Ray Brown Trio: "Live At Starbucks"
Cribcage
"upcoming jazz releases page" (the url of which i've included below). thanks to
this list, i took note of a new disc, from the ray brown trio, which is (at
present) being sold exclusively by starbucks. they've got a sticker price of
$12.95, but it rang up at $3.99 -- which is a price no one can complain about,
for music such as this.
any fans of the trio should try to pick up a copy -- and although you'll be
supporting starbucks (which may or may not be a bad thing), if you buy it now
rather than waiting for the expected general release (sometime in 2001) it may
help convince one more gigantic corporate entity that money spent on jazz is
not necessarily money thrown away.
i've included the track listing below, as well.
crib
http://home.att.net/~lankina/jazz/upcomingcds.html
Ray Brown Trio
Live At Starbucks
Telarc 83502 ©2000
1. Up There 3:51
2. When I Fall In Love 6:59
3. Brown Bossa 3:44
4. Our Delight 4:13
5. Lament 8:00
6. Mainstem 3:46
7. Love You Madly 2:29
8. Caravan 5:22
9. This House Is Empty Now/I Should Care 7:15
10. Lester Leaps In 4:25
11. Starbucks Blues 8:36
Geoff Keezer: piano
Ray Brown: bass
Karriem Riggins: drums
Steve Mack
> (at
> present) being sold exclusively by starbucks. they've got a sticker price of
> $12.95, but it rang up at $3.99
Is this to match the price of their small coffee? :)
--
Smack
"Good jazz is when the leader jumps on the piano, waves his arms, and yells. Fine
jazz is when a tenorman lifts his foot in the air. Great jazz is when he heaves a
piercing note for 32 bars and collapses on his hands and knees. A pure genius of
jazz is manifested when he and the rest of the orchestra run around the room while
the rhythm section grimaces and dances around their instruments." -Charles Mingus
Richard Thurston
After the juggernaut PBS is soon to unleash with the broadcast of
the Ken Burns 'Jazz' documentary perhaps we'll see a whole new
wave of corporate tie-ins.
Some possibilities:
Cyrus Chestnut, "Live at Burger King Vol. I"
Chris Potter, "The Texaco Sessions"
Bobby Watson, "A Night at the Olive Garden"
--
Richard Thurston
--
Richard Thurston
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Glenn Wilson
than we'd like to think. The possibilities are endless. The only saving
grace is that these corporations would probably do a little research and
find out that they could get more bang for their buck by hiring a skywriter
or a homeless person to pass out flyers on the street than they could get
from jazz buyers.
Glenn
www.jazzmaniac.com
Richard Thurston <richard...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8spqbl$ae3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Richard Thurston
"Glenn Wilson" <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
> Richard - this is pretty funny, but, unfortunately, probably more
prophetic
> than we'd like to think. The possibilities are endless. The only
saving
> grace is that these corporations would probably do a little
research and
> find out that they could get more bang for their buck by hiring a
skywriter
> or a homeless person to pass out flyers on the street than they
could get
> from jazz buyers.
>
> Glenn
Starbucks is a big company getting bigger all the time. The
McDonalds of coffee. Smaller than the golden arches but then
Americans are more attached to their cheeseburgers than they are
to their coffee. So far.
There are battalions of smart marketing folks working this problem
day in and day out. The typical Starbucks store is a very comfy,
vaguely hip environment, soft colors and soft light, comfortable
chairs and a nonrushed atmosphere.
The jazz thing is perfect because (as we know) it stands just
outside the range of experience of the middle class crowd
Starbucks is pitched to. Outside and 'exotic', the perfect
accompaniment to expensive (though often tasty) coffee.
The cachet of jazz (as defined by Starbucks, they started with
Kenny G but have since glommed onto Blue Note) fits with the
theme of middle class bohemianism which is the real Starbucks
product.
A little daring, but available at the mall.
Cribcage
jazz. i see this as a good thing. who cares what their "marketing principles"
are? if i owned stock, i probably would; but since i'm just a jazz fan who
never so much as steps into a starbucks otherwise (i can't respect a place
devoted to beverages that doesn't serve coke), i don't.
someone at starbucks decided to invest a couple of dollars in recording ray
brown's trio. if i buy the disc from them (at $3.99, let's not forget...it'll
certainly be twelve or thirteen dollars by the time it hits record stores), and
enough other jazz fans follow suit, maybe those executives see a return on
their money -- and maybe next year they'll decide to record oscar peterson, or
benny green.
that translates to more great music that i get to hear. they only select
straight-ahead stuff, and don't give the edgier music a chance? so what? who
cares? it's still one more good disc that i didn't own yesterday. i couldn't
care less is the label says blue note, sony, starbucks, burger king or krispy
kreme...it's a good disc, and i'm glad i own it.
crib
Top_Catt
What we have here is what's called "the thin end of the wedge." Crib,
aren't you disturbed in the least by the increasing corporate dominance
over every single aspect of American life? It's a two-edged sword, to be
sure: we enjoy a level of prosperity that's unprecedented in modern
history, but at the same time, the level of corruption (like Cisco
Systems having paid no federal income tax last year, to take one
example), is sickening. Corporations are dictating our foriegn policy
now, too, as with the recent vote for MFN status for China, one of the
worst human-rights abusers on the planet. Creative music has been largely
free of this sort of influence, until now... and I, for one, wouldn't
care to see that change. I'm voting for Nader, needless to say (not that
it will do any good, but at least my conscience will be clear, in not
having helped to put "Corporate Stooge A" or "Corporate Stooge B" in the
White House).
T.C.
Richard Thurston
>
Whew.
Take a deep breath and put something you enjoy on the cd player. Relax.
I don't recommend the latest Ray Brown effort.
--
Richard Thurston
Cribcage
<< aren't you disturbed in the least by the increasing corporate dominance over
every single aspect of American life? ...I'm voting for Nader...at least my
conscience will be clear, in not having helped to put "Corporate Stooge A" or
"Corporate Stooge B" in the White House>>
well, i can see that you and i are coming from different -- perhaps opposing --
viewpoints. i would vote for harry browne, who is in many ways nader's
opposite. i plan, however, to vote for george w. bush. were bush leading by ten
or fifteen points, i would like to add my voice to browne's support; but
because of the closeness of the race, i feel my vote will be better used to
attempt to keep "corporate stooge B" [read: gore] out of the white house.
however, that's tangential -- and probably futile to discuss, since we're both
probably very intelligent people who have legitimate reasons for philosophical
disagreement. to answer your question: in short, "no." in our capitalist
society, i would rather corporations, who are beholden to consumers, hold X
amount of control -- as opposed to government, which is beholden to
constituencies.
firstly, i don't agree that your leap here is logical. i don't think starbucks
choosing to fund a jazz recording is a step toward corporate dominance of
music. we already have corporate-dominated music, and it is something that the
best in jazz has always railed against. i don't fear starbucks "taking over"
ray brown's sound or choice of material, because i have no doubt that he would
simply walk. any jazz artist who is "in it for the money" likely suffers from
some sort of delusion; "the money" is elsewhere.
secondly, i do think that starbucks taking an interest in jazz, for their own
reasons, is a good thing. there are many great jazz recordings that go
out-of-print each year due to limited funds -- and the number of great
recordings that are never made for the same reason is much larger. i greatly
enjoy the ray brown trio's music; and if a starbucks investment means that they
release a total of twenty albums instead of nineteen, then i think that
starbucks has done a good thing.
yes, they've done it for their own selfish, corporate reasons; but this, also,
i think is good, in a capitalistic system. they're hoping for a return on that
investment; and if we, the jazz community, provide that return, that
self-serving corporation will see fit to invest further. starbucks may, as you
suggest, attempt to assert certain controls over the product if it becomes
enough of a priority (which jazz likely never will be for starbucks); but
should that happen, the responsibility is then ours, as consumers, to again
speak with our wallets and choose to buy albums -- and coffee, perhaps --
elsewhere.
the most effective weapon in this country is one that is rarely wielded. it's
not political lobbying, and it's not corporate corruption. it's organized
consumerism. the best example may be my favorite to cite: the baseball strike
of a few years ago, when fans bought tickets to fill the stands with signs of
protest. if those same fans had banded together and refused to purchase
tickets, refused to attend games, refused to watch broadcasts...the strike
would have ended in a week's time, without question. the only thing that makes
corporate control dangerous is atrophied consumerism -- and that's our fault,
not theirs.
crib
Top_Catt
Your points are well taken (although you're right, I do have a
different viewpoint from yours and I'd never vote for Bush in a million
years-- I've got no argument with anyone's voting Libertarian, though).
I suppose that what puzzles me most here is why Ray Brown, a respected
elder statesman in jazz, feels that he needs Starbucks behind him. They
would seem to be gaining more "class" from their association with him
than vise-versa. See what I'm getting at? Tiger Woods would be no less
talented without the Nike cap, so who benefits the most from their
association? It does bother me when people who have no reason to sell
out do so anyway... but I think I'll take that helpful suggestion and
go relax with a CD.
puck
stood up, raised ones hand and gleefully exclaimed:
>I suppose that what puzzles me most here is why Ray Brown, a respected
>elder statesman in jazz, feels that he needs Starbucks behind him. They
>would seem to be gaining more "class" from their association with him
>than vise-versa. See what I'm getting at? Tiger Woods would be no less
>talented without the Nike cap, so who benefits the most from their
>association? It does bother me when people who have no reason to sell
>out do so anyway... but I think I'll take that helpful suggestion and
>go relax with a CD.
well, they are obviously paying him a lot of money. i mean even jazz
musicians need money?!?
puck
'...aura tout fait par amour, tout ce qui compte :
l'amour et la musique. Mais l'amour, comme on sait,
l'aura moins aime que la musique.' - alain gerber
Top_Catt
haw...@cf.ac.uk wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:58:37 GMT, Top_Catt <top_...@my-deja.com>
> stood up, raised ones hand and gleefully exclaimed:
>
> >I suppose that what puzzles me most here is why Ray Brown, a respected
> >elder statesman in jazz, feels that he needs Starbucks behind him.
>
> well, they are obviously paying him a lot of money. i mean even jazz
> musicians need money?!?
> puck
>
Richard Thurston
Top_Catt <top_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Well, yes, but Ray Brown isn't someone I'd think of as being
particularly poverty-stricken. He's supplemented his income for years
with studio work; and, as you'd expect, is very much in demand. But
this is America, after all, where NO amount of money is ever enough!
>
So you know how much Ray Brown earns, his income 'supplemented' by
studio work over the years, and now with these big bucks paid by
Starbucks (what is the precise figure?!?) he is guilty of insatiable
greed because, after all, NO amount of money is ever enough in America?
Well, how much should we limit Mr. Brown to?
--
Richard Thurston
Genie Baker
Top_Catt <top_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>It does bother me when people who have no reason to sell
>out do so anyway
Why is Brown selling out by recording for Starbucks? Is recording for
Telarc also a sellout?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Baker gba...@umich.edu
Cribcage
<< what puzzles me most here is why Ray Brown, a respected elder statesman in
jazz, feels that he needs Starbucks behind him. ...It does bother me when
people who have no reason to sell out do so anyway >>
1.) perhaps mr. brown saw an opportunity to increase jazz's exposure and
perha[s attract a few more souls to our flock.
2.) perhaps mr. brown saw the same benefits from corporate involvement with
jazz as those which i pointed out, and he considered himself fortunate to be
involved with the first such project.
"selling out" is, among other things, a conclusion that people jump to far too
often.
crib
bkn...@verio.net
>I suppose that what puzzles me most here is why Ray Brown, a respected
>elder statesman in jazz, feels that he needs Starbucks behind him. They
>would seem to be gaining more "class" from their association with him
>than vise-versa. See what I'm getting at? Tiger Woods would be no less
>talented without the Nike cap, so who benefits the most from their
>association? It does bother me when people who have no reason to sell
>out do so anyway... but I think I'll take that helpful suggestion and
>go relax with a CD.
Sell out? Since when is getting jazz to an audience, that is
shrinking daily, a sellout? I can tell you, for a fact, that Ray
doesn't need the money. Be grateful that you have this cd to enjoy.
bk
Top_Catt
Richard Thurston <richard...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8t27n2$k6h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Top_Catt <top_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well, yes, but Ray Brown isn't someone I'd think of as being
> particularly poverty-stricken. He's supplemented his income for years
> with studio work; and, as you'd expect, is very much in demand. But
> this is America, after all, where NO amount of money is ever enough!
> >
>
> So you know how much Ray Brown earns, his income 'supplemented' by
> studio work over the years, and now with these big bucks paid by
> Starbucks (what is the precise figure?!?) he is guilty of insatiable
> greed because, after all, NO amount of money is ever enough in
America?
>
> Well, how much should we limit Mr. Brown to?
>
values overwheming practically every other sort of value in this
culture. Are you going to tell me that that isn't the case?
T.C.
Jazzius
>values overwheming practically every other sort of value in this
>culture. Are you going to tell me that that isn't the case?
Welcome to 21st century America!
GM
enough money in the world to pay him for what he's given us. The more he
gets, the better.
Greg M.
bkn...@verio.net
wrote:
>In article <8t2dbg$pct$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Richard Thurston <richard...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <8t27n2$k6h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> Top_Catt <top_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Well, yes, but Ray Brown isn't someone I'd think of as being
>> particularly poverty-stricken. He's supplemented his income for years
>> with studio work; and, as you'd expect, is very much in demand. But
>> this is America, after all, where NO amount of money is ever enough!
>> >
>>
>> So you know how much Ray Brown earns, his income 'supplemented' by
>> studio work over the years, and now with these big bucks paid by
>> Starbucks (what is the precise figure?!?) he is guilty of insatiable
>> greed because, after all, NO amount of money is ever enough in
>America?
>>
>> Well, how much should we limit Mr. Brown to?
>>
>> I'm not pointing a finger at Ray Brown, per se... just at commercial
>values overwheming practically every other sort of value in this
>culture. Are you going to tell me that that isn't the case?
>
>T.C.
It's hard to tell who said what in the posts above because ot
fhestrippping, but:
Bullshit to limiting anyone's income. Especially in the world of art.
What in hell is your profession? I don't know what you do for a
living, but so you always refuse a raise, or a bonus?
Commercial values overwhelming what? Is taking recompense for good
music losing your values? Who the hell are you for determining any of
these values? Are you a musician, and if you are, do you place
yourself anywhere within a universe of comparison to Ray Brown. You
bet this is America, and what value has been tainted here?
Then there's Ray. Yes, I'm aware of the money that he's made, and
also of his lifestyle. We've been friends for 35 years, both
professionally and personally. How dare you accuse him of greed.
Should he not accept studio work, or concert gigs, when he reaches a
specific amount of money? Should he have told Starbuck's that it
would be better to release a rap album? It's easy for someone to
cast aspersions towards an icon for "selling out", but when you do be
sure that you know what you're implying. This man has given music a
lifetime of great music. What the hell have you contributed?
I spent many years in the music business ,and saw great players live
from hand-to-mouth for one reason or another. Some were jazz players
who weren't adept at reading, limiting their value in the studios. I
only knew one that would turn down work because of his musical
values. Trust me, you never heard of hi and never will. If you
were to say this to any that ever worked with Ray Brown you'd get
the same response as I'm offering. Nope, you might get your clock
cleaned. I don't know of anyone who is more respected in the business
as he..
Damn, this pisses me off.
bk
Murphy McMahon
--
Murph
Cribcage <crib...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001020175436...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
Top_Catt
You have really missed my point, bk, and I'm sorry that I've led you to
blow a gasket here. I'm not trying to dis Ray Brown! I've already
referred to him as a "respected elder statesman;" does that sound like
an insult? What pisses *me* off is the current state of a culture in
which artists have to become walking billboards for corporations that
are-- yes, USING them, like it or not-- in order to get the kind of
monetary support that they'd get from publicly funded arts programs in
more enlightened countries (any of half a dozen in Europe). What I've
really been complaining about is our sadly misguided sense of cultural
priorities here in the U.S., and that's all. If I happen to have
offended Mr. Brown, my apologies to him.
Bobby Knight
Top_Catt wrote:
> You have really missed my point, bk, and I'm sorry that I've led you to
> blow a gasket here. I'm not trying to dis Ray Brown! I've already
> referred to him as a "respected elder statesman;" does that sound like
> an insult? What pisses *me* off is the current state of a culture in
> which artists have to become walking billboards for corporations that
> are-- yes, USING them, like it or not-- in order to get the kind of
> monetary support that they'd get from publicly funded arts programs in
> more enlightened countries (any of half a dozen in Europe). What I've
> really been complaining about is our sadly misguided sense of cultural
> priorities here in the U.S., and that's all. If I happen to have
> offended Mr. Brown, my apologies to him.
>
I don't think that you've thought this out completely. Do you think
that any record label (that was successful) wasn't "using" the artists
in their stable? Face it, if it doesn't make money it isn't viable,
that doesn't detract from the artistic output though. The funded arts
support in other countries don't come close to the output by those base
commercial entities. What if you had never heard Miles, Coltrane,
etc.? You have to be glad that there are those commercial ventures like
Starbuck's DO issue jazz and not hip-hop.
bk
Ulf Åbjörnsson
> I don't think that you've thought this out completely. Do you think
> that any record label (that was successful) wasn't "using" the artists
> in their stable? Face it, if it doesn't make money it isn't viable,
> that doesn't detract from the artistic output though. The funded arts
> support in other countries don't come close to the output by those base
> commercial entities. What if you had never heard Miles, Coltrane,
> etc.? You have to be glad that there are those commercial ventures like
> Starbuck's DO issue jazz and not hip-hop.
> bk
Good thinking, Bobby! You really got it!
Ulf
Ralph Jungheim
wrote:
>In article <39f645b6...@tx.news.verio.net>,
> bkn...@verio.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 06:50:41 GMT, Top_Catt <top_...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <8t2dbg$pct$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > Richard Thurston <richard...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <8t27n2$k6h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >> Top_Catt <top_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > Well, yes, but Ray Brown isn't someone I'd think of as being
>> >> particularly poverty-stricken. He's supplemented his income for
>years
>> >> with studio work; and, as you'd expect, is very much in demand. But
>> >> this is America, after all, where NO amount of money is ever
>enough!
Isn't it possible that Starbucks will take Ray's music into more homes
than anything he's done before? Isn't this good ? Even better than a
cup of over-priced coffee? And if Ray was well-paid as the messenger
for the music, good for him!
Simon Weil
>What pisses *me* off is the current state of a culture in
>which artists have to become walking billboards for corporations that
>are-- yes, USING them, like it or not-- in order to get the kind of
>monetary support that they'd get from publicly funded arts programs in
>more enlightened countries (any of half a dozen in Europe). What I've
>really been complaining about is our sadly misguided sense of cultural
>priorities here in the U.S., and that's all. If I happen to have
>offended Mr. Brown, my apologies to him.
Frankly there isn't the money to go around anywhere (I live in the UK). I don't
much like the idea of corporations using Jazz to cover themselves with glory
either, but if that's where the money comes from, Jazz doesn't really have much
choice.
It makes me uneasy, but still.
Simon Weil
Check out my Wagner and the Jews book at:
http://members.aol.com/wagnerbuch/intro.htm
Nou Dadoun
the bulk of the support for Jazz Festivals and (it turns out) the arts in
general has come from cigarette companies. The jazz festival in Vancouver
is known as the Du Maurier Jazz Festival Vancouver and Du Maurier pays
a 6-figure sponsorship for the association. They basically write a blank
cheque, they don't care that they're paying for the ICP orchestra, AALY,
Brotzmann, Per Texas Johannson, Barry Guy etc. The issue comes from the
fact that the Canadian government under heavy pressure from anti-smoking
organizations has banned cigarette sponsorships (or at least limited their
visibility) for arts and sporting events and ordered a phaseout.
So what's a jazz-lovin' presenter to do? Restrict their activities to
performers which can pay their way? How often can you do Diana Krall
or Pat Metheny? The gradual commercialization of everything pisses me
off too, but as Simon points out, it's equally an arts funding issue.
And the government here to say that that source of funding should not
be available (while pocketing hefty taxes on the sale of tobacco
products) is hypocritical to say the least.
In article <20001024141543...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
-------------------------------------------------------------> Nou
====
Nou Dadoun | dad...@cs.ubc.ca | Black Swan Records,
Dpt. of Computer Science,|*******************| 3209 W. Broadway,
Langara College, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1W5 | Vancouver, BC, V6K 2H5
(604) 323-5822 | http://www.blackswan.bc.ca | (604) 734-2828 / 734-2899 [FAX]
Ebay seller:blackswanrecords; Current online auctions linked from our web page.
Top_Catt
Bobby Knight <bkn...@verio.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I don't think that you've thought this out completely. Do you think
> that any record label (that was successful) wasn't "using" the artists
> in their stable? Face it, if it doesn't make money it isn't viable,
> that doesn't detract from the artistic output though. The funded arts
> support in other countries don't come close to the output by those
base
> commercial entities. What if you had never heard Miles, Coltrane,
> etc.? You have to be glad that there are those commercial ventures
like
> Starbuck's DO issue jazz and not hip-hop.
> bk
>
> I doubt that we're ever going to see eye to eye on this, so here's my
final take on the matter. Record companies are of course profit-making
enterprises, but they're marketing music, rather than using the music's
cachet (and that of the musicians) to sell an unrelated product. That
seems to me to taint the aesthetic value of the art (my totally
subjective opinion; others, no doubt, think that it doesn't matter at
all). I stand by my point about government funding of the arts here,
too... don't forget that only a few short years ago, the Republican
party was trying to shut down the NEA completely, when it already
represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the federal budget. That's what I
mean when I say that our cultural priorities are screwed up!
Francois Ziegler
>
> <snip> How often can you do Diana Krall
> or Pat Metheny?
I suppose (as you explained) it all depends on what you smoke...
Francois
--
Users of wide-range equipment should compensate for the RIAA curse.
Cribcage
<< only a few short years ago, the Republican party was trying to shut down the
NEA completely, when it already represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the federal
budget. That's what I mean when I say that our cultural priorities are screwed
up! >>
citing percentages is the worst possible argument you can wield against those
who'd like to shut down the nea. it doesn't matter whether the amount is ten
dollars or ten billion dollars; if it's something that the country decides to
philosophically oppose, then it needs to be shut down.
i doubt the nea will be shut down, and certainly not in the immediate future.
however, i am one jazz fan and art supporter who would probably vote to cancel
the program. i do not find arguments as to why government should provide
financial support for the arts particularly persuasive; and even if i did, i
would never agree with the notion that this support would properly fall within
the federal, rather than state, government's domain.
if you want to support art, that's terrific; go do so. if you think other
should support art, that's great; go hold a fundraiser, or do something else to
raise awareness and convince them that this needs to be done. as
well-intentioned as are many of the things that the federal government
currently invests in, they do not constitute justification for taxation -- as
must any single governmental expenditure. maintenance of infrastructure,
national defense...these things, for these things, i will gladly pay taxes. my
support for the arts should come from me directly, not indirectly by way of
uncle sam.
crib
Thomas F Brown
Barry Jones <bjon...@acm.org> wrote:
>
>Didn't jazz start in whorehouses and speakeasies? Is Starbucks a step down or a
>step up? <g>
It's a step over.
Thomas F Brown
>> You have really missed my point, bk, and I'm sorry that I've led you to
>> blow a gasket here. I'm not trying to dis Ray Brown! I've already
>> referred to him as a "respected elder statesman;" does that sound like
>> which artists have to become walking billboards for corporations that
>> are-- yes, USING them, like it or not-- in order to get the kind of
>> monetary support that they'd get from publicly funded arts programs in
>> more enlightened countries (any of half a dozen in Europe). What I've
>> really been complaining about is our sadly misguided sense of cultural
>> priorities here in the U.S., and that's all.
God forbid anyone should question the propriety of capitalism on Usenet
without having 50 people jump down your throat in a rage. Fact of life.
Try your argument out in one of the politics newsgroups, and you'll get
read a chapter out of Libertarianism For Dummies.
Top_Catt
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Thomas F Brown) wrote:
>
> God forbid anyone should question the propriety of capitalism on
Usenet
> without having 50 people jump down your throat in a rage. Fact of
life.
> Try your argument out in one of the politics newsgroups, and you'll
get
> read a chapter out of Libertarianism For Dummies.
>
> Amen... believe me, I'm staying away from any topic that has even
remotely political overtones, here. When posting to this NG from now
on, I'll stick to commenting on music. I don't like strife... it's just
not my style (really!).
Daniel Royer
this "Starbucks" stuff is all about?
Daniel
Tom Walls
>
>God forbid anyone should question the propriety of capitalism on Usenet
>without having 50 people jump down your throat in a rage. Fact of life.
>Try your argument out in one of the politics newsgroups, and you'll get
>read a chapter out of Libertarianism For Dummies.
>
LOL!
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Walter Davis
>
> Top_Catt wrote:
>
> > You have really missed my point, bk, and I'm sorry that I've led you to
> > blow a gasket here. I'm not trying to dis Ray Brown! I've already
> > referred to him as a "respected elder statesman;" does that sound like
> > an insult? What pisses *me* off is the current state of a culture in
> > which artists have to become walking billboards for corporations that
> > are-- yes, USING them, like it or not-- in order to get the kind of
> > monetary support that they'd get from publicly funded arts programs in
> > more enlightened countries (any of half a dozen in Europe). What I've
> > really been complaining about is our sadly misguided sense of cultural
> > offended Mr. Brown, my apologies to him.
> >
>
> that any record label (that was successful) wasn't "using" the artists
> in their stable? Face it, if it doesn't make money it isn't viable,
> that doesn't detract from the artistic output though. The funded arts
> support in other countries don't come close to the output by those base
> commercial entities. What if you had never heard Miles, Coltrane,
> etc.? You have to be glad that there are those commercial ventures like
> Starbuck's DO issue jazz and not hip-hop.
> bk
You're way off base. The vast majority of important
recorded jazz was made available by small, independent
labels. Blue Note, Atlantic, Riverside, Prestige, and
most of the other classic labels were small labels run
by dedicated fans of the music. Most of those labels
later had their catalogs purchased by the majors in the
late 60's early 70's, with the majors generally adding
little new material to the catalogs. I wager that since
1970, probably more than 90% of all new jazz has been
recorded for small, indie labels. Heck, the current
percentage is probably close to 99%. Columbia and RCA
are about the only major labels that can stake much of a
claim of consistently recording top-flight jazz, but
even they severely limited the number of artists that
they had under contract at any one time. (The current
Blue Note can also claim that, but that has really only
been for about the last 10 years or so).
And to suggest that the "output of commercial entities"
in the US comes within a fucking light year of what is
done with public funding in Europe is laughable. Shit,
what "commercial entities" do in the US doesn't even
match what US non-profit entities do in terms of jazz.
Genie Baker
Walter Davis <aim...@altavista.net> wrote:
>
>And to suggest that the "output of commercial entities"
>in the US comes within a fucking light year of what is
>done with public funding in Europe is laughable. Shit,
>what "commercial entities" do in the US doesn't even
>match what US non-profit entities do in terms of jazz.
Right. And when they do support jazz, a lot of people criticize both
them and the musicians who take their money.
I'm with you on the sorry state of public funding for the arts, though,
Walt and TC.
bkn...@verio.net
<aim...@altavista.net> wrote:
>Bobby Knight wrote:
If you'll read my post you will see that you made my point.
Commercial record companies (large AND small) have contributed almost
all jazz that's available on record.
>
>And to suggest that the "output of commercial entities"
>in the US comes within a fucking light year of what is
>done with public funding in Europe is laughable. Shit,
>what "commercial entities" do in the US doesn't even
>match what US non-profit entities do in terms of jazz.
Bullshit. Are you discussing what we're discussing? We're talking
about recorded jazz here. Back up your statement.
bk
Francois Ziegler
bkn...@verio.net wrote:
> >And to suggest that the "output of commercial entities"
> >in the US comes within a fucking light year of what is
> >done with public funding in Europe is laughable. Shit,
> >what "commercial entities" do in the US doesn't even
> >match what US non-profit entities do in terms of jazz.
> Bullshit. Are you discussing what we're discussing? We're talking
> about recorded jazz here. Back up your statement.
> bk
I am under the impression - I could be wrong - that public funding of
the summer festival circuit in Europe (not to mention radio bands) does
more than a little for both European and American musicians.
Francois Z.
bkn...@verio.net
wrote:
>
>I am under the impression - I could be wrong - that public funding of
>the summer festival circuit in Europe (not to mention radio bands) does
>more than a little for both European and American musicians.
Without doubt, but the original thread had to do with recorded music.
No public funding has made a dent in that of commercially recorded
jazz.
bk
>
Francois Ziegler
> >I am under the impression - I could be wrong - that public funding of
> >the summer festival circuit in Europe (not to mention radio bands) does
> >more than a little for both European and American musicians.
>
> Without doubt, but the original thread had to do with recorded music.
> No public funding has made a dent in that of commercially recorded
> jazz.
I don't think you can so easily separate both. Recording artists don't
spring out of thin air. To exist they need to make a living at music,
develop a book, etc. in the first place.
Francois
Simon Weil
>> >I am under the impression - I could be wrong - that public funding of
>> >the summer festival circuit in Europe (not to mention radio bands) does
>> >more than a little for both European and American musicians.
>>
>> Without doubt, but the original thread had to do with recorded music.
>> No public funding has made a dent in that of commercially recorded
>> jazz.
>
>I don't think you can so easily separate both. Recording artists don't
>spring out of thin air. To exist they need to make a living at music,
>develop a book, etc. in the first place.
>
backing from the UK Arts Council (i.e the money comes from the governement).
Just last summer the John Law quartet (w. Gerry Hemingway) toured for them with
a specially written work. In the middle of that, they has a recording session
for Hat - and I'm told the result will be out at the turn of the year. Another
example, where there was no recording session but the result still seem
worthwhile, was Tim Berne's English bigband tour of a few years ago. Without
the subsidy he wouldn't have had the chance to write for/perform with such a
large aggregation. He said he done something over ten years ago in the US, but
they'd never recorded - That's how rare that stuff is.
I think there are quite a lot of examples of stuff on record from the UK which
has relied somewhat on government money.
bkn...@verio.net
>bkn...@verio.net replied:
>>> Without doubt, but the original thread had to do with recorded music.
>>> No public funding has made a dent in that of commercially recorded
>>> jazz.
>One example of this would be the CMN tours in the UK. These have financial
>backing from the UK Arts Council (i.e the money comes from the governement).
>Just last summer the John Law quartet (w. Gerry Hemingway) toured for them with
>a specially written work. In the middle of that, they has a recording session
>for Hat - and I'm told the result will be out at the turn of the year. Another
>example, where there was no recording session but the result still seem
>worthwhile, was Tim Berne's English bigband tour of a few years ago. Without
>the subsidy he wouldn't have had the chance to write for/perform with such a
>large aggregation. He said he done something over ten years ago in the US, but
>they'd never recorded - That's how rare that stuff is.
>
>I think there are quite a lot of examples of stuff on record from the UK which
>has relied somewhat on government money.
C'mon guys. This has nothing to do with the original thread. There
is no disputing the fact that good music is supported by public
funding, but the records produces are but a drop in the bucket,
notwithstanding how much the funding helped young artists to grow.
If you want to change the topic, fine. This is tangental to the
original.
bk
Francois Ziegler
> If you want to change the topic, fine. This is tangental to the
> original.
Well, to me the tangent is taken in the post where you go from
> You have to be glad that there are those commercial ventures like
> Starbuck's DO issue jazz and not hip-hop.
to
> The funded arts
> support in other countries don't come close to the output by those base
> commercial entities.
While I have no problem with Starbucks (other than the execrable coffee),
I wonder (as I said) if you're not downplaying the part played by public
funds in festivals and radios abroad, from the 1960s on, in sustaining
the art form. When you play it down again,
> There
> is no disputing the fact that good music is supported by public
> funding, but the records produces are but a drop in the bucket,
> notwithstanding how much the funding helped young artists to grow.
it's the "notwithstanding" part I'm not sure about. And the idea that it
has only benefitted the "young".
Francois Z.
bkn...@verio.net
wrote:
>bkn...@verio.net wrote:
>
>> If you want to change the topic, fine. This is tangental to the
>> original.
>
>
>Well, to me the tangent is taken in the post where you go from
>
>> You have to be glad that there are those commercial ventures like
>> Starbuck's DO issue jazz and not hip-hop.
>
>to
>
>> The funded arts
>> support in other countries don't come close to the output by those base
>> commercial entities.
My God man. Do you not read? The word "issue" pertains to recordings
that have been released.
>
>While I have no problem with Starbucks (other than the execrable coffee),
>I wonder (as I said) if you're not downplaying the part played by public
>funds in festivals and radios abroad, from the 1960s on, in sustaining
>the art form. When you play it down again,
You DON'T read.
>
>> There
>> is no disputing the fact that good music is supported by public
>> funding, but the records produces are but a drop in the bucket,
>> notwithstanding how much the funding helped young artists to grow.
Sownplaying? Read above "There is no disputing......." How does that
downplay your argument about funding? We're talking about records in
this thread....RECORDINGS!
>
>it's the "notwithstanding" part I'm not sure about. And the idea that it
>has only benefitted the "young".
OK Francois, replace the word young with whatever you think
appropriate. Now that you've picked fly shit out of pepper, maybe you
will get it. We're discussing the release of jazz records, not the
support that funding gives to artists by any other means.
It seems that you are going to find something about which to argue,
but in the future, regarding this subject, it will have to be with
someone else. I'm sure you'll be back with the last word, which will
probably be off topic .
bk
Francois Ziegler
> You DON'T read.
> >
> >> There
> >> is no disputing the fact that good music is supported by public
> >> funding, but the records produces are but a drop in the bucket,
> >> notwithstanding how much the funding helped young artists to grow.
>
> Sownplaying? Read above "There is no disputing......." How does that
> downplay your argument about funding?
I read: "but a drop in the bucket".
> We're talking about records in
> this thread....RECORDINGS!
Yes, you made that point before, and I got it in lower case. Without
going into the hermeneutics of who decides what a thread is "about",
my impression is that isolating records is artificial, and the reply
you chose to ignore was:
I don't think you can so easily separate both. Recording artists don't
spring out of thin air. To exist they need to make a living at music,
develop a book, etc. in the first place.
> Now that you've picked fly shit out of pepper, maybe you
> will get it. We're discussing the release of jazz records, not the
> support that funding gives to artists by any other means.
>
> It seems that you are going to find something about which to argue,
> but in the future, regarding this subject, it will have to be with
> someone else. I'm sure you'll be back with the last word, which will
> probably be off topic .
> bk
Off topic, as in questioning the reading skills of others? I don't
think I've been known to come here to pick fights or get the last word
on anything.
You specifically asked Walt Davis to back up statements that public
funds have contributed, more than a drop in the (star)bucket, to the
music we can hear on record. I think we did just that.
There seems to be no dispute, for instance, that festivals and other
publically funded entities abroad have commissioned arrangements. Butch
Morris, David Murray, Bob Brookmeyer, Horace Tapscott, Gil Evans, etc.
Now isn't this also the music that ends up on recordings? Take Bill
Holman's Grammy winning album on JVC. Someone you certainly know far
better than any of us, so you may set me straight on this, but I read
on page 1 of the booklet:
Holman says that his writing for the Monk pieces is more like the
work he has been doing the past few years for orchestras in Germany,
Holland and the Scandinavian countries.
What eludes me is why we should even be arguing about the significance
of any kind of support. Of course art needs to grab all it can,
regardless of economic ideologies. I am listening to great brass on
"Pictures At An Exhibition", and grateful to whoever made it happen...
Walter Davis
> >
> >And to suggest that the "output of commercial entities"
> >in the US comes within a fucking light year of what is
> >done with public funding in Europe is laughable. Shit,
> >what "commercial entities" do in the US doesn't even
> >match what US non-profit entities do in terms of jazz.
> Bullshit. Are you discussing what we're discussing? We're talking
> about recorded jazz here. Back up your statement.
If you limit it to recorded jazz and if you consider small indie labels
scraping by as "commercial entities" then you are correct. My statement
above was intended to apply to live jazz.
The discussion that you were having was about _corporate_ interests, not
any commercial interest.
Walter Davis
Depends on what you mean by "dent." Much (all? most?) of the New
World/CounterCurrents series was underwritten by Lila Wallace. Many
musicians have used "meet the composer" and other grants to underwrite
their recording projects. Many recordings, here and in Europe, are
recorded live at subsidized festivals and concerts (virtually the entire
FMP catalog for example). Anthony Braxton, Steve Lacy, Ken Vandermark
etc. have all used at least parts of their McArthur grants to record and
tour groups that otherwise couldn't, and I believe KV has used some of
his money to help Okkadisk release some material they had already
recorded. Ornette reportedly used some of his McArthur money to start
Harmolodic.
Often if you read down into the fine print or the thank you's on an
album, you'll discover how important non-commercial funding was. Of
course in the US, it's not "public funding" which is why I used the term
non-profit.
void
>
>If you want to change the topic, fine. This is tangental to the
>original.
News being threaded, what's your problem with tangents?
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix