the mail order businesses. I'm yet to be disappointed.
Corpus is yet to really release a jazz record. I hope it stays that way.
> so similar as to suggest that this sort of self-important composer (or
> the more
> fashionable 'improvisor', implying as it does serious virtuostic ability
> and
> control over the translation of ideas into musical sounds (including
> notes))
> is alive and well in the personage of one Bruce Russell.
Rubbish. Anybody could make the music A Handful of Dust make. It's just
noise. Relys on a lot of random elements... screwing around with really
crappy instruments by people who can't play particularly well. There is no
virtuostic ability involved. I think they would be the first to admit that.
> in there face, free and likely sent from friendly labels who may even be
> advertisers. Ignorance, naivete, kick-backs, ther're all part of this
> little
> clique. Have you ever considered a record reveiwing oppurtunity as a
> bribe.
> A mistake many new reveiwers have made is to view a freebie as already
> somehow
> better, or more fun, or easier, or like-able. I find the arrogance and
> ignorance with which the 'gool ole boys' trade in-jokes and slap their
> friends on the back quite at odds with the well targetted viciousness of
> many Forced Exposure reveiws, reviews that often seemd to even
> compensate
Well Nick's Dead C reviews were always so fucking timid. As we're his
reviews of other New Zealand stuff. Maybe he was a little scared that
someone would coming knocking on his door!
Saying that Forced Exposure were never too hard on the Dead C either... but
Coley was a better reviewer. I only see Mr 'magus Donald Miller's reviews
approaching that.
> : > You would have
> : > thought the readers of Opprobrium _were_ record collectors (I did),
A record collector is someone who has loads more money to spend on records
than I do. I resent them :-)
> Mainstream politics is one of the few things mainstream rock can do well
> sometimes (as demonstrated by The Beatles). The band's presence, as I've
> already posted, is image-set to be the opposite of "just a fucking rock
> band". Why else we would be arguing abou this. What's worth dicussing
> about an average fucking rock band ? I think some discussion groups are
> better than others, and I think some groups are better than others.
> "The Case" has already been made for The Grateful Dead. The Dead C is
> a 'presence' worth examining. Why alt.music.dead-c indeed ? Just so you
> can
> compare your list of favourites to mine ?
They are just a rock band. I don't see them in the same line as many of the
mainstream pop bands today. But they're no different from the likes of Sonic
Youth, The Swans, Velvets, Royal Trux etc.
The idea of the group was just to have an information forum for the band and
their releases. We never expected much traffic with it. I mean aren't most
newsgroups just worthless "What's your favourite *enter band here* album?"
zones.
> My point was that Russell namechecks various "free-jazz" ideas and cats
> in
> his "free-noise" manifesto. I think there's a big problem with that --
> it bought
> these cats in whose infuence has not petered out and whose works
> continue to
> confound and inspire. I just can't see anything these Dead C/ Opprobrium
> oriented self-proclaimed "free-noise" makers coming close to the
> mindbending
> force of the cats Russell name-checked.
Well you hold jazz in much higher terms than I do. I refuse to immortalise
any genre or artist. I get more enjoyment out of listening to a Dead C
record than a Ornette Coleman one. But thats just me. The free noise
manifesto is a bit tongue in cheek. I agree with some of the points
involved. The power of amplified instruments. Broken machines introducing
random elements etc. I mean if you take it to a logical point you could go
back to Cage for these ideas... but as i said, its a totally different field
to that of jazz.
> George Gosset
> Christchurch
> New Zealand
Send me record of your band George. I'll review it for Opprobrium ;-)
destruKt
--
There are plenty of people who have nothing better to do with themselves.
When they die, maybe they'll get a statue. I'm just hoping for a
fire-resistant pitchfork.
- Rick Bishop
> > "Its the new thing" is a much more revealing statement about the
> > origins of the C's musical influence and philosphy than the endless
> > Alber Ayler namechecks. You could say the Dead C picked up on the work
> > the Fall gave up on when Brix joined, by espousing Mark E Smith's
> > anti-musicianship and production values. I thought Bruce Russell did
> > himself a great disservice when he started trying to align himself
> > with free music. When comparing "Tusk" with any AMM album all the C
> > can offer is stoned, undisciplined, thoughtless jamming. But when
> > comparing "DR503" with any Godz album they offer beautiful heartfelt
> > songs with a sense of creativity and home-made experimentalism.
It's strange. While Bruce might align his recent free-er releases with AMM
or other stuffy European improvisors (where has he said this anyhow). I
still see "Tusk" or "Repent" being closer to the outer boundaries of Sonic
Youth or the Swans or Branca or many of Keiji Haino permutations and a
multitude of other noise-rock bands...
> I completely agree with you here -- when the hand-crafted stuff of DR503
> and some of Trapdoor, some of Harsh '70s is set against what the Dead C
> would like to call "impov", they're suddenly out of their depth. But
> perhaps the new stoner-what-the-fuck noise market _is_ "where it's at".
> My favourite Dead C pieces come from those early releases, before the
> ball was rolling. Now "It's to do with drugs and breathing and
> concentration, that and the physical effort of wringing noises out of
> machinery for prolonged periods of time"(Bruce Russell, The Wire, June
> '99) looks like just more drugged out jamming slobs.
Unfortunately a lot of fairly amazing music has been made by drugged out
jamming slobs. In that state, it all sounds so good and revolutionary
(revelationary).
> I would have
> thought their age would have provided more insightful thoughts, less
> punk-ish and childish and new-age-ish sham talk. What Morley says about
> gigs -- [what's the point], maybe he's right. If they're going to
> produce that studio manipulated craft we seem to agree we like, why
> bother with performance ? But that seems like an admission that this
> newer drugged improv is going nowhere. Perhaps the band should quit
> while they're comparatively ahead, split off in what seem to be two
> clearly different directions and produce some fine music once again.
What's Russell's recent solo stuff like anyhow?
> I don't want to sound too negative -- I was always a fan -- but Hamish
> has nailed the "heads" -- this band has gone off.
Well i seem to be one of the few thats impressed with where the Dead C are
going. It's a far cry from 3 minute punk songs like "Bad Politics". But then
I like noise for noise sake.
> > I understand that Bruce and Michael may feel silly playing pop music
> > at their age or maybe they don't have the time and energy to push
> > their music anymore. Either way its not going to make me buy an album
> > with a title like "Project for a Revolution in New York".
oh more fucking Robbe-Grillet.
> Perhaps separate ways will be best, despite dilution of necessary talent
> (however much diluted right now) at any given sitting.
More forays in Morley electronica? i hope not.
> Hamish, I'll get back to you and the group re Lilburn and Driver UFO.
> I'm still re-listening and deciding, but I don't think it mattered to
> what I was saying whether the link was discernible or not. My point was
> that the Lilburn is going to be inaccessible to anyone not from New
> Zealand and hard enough to track down here anyway, making it an esoteric
> "high art" reference, not something I thought this revolutionary band
> were into. Editions of fifty(like limited edition prints), arcane
> references to philosophers and artists -- very close to some modern art
> -- art that caters to the cognoscenti, and not your everyday music
> listener; Morley apparently wanted a real "art band".
I saw Lilburn performed by the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra a few months
ago. I wasn't moved. But then it wasnt his electronic work.
Morley's always had real art bands. He's a "real artist".
If you want music for the masses, i mean of course they wont touch the Dead
C. They go see the Exponent's play.
It's all art-wank, but hey.. its still better than most tepid Flying Nun, NZ
rock, NZ pop music. And its still less wanky than seeing a free-jazz group
play.
de...@usa.net
> continuums of noise making be they jazz-based or from wherever else they
> mean that I find truly offensive and disrespectful and pretentious. The
> use of pitch and other controllable variables (which includes the
> compositions of Cage) distinguishes the loose "drugs and concentration"
> music of the Dead C very distinctly from these greater forms of noise.
how do you know that they don't treat their own drug-intake as a
controllable variable?
George Gosset
I'll say just this -- that more great noise has emerged out of jazz
musics than out of other genres of music that border on or bring in
noise. Maybe you haven't heard these other musics, including the
so-called "free-jazz". Maybe you hadn't heard Lilburn's music-concrete
electronic work (quite different to any of his orchestral stuff). Maybe
you haven't heard some of the great noise to emerge from with
conventional orchestral classical music for instance, or from a jazz duo
of drummer and piano (just examples).
That is not to say that said great noise works do not exist. Nor is it
to say that some of said great noise music has not already eclipsed
music from some noise outfits based in rock, outfits like the Dead C,
Gate, Dust Handful and many, many others. Of course it has, by in large
-- the movement toward noise from within various music forms has been
something emerging consistently throughout the Twentieth Century, with
"Rock" a relatively recently used genre. So it is fair to say the "rock"
efforts of the Dead C had already been eclipsed even before the bands
conception.
It is The Dead C.s own attempts to align themselves with these various
continuums of noise making be they jazz-based or from wherever else they
mean that I find truly offensive and disrespectful and pretentious. The
use of pitch and other controllable variables (which includes the
compositions of Cage) distinguishes the loose "drugs and concentration"
music of the Dead C very distinctly from these greater forms of noise.
controlled by an intelligent composer in the case of Cage. In most other
cases, complex harmonies and pitches enrich the noise; the classical
composers following on from Stravinsky and Schoenburg for example. Your
posts make it clear that you have not heard the great so-called
"free-jazz" which includes noise, may sound like noise, in fact plays
noise like a musical instrument. If that sort of idea is alien to you
then you are your confining your experiences of noise to the flat gray
garbage that primitive outfits like the Dead C create, using little else
but conveniently feedbacking guitars, elementary rock chords and effects
and sounds that others have made introduced as samples, found sounds,
stuff off tape recorders, juxtaposition in effect, that('s what they)
have been able to come up with -- about as rudimentary as The Exponents
(are you suggesting that the dead c aren't just another band, like the
exponents ?).
You owe it to yourself to go and listen to some of the more enriching
uses of sound out there. And if you think going to a free-jazz gig is
"wanky" you just haven't heard any good free jazz yet, unless, and I
pity you if this is the case, you just can't hear what's going on in
these many higher forms of music (with noise). It's offensive to me that
the Dead C believe themselves to be "improvisers" in the jazz sense.
That said, don't pigeonhole jazz, or classical music for that matter.
Don't rely on the Dead C to tell you anything final about music.
Compared to great 20th century noise, the Dead C just sound boring after
so many listens.
George Gosset
:
: It's strange. While Bruce might align his recent free-er releases with AMM
: or other stuffy European improvisors (where has he said this anyhow). I
: still see "Tusk" or "Repent" being closer to the outer boundaries of Sonic
: Youth or the Swans or Branca or many of Keiji Haino permutations and a
: multitude of other noise-rock bands...
:
: > I completely agree with you here -- when the hand-crafted stuff of DR503
: > and some of Trapdoor, some of Harsh '70s is set against what the Dead C
: > would like to call "impov", they're suddenly out of their depth. But
: > perhaps the new stoner-what-the-fuck noise market _is_ "where it's at".
: > My favourite Dead C pieces come from those early releases, before the
: > ball was rolling. Now "It's to do with drugs and breathing and
: > concentration, that and the physical effort of wringing noises out of
: > machinery for prolonged periods of time"(Bruce Russell, The Wire, June
: > '99) looks like just more drugged out jamming slobs.
:
: Unfortunately a lot of fairly amazing music has been made by drugged out
: jamming slobs. In that state, it all sounds so good and revolutionary
: (revelationary).
really put a foot wrong with their intrument(s). However I think most
drug-induced music or music played under the influence of drugs fails
in one way or another -- I can see how they might fit into the creative
process, but it's not such an important part of the recipe with people
who're already imaginative, I imagine.
: I saw Lilburn performed by the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra a few months
: ago. I wasn't moved. But then it wasnt his electronic work.
: Morley's always had real art bands. He's a "real artist".
: If you want music for the masses, i mean of course they wont touch the Dead
: C. They go see the Exponent's play.
: It's all art-wank, but hey.. its still better than most tepid Flying Nun, NZ
: rock, NZ pop music. And its still less wanky than seeing a free-jazz group
: play.
:
with regard to this and to answer to what "destruKt" has said elsewhere,
--
destruKt
> in answer to what "destruKt" has said,
> I'll say just this -- that more great noise has emerged out of jazz
> musics than out of other genres of music that border on or bring in
> noise. Maybe you haven't heard these other musics, including the
> so-called "free-jazz". Maybe you hadn't heard Lilburn's music-concrete
> electronic work (quite different to any of his orchestral stuff). Maybe
> you haven't heard some of the great noise to emerge from with
> conventional orchestral classical music for instance, or from a jazz duo
> of drummer and piano (just examples).
I've listened extensively to free-jazz (Coleman, Taylor, Sun Ra etc.).
Concrete/electro-acoustics (Parmegaini is one of my favourites. along with
Henry, Stockhausen). And i have heard Lilburns electronic works. I do enjoy
this stuff... but don't consider myself a conneisseur by any strech. However
I don't believe thats relevant. I know what I enjoy and what I don't. I'm
not speaking from ignorance here. However astounding it may be to you that
I'm not a massive free-jazz fan, i've heard enough of it to make that
aesthetic decision.
> That is not to say that said great noise works do not exist. Nor is it
> to say that some of said great noise music has not already eclipsed
> music from some noise outfits based in rock, outfits like the Dead C,
> Gate, Dust Handful and many, many others. Of course it has, by in large
> -- the movement toward noise from within various music forms has been
> something emerging consistently throughout the Twentieth Century, with
> "Rock" a relatively recently used genre. So it is fair to say the "rock"
> efforts of the Dead C had already been eclipsed even before the bands
> conception.
Certainly. People like Branca, Sonic Youth etc took rock to some of its
logical extremes. Even the psychedelic bands of that earlier generation were
doing weird shit. The extended jams of the Grateful Dead, Hendrix's noise
guitar etc. That in no way demeens the music of the Dead C, nor my interest
in it. I'm well aware of how far back theories and practice of "noise music"
go.
> It is The Dead C.s own attempts to align themselves with these various
> continuums of noise making be they jazz-based or from wherever else they
> mean that I find truly offensive and disrespectful and pretentious. The
> use of pitch and other controllable variables (which includes the
> compositions of Cage) distinguishes the loose "drugs and concentration"
> music of the Dead C very distinctly from these greater forms of noise.
> There is simply more to these other musics. Random factors are being
> controlled by an intelligent composer in the case of Cage. In most other
> cases, complex harmonies and pitches enrich the noise; the classical
> composers following on from Stravinsky and Schoenburg for example. Your
> posts make it clear that you have not heard the great so-called
> "free-jazz" which includes noise, may sound like noise, in fact plays
> noise like a musical instrument. If that sort of idea is alien to you
> then you are your confining your experiences of noise to the flat gray
> garbage that primitive outfits like the Dead C create, using little else
> but conveniently feedbacking guitars, elementary rock chords and effects
> and sounds that others have made introduced as samples, found sounds,
> stuff off tape recorders, juxtaposition in effect, that('s what they)
> have been able to come up with -- about as rudimentary as The Exponents
> (are you suggesting that the dead c aren't just another band, like the
> exponents ?).
Even Cage was against the elitist pretensions you're superimposing on some
20th century avant-garde music. In many cases his work pushed towards total
indeterminacy and randomness. It may have been conceptual, but it wasn't
aimed at being outwardly "musical". People like Schoenburg were working in a
classical/romantic/serial tradition, experimenting with it, but it was still
classical music. It means little to me. Likewise as far as Taylor and the
free-jazz people went, they still remained in the context of jazz. Even the
spaced out noises of Sun Ra etc. Very limited... when was the last time
Cecil Taylor used amplified guitars, radios and oscillators? It's still all
sax and piano and voice. Maybe that's why i enjoy Evan Parkers work more...
its more willing to push the envelope.
Musicianship never interested me. Thats because i'm not a musician. The
musique-brut of the Dead C and others in the noise field I find far less
constraining than the massive intellectual dead-weight of jazz or classical.
I do agree that they could be wrong in aligning themselves with those
people... do they really want to become another cog in that linear equation.
Let them stick to noise-rock, at least thats only 30 years old.
> You owe it to yourself to go and listen to some of the more enriching
> uses of sound out there. And if you think going to a free-jazz gig is
> "wanky" you just haven't heard any good free jazz yet, unless, and I
> pity you if this is the case, you just can't hear what's going on in
> these many higher forms of music (with noise). It's offensive to me that
> the Dead C believe themselves to be "improvisers" in the jazz sense.
> That said, don't pigeonhole jazz, or classical music for that matter.
> Don't rely on the Dead C to tell you anything final about music.
> Compared to great 20th century noise, the Dead C just sound boring after
> so many listens.
My flatmate is quite a free-jazz fan. I've listened to loads of it... you
don't seem to be able to accept the fact that someone who has actually
listened to the music might not enjoy it. Why does it seem that in your eyes
jazz is some sort of revelation waiting to convert the ears of the ignorant
children of rock if only they would give it a chance.
George Gosset
are being told now is that the dead c are _now_ improvisers. Their early
stuff may have resembled tailored compositions, and you might be able to
make a case for their later "improvisation" as composition+variables a
la Stockhausen's strict instructions to his player in "The Seven Days"
stuff (conveniently re-visited in the same Wire issue, providing a
healthy contrast between S'.s experiments (control freak that he is),
with the smell and general presence of the Dead C on stage, which I
don't think the Wire quite conveyed). Sure the dead look like they're in
a stupor, but you can hear it as go-with-the-flow-stuff -- any ape can
improvise the way they do, to revisit and old angle on modern art --
it's not that I don't like modern art, more that I prefer the good
stuff, the interesting, challenging, you know, the simply sketches that
have _something_ in it -- it's almost magical and usually very well
executed.
Which comes down to again, another old red herring, virtuosity. These
guys cannot think the sounds they wish to create beyond the obvious
limits of both the rock instruments (for instance the guaranteed
harmonics when guitar strings resonate back to the amps -- this stuff
comes with the machinery) and their own ability to do anything
interesting with the instruments. It is obvious watching them that they
are thinking, but it's like watching a new born foal trying to walk --
they have little real control over what they unleash -- A Cage type
thing to do perhaps, but not very interesting -- Cage was aprox. 1000
times more unpredictable.
To see them on stage, you don't get the feeling they're delicately
crafting anything a la what Hamish had to say about their early music.
Now they're "improvisers" -- they'll have a hard time re-defining that
term, and if they turned up at most "improv" sessions in NY doing what
they call "improvisation" they'd be too loud and might even get beaten
up. That arrogance might have something to do with simply being out of
control.
George Gosset
Christchurch
New Zealand
de...@usa.net wrote:
>
> > It is The Dead C.s own attempts to align themselves with these various
> > continuums of noise making be they jazz-based or from wherever else they
> > mean that I find truly offensive and disrespectful and pretentious. The
> > use of pitch and other controllable variables (which includes the
> > compositions of Cage) distinguishes the loose "drugs and concentration"
> > music of the Dead C very distinctly from these greater forms of noise.
>
de...@usa.net
>> > continuums of noise making be they jazz-based or from wherever else they
>> > mean that I find truly offensive and disrespectful and pretentious. The
>> > use of pitch and other controllable variables (which includes the
>> > compositions of Cage) distinguishes the loose "drugs and concentration"
>> > music of the Dead C very distinctly from these greater forms of noise.
>>
>> how do you know that they don't treat their own drug-intake as a
>> controllable variable?
>
sure, i haven't even heard their stuff. i was just thinking it would be
cool if someone tried hooking musicians up to computer controlled IV drips
and acted as an additional band member (nurse?). john cage was completely
insane, i mean, barking mad & some people probably prefer to be like that
temporarily rather than permenantly. improvisation is just like playing
subconciously composed music & a pretty hopeless endeavor in the context
of HAVING to do it at a certain time. that's why home recording rules, you
can roll out of bed and work something out IMMEDIATELY. this has a lot to
do with laziness, but it works. the "immediacy", the shortness of the time
delay between idea and expression, is analogous to the mechanism of
addiction. ammonia is added to cigarettes & cocaine is free-based such as
to minimize the time-delay between desire and satisfaction. the main
problem with elderly white men performing music, be it classical, jazz, or
"rock", is that it lacks funkiness. thus to overcome the impediment of
their age and race they should start smoking crack cocaine instead of pot.
Doug Horne
: Which comes down to again, another old red herring, virtuosity. These
: guys cannot think the sounds they wish to create beyond the obvious
: limits of both the rock instruments (for instance the guaranteed
: harmonics when guitar strings resonate back to the amps -- this stuff
: comes with the machinery) and their own ability to do anything
: interesting with the instruments.
I was recently at the Nihilist Spasm Band's No Music Festival and thought
quite a bit about virtuosity and inprovisation. ALthough I had been
listening to "noise" for years, I had never actually witnessed it
being produced live (apart from when I produce it myself). As it turned
out, enjoyment of an act seemed to have nothing to do with the virtuosity
of the performer... or perhaps the definition of virtuosity also comes
into question here. The first act, Ken Vandermark and Fred Van Hove,
are true masters of their instruments (sax and pipe organ in this case)
and completely mezmorized the audience... as they did when they jammed
on clarinet and accordion the next night. Borbetomagus also put on an
incredible show of pure, brute-force wall o' noise... the contrast was
remarkable as both of these performances included remarkable control
and technique... Vandermark and Van Hove of the more conventional/
musical type, while Borbetomagus drive a musical runaway train that
only they know how to eventually stop... while it is questionable if
there is any music there, they have created something that is uniquely
theirs, different every time, and impressive (like being caught in a
leaky canoe in a thunderstorm). The Nihilist Spasm Band finally, was
the utlimate in the untrained, but very thoroughly practiced
department. Utter cacophony at earplug volume, but fascinating,
hilarious, and unique. I think your best point (and I obviously
disagree with a good number of them), is that a performer should get
soemthing _interesting_ out of the interest... all of these performers
certainly did, but how do you measure their virtuosity?
: it's like watching a new born foal trying to walk --
: they have little real control over what they unleash -- A Cage type
: thing to do perhaps, but not very interesting --
Ah, but what if the chaos is what they are particularly good at producing
and is perhaps funny, frightening, or simply massive enough to be
impressive? (or in the case of the foal, perhaps it is moving).
: Now they're "improvisers" -- they'll have a hard time re-defining that
: term, and if they turned up at most "improv" sessions in NY doing what
: they call "improvisation" they'd be too loud and might even get beaten
: up. That arrogance might have something to do with simply being out of
: control.
Well, Borbebetomagus seem to call themselves "improvisers" (if you pushed
them to make a decision on the matter), and they are loud as hell.....
and in New York for that matter. (perhaps that's why they are so
physically large... to defend themselves from offended NY fans of
"improvisation".)
How's about a guy like Alan Licht? In fact, at No Music, Jim O'Rourke,
who is trained and does seem to improvise, also was one of the less
interesting acts.... until he had some fun in jam sessions...
Anyway, what it came down to was many ways of approaching and executing
"improvisation", and the people that were interesting were, well...
interesting... the people that weren't, weren't. (and there seemed to be
agreement on who was and who wasn't... perhaps it had something to do
with the controlled drug use of the audience...
HotelOpera
>their age and race they should start smoking crack cocaine instead of pot.
i've been vigilently following this thread just waiting for a nugget of wisdom
like that.
-al
George Gosset
I've just got bored with it, having said everything I can think of as
pertinent at least once, and having heard it all before anyway (painful
as I guess that sounds).
We don't have hard drugs in New Zealand.
Stephen Clover
enough
> We don't have ^ hard drugs in New Zealand.
..at least that's what i think george meant!
c'ya steve/.
George Gosset
: ..at least that's what i think george meant!
:
: c'ya steve/.
I did not mean that. The Dead C represent three New Zealanders jamming on
"soft drugs". That's New Zealand for you. Soft drugs and the sound of mush
either from the band or the rugby field.
George Gosset
Christchurch
New Zealand
--