Conservatives tend to be jazz haters
GJuke
>>>>Political conservatives tend to be jazz haters<<<<
Nonsense.
GJ
d.be...@mail.utexas.edu
What a typical liberal kneejerk statement. The only thing conservatives
don't like is people like you who make idiotic blanket
statements.
Fabio Rojas
In article <19970603072...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Libguy9754 <libgu...@aol.com> wrote:
>Political conservatives tend to be jazz haters, because jazz is a cutting
>edge art form. Conservatism, by definition, seeks to maintain the statis
>quo. Jazz seeks to break with the statis quo. Plus, Conservatism is
>responsible for the racism that has harmed African American musicians. It
>is the Liberals who fought for civil rights in the 60s.
The above post is probably a troll but...
JAZZ IS FOR EVERYONE!!!
In my experience, there isn't a terribly high correleation between
political persuasion and liking a particular kind of music.
Some of the most "liberal" people I've met just don't like
jazz and some pretty conservative people just love it. Heck, some would
argue that the audience for some contemporary musicians from
a certain organization in New York is formed by conservative
people. :-) Others would argue that the "avante-garde" has become
quite conervative in its approach to music!!!
In the end, politics doesn't matter. While some peices of jazz
are explicitely political, most are not. When you listen to
Round Midnight, do you hear an intense far-away mood or do you
think of Monk's political orientation? [Did he have any discernable
politics? - but that's another thread.]
I don't find much value in postings like the one above. If art
could do anything aside from making us happy in our own little
personal world, it should be to bring us together despite our differences.
Late Night Ranter,
Fabio
Chuck Nessa
d.be...@mail.utexas.edu wrote:
>
> What a typical liberal kneejerk statement. The only thing conservatives
> don't like is people like you who make idiotic blanket
Chuck Nessa
Chuck Nessa
Chuck Nessa
Lawson G. Stone
Libguy9754 wrote:
>
> Political conservatives tend to be jazz haters, because jazz is a cutting
> edge art form. Conservatism, by definition, seeks to maintain the statis
> quo. Jazz seeks to break with the statis quo. Plus, Conservatism is
> responsible for the racism that has harmed African American musicians. It
> is the Liberals who fought for civil rights in the 60s.
Yawn.
This doesn't even swing.
--
//////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Lawson G. Stone—Asbury Theological Seminary—Wilmore, KY 40390
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////
"You know, a long time ago, being crazy meant something. Nowadays,
everybody's crazy." Charles Manson
Bennett Pearce
Tom Waters
Libguy9754 (libgu...@aol.com) wrote:
: Political conservatives tend to be jazz haters, because jazz is a cutting
: edge art form. Conservatism, by definition, seeks to maintain the statis
: quo. Jazz seeks to break with the statis quo. Plus, Conservatism is
: responsible for the racism that has harmed African American musicians. It
: is the Liberals who fought for civil rights in the 60s.
This would have come closer to being true a few decades ago. Stanley
Crouch, for example, is a black conservative advocate for jazz. Anyway,
the civil rights movement was initiated by radicals and had to work hard
to secure the support of liberals during the 50s and early 60s. Racism
remains a strong force within conservatism today, but it is not exactly
confined to conservative circles. Racism pre-existed conservatism
as we know it today, and has shaped all political currents in the United
States to some extent, rather than being the "responisbility" any one
current.
Tom
--
Thomas Waters
twa...@use.usit.net
1021 East Oak Hill Avenue, Knoxville TN 37917
Dig And Be Dug In Return
Tnrmadness
What an ignorant thing to say...My family whole family is
conservative and there are 4-5 jazz musicians in my family. For the most
part, the people that I play with are conservatives.
Please, before making statements like this, do a little research, if
not, don't bother posting garbage like this...
-greg
RPiket7901
Actually, much jazz has become so conservative now (especially what gets
out there via the major labels and jazz radio), that this statement is
probably not very accurate anymore.
I understand the saxophone was banned in the Soviet Union for a time.
Maybe it is more accurate to say that jazz has traditionally been an art
form that celebrates individualism and nonconformity. This would be in
opposition to all establishment ideologies with an agenda that would be
more easily promoted in a society with less of these qualities, whether
the ideology is the spreading corporate-culture conservative mentality in
the US, former Soviet authoritarianism, or whatever.
Michael Lewis
> In the end, politics doesn't matter. While some peices of jazz
> are explicitely political, most are not. When you listen to
> Round Midnight, do you hear an intense far-away mood or do you
> think of Monk's political orientation? [Did he have any discernable
> politics? - but that's another thread.]
>
Don't know about Monk in particular.
Politics and race seemed to have mattered to many important jazz musicians.
I just finished reading a Horace Silver article where he spoke of having to
listen to black musicians from outside of clubs as a boy because other than
musicians only white were allowed into the clubs. I've heard many of the
Harlem musicians talk about the same thing in various documentaries and
articles.
Charlie Haden's Liberation Music Orchestra includes Song for Che'. A song
Haden said was written in memory of Che' Guevera his people and their
struggle. Along with Circus '68 '69 written in response to the Democratic
National Convention splitting over Vietnam. (While the conservatives were
already in favor of the war) Doesn't come across as a conservative.
Pharoah Sanders' The Creator Has a Master Plan (peace and happiness
throughout the land) I doubt the peace and happiness they were singing
about had anything to do with intolerance and bigotry of the '60s.
Coltrane's Love Supreme always brings to mind gospel music to me. But from
all the negative responses the original post received maybe you all don't
think gospel or blues have anything to with race or politics either.
Charles Mingus. Original Faubus Fables.
"Oh lord don't let em shoot us,
Oh lord don't let em stab us,
Oh lord don't let em tar and feather us,
Oh lord no more swastikas...
Boo nazi's and supremacists
Boo Klu Klux Klan...
Why are they so sick and ridiculous?"
Originally Mingus was kept from singing the lyrics by his label, he then
came back with the lyrics on the Candid release, Presents Charles Mingus.
Mingus did this because he felt the lyrics were an important part of the
piece (He says so in the liner notes).
I could give many more examples, but I'm really looking forward to some
examples of conservative politics in jazz to counter some of these. If jazz
really doesn't lean towards the civil rights and progressive movements then
they should be easy to find. Until then I'll wait.
> If art could do anything aside from making us happy in our own little
> personal world, it should be to bring us together despite our
differences.
>
Exactly, so it goes to reason that if you are part of a political group
that doesn't want us to come together would oppose a music or art form that
does.
Mike
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <19970603072...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
libgu...@aol.com (Libguy9754) wrote:
>
> Political conservatives tend to be jazz haters, because jazz is a cutting
> edge art form. Conservatism, by definition, seeks to maintain the statis
> quo. Jazz seeks to break with the statis quo. Plus, Conservatism is
> responsible for the racism that has harmed African American musicians. It
> is the Liberals who fought for civil rights in the 60s.
This is such a silly post it just has to be a troll. "Libguy"? Wow.
Anyway, I recall reading that William F. Buckley Jr. loves jazz piano,
and in particular collects the recordings of Dave McKenna. Or was it Dick
Hyman? One or the other, I think. And if Buckley ain't a conservative, I
don't know who is.
Now you might be able to build a case for saying "political conservatives
prefer more traditional jazz." But maybe not. Research, research! That's
what needed.
- Tom Storer
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Fabio Rojas
I think Mike has an interesting question: how many "conservative"
pieces of jazz music are there?
He correctly pointed out that there have been much jazz music about the
struggle of Afriacan-Americans - "Strange Fruit" being a pretty
famous example. But I think that the important thing to note
is that an overwhelming amount of such music is about racism.
This isn't too surprising since jazz originiates from a really
opressed community. You'll be hard pressed to find jazz music
dedicated to specific people, Haden's "Song for Che" being one
example. Mingus's stuff is usually about bad politicians
like Orville Faubus rather than support for good politicians.
So here's some neat questions:
1) What are some famous pieces of jazz music that are about or
dedicated to the civil rights struggle or are about racism?
2) What are some famous pieces of jazz that are dedicated to
specific individuals? How many of these are liberal, left,
conservative, etc?
3) Are there any pieces of jazz dedicated to broad ideologies?
Is there the "Karl Marx Blues"? The "Adam Smith Shuffle"?
One last note about politics and jazz. Before the 1920's, the
Republican party was known as the "Party of Lincoln" and African-
Americans tended to vote republican. So if you are goint to
start merging music and politics, you might have to argue
that King Oliver might be supporting the GOP!!! That would be
trippy!!
After studying, playing and listening to jazz, it seems that
there are some very political songs but jazz is mostly a musical
idea and as such requires no political orientation to appreciate it
or play it.
Late Night Ranting,
Fabio
PS I also challenge people to find jazz about specific political
issues other than racism. For example, any "Balanced Budget Ballads"?
Clay Fink
Eventhough I consider myself a lefty, I think the poster's comments
don't hold water. The Nazis condemed Jazz as "degenerate" art while, as
I understand, the Communist goverments of Eastern Europe and the USSR
suppressed their Jazz scenes as well. It seems to me that both leftwing
and rightwing extremists tend to attack artists and intellectuals except
for those whose art or thinking supports the "revolution". One might
think that a person's aesthtics or artistic tastes would follow their
political feelings, but they often do not. People are complicated.
Hell, I'm a liberal and I listen to Country and Western (at least to the
old stuff).
2 jazz pagans
Fabio Rojas wrote:
>
> 2) What are some famous pieces of jazz that are dedicated to
> specific individuals? How many of these are liberal, left,
> conservative, etc?
Other than Duke Ellington's various "Portraits?" :-)
- JRB
skip elliott bowman
Fabio Rojas <fro...@durban.berkeley.edu> wrote:
: So here's some neat questions:
: 1) What are some famous pieces of jazz music that are about or
: dedicated to the civil rights struggle or are about racism?
Here's two off the top of my head, Fabio:
Charles Mingus, "Free Rockefeller At Attica 'tis Nazi USA"
"Haitian Fight Song"
Also, Branford has a single and video out off his new Buckshot LeFonque
album titled "Breakfast At Denny's".
: One last note about politics and jazz. Before the 1920's, the
: Republican party was known as the "Party of Lincoln" and African-
: Americans tended to vote republican. So if you are goint to
: start merging music and politics, you might have to argue
: that King Oliver might be supporting the GOP!!! That would be
: trippy!!
Some famous musician Republican conservatives: Ray Charles, BB King,
Sonny Rollins, and Duke Ellington. I've nothing against R's (I better
not, two of Oregon's best governors and senators were R's), it's just the
a**h***s who keep getting elected and the vocal minority they cater to.
: After studying, playing and listening to jazz, it seems that
: there are some very political songs but jazz is mostly a musical
: idea and as such requires no political orientation to appreciate it
: or play it.
To me. music is the universal language, and its discussions are not
limited to Boy Meets Girl or Cool Places I Have Visited. JMHO
: PS I also challenge people to find jazz about specific political
: issues other than racism. For example, any "Balanced Budget Ballads"?
Granted, the theme of racism does crop up a lot in jazz (also rock, blues,
reggae, calypso, mbanqanqa, and other black-originated genres). Now why
do you spoze that is? ;^)#
It isn't jazz, but I suggest giving a listen to Joseph Shabalala and his
vocal choir Ladysmith Black Mambazo, on their recording of "Homeless".
I still cry when I hear it.
Skippo
Gremal
Fabio Rojas <fro...@durban.berkeley.edu> wrote in article
<5n3c05$4...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
> I think Mike has an interesting question: how many "conservative"
> pieces of jazz music are there?
I think jazz as a whole has become very conservative through the mid-late
80s and 90s with some exceptions of course. Jazz has obviously been
embraced by everything from romantic comedies to car commercials on TV and
some dentists offices and book stores off TV. You obviously can't
attribute a political orientation to such places. In terms of what makes a
tune conservative, I think you can interpret that many ways.
> 1) What are some famous pieces of jazz music that are about or
> dedicated to the civil rights struggle or are about racism?
IMO you can't say any music is "about" such issues. Inspired by such
issues--definitely, but ultimately it was the emotion or the thought at the
time any given note was played that is the inspiration. Alabama to name
one obvious tune (inspired by the slain youths at the church). The search
into African roots was a huge influence. Extensions-Tyner comes to mind.
> 2) What are some famous pieces of jazz that are dedicated to
> specific individuals? How many of these are liberal, left,
> conservative, etc?
> 3) Are there any pieces of jazz dedicated to broad ideologies?
> Is there the "Karl Marx Blues"? The "Adam Smith Shuffle"?
Seems to me that the overwhelming majority of dedicated tunes are named
after other musicians, not political figures or political theory. The
musicians themselves were obsessed primarily with the music and they were
far too creative and resourceful to be limited by a left vs. right type of
mentality, as our friend Libguy clearly is when he states, "Conservatism is
responsible for the racism blah blah blah". Obviously aspects of human
nature are the forces behind racism and education is the only way to learn
about and compensate for those forces. Hiding behind a political
denomination does nothing.
> One last note about politics and jazz. Before the 1920's, the
> Republican party was known as the "Party of Lincoln" and African-
> Americans tended to vote republican. So if you are goint to
> start merging music and politics, you might have to argue
> that King Oliver might be supporting the GOP!!! That would be
> trippy!!
Political parties change. Clinton may have set that in motion again by
signing that welfare bill last year, for example. Most folks thought no
democrat would ever sign such a thing. As far as whether that affects
jazz--I doubt it.
> After studying, playing and listening to jazz, it seems that
> there are some very political songs but jazz is mostly a musical
> idea and as such requires no political orientation to appreciate it
> or play it.
Bingo.
> PS I also challenge people to find jazz about specific political
> issues other than racism. For example, any "Balanced Budget Ballads"?
Only thing I keep thinking of is this obnoxious (non-jazz) tune by Little
Feat--Apolitical Blues.
"I got the apolitical blues. And they're the meanest blues around."
Something about the telephone is ringing and it being chairman Mao.
2 jazz pagans
skip elliott bowman wrote:
> Some famous musician Republican conservatives: Ray Charles, BB King,
> Sonny Rollins, and Duke Ellington.
Those are all news to me, but Lionel Hampton has long been a very
visible figure in Republican circles. And Lenny Garment (ex-Woody
Herman) served in the Nixon White House as Leonard Garment (which was,
after all, his name).
- JRB
Brian Olewnick
On 3 Jun 1997 16:55:17 GMT, twa...@use.usit.net (Tom Waters) wrote:
>This would have come closer to being true a few decades ago. Stanley
>Crouch, for example, is a black conservative advocate for jazz.
As usual, in discussions of this kind, folks tend to get caught up in
the left/right, lib/con dichotomies. Crouch, though dismissed by his
foes (political and musical) as 'conservative', is, politically at
least, closer to libertarian in his views.
I've always, naively I guess, wondered why there aren't more avowed
libertarians in jazz, especially free jazz. It strikes me as ironic
that musicians who champion, correctly in my view, their right to play
any music they deem fit, subject only to restrictions or structure
which *they* choose to impose, tend to advocate totalitarian political
systems which deny others those same rights in their chosen fields.
Curious, no?
Cheers,
Brian O.
GJuke
>>>>Exactly, so it goes to reason that if you are part of a political
group
that doesn't want us to come together would oppose a music or art form
that
does.<<<<
Making _GIANT_ leaps and bounds here, aren't we Mike?
Jazz is about whatever you want it to be; and you obviously _want_ it to
be about division, divisiveness, &/or your own liberal agenda. Enjoy...
GJ
LGEvilEye
>>Some famous musician Republican conservatives: Ray Charles, BB King,
Sonny Rollins, and Duke Ellington. <<
I think Ellington, whose closest friend and collaborator (Strayhorn) was
gay would have a difficult time reconciling this with today's
'conservative' (read RIGHT WING) movement.
And Sonny Rollins? Huh?
LG
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <33960aa8...@news.idt.net>,
ole...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
> I've always, naively I guess, wondered why there aren't more avowed
> libertarians in jazz, especially free jazz. It strikes me as ironic
> that musicians who champion, correctly in my view, their right to play
> any music they deem fit, subject only to restrictions or structure
> which *they* choose to impose, tend to advocate totalitarian political
> systems which deny others those same rights in their chosen fields.
> Curious, no?
What on earth?? What totalitarian political systems are you referring to,
and which "free jazz" musicians advocate them?
ss
tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>
> In article <19970603072...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> libgu...@aol.com (Libguy9754) wrote:
> >
> > Political conservatives tend to be jazz haters, because jazz is a cutting
> > edge art form. Conservatism, by definition, seeks to maintain the statis
> > quo. Jazz seeks to break with the statis quo. Plus, Conservatism is
> > responsible for the racism that has harmed African American musicians. It
> > is the Liberals who fought for civil rights in the 60s.
>
> This is such a silly post it just has to be a troll. "Libguy"? Wow.
> Anyway, I recall reading that William F. Buckley Jr. loves jazz piano,
> and in particular collects the recordings of Dave McKenna. Or was it Dick
> Hyman? One or the other, I think. And if Buckley ain't a conservative, I
> don't know who is.
>
> Now you might be able to build a case for saying "political conservatives
> prefer more traditional jazz." But maybe not. Research, research! That's
> what needed.
>
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
(until they lost the election in May) is a keen jazz fan, and would be
seen late at night at Ronnie Scott's. Indeed, he even waived tax
problems at the Bass Clef club about three years ago, when the bailiffs
were about to go in.
Not that it has been very helpful in getting jazz more money over here!
Oliver Weindling
ba...@easynet.co.uk
http://www.babel.offworld.co.uk
Fabio Rojas
In article <19970605071...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Libguy9754 <libgu...@aol.com> wrote:
>I should have stated my position clearer. Sorry. What I meant to say is
>that political and religious conservatism has hurt jazz and jazz
>musicians. For it was the political conservatives who stood in
>schoolhouse doorways refusing to let Blacks into White schools. It was
>conservative lawmakers like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond who voted
>against the 1964 civil right act - a law that would have simply banned
>discrimination in public places against Black folks and other minorities.
>It was the pre-enlightenment conservative church that used to kill
>musicians who played the tritone because they said it was the devil's
>music. Recently, conservative fundamentalist Christian churches called
>jazz the devil's music.
>
>Furthermore what was Ronald Reagan and George Bush's favorite music?
>Country. Who put on a jazz festival in Washington as president? Jimmy
>Carter (remember, even Cecil Taylor played) and Bill Clinton
And what does any of that prove? Have sales of Thelonious Monk albums
been helped by the fact he's is one of Clinton's favorites?
Did the fact that Bush claimed to like country [it turns
out that he is actually an opera fan!] somehow make people
stay home from jazz concerts? Do you think political conservatives
are the only people who didn't like jazz? Theodor Adorno, one
of the most famous Marxist critics, seems to have hated jazz.
[A freind of mine claims that he hated commercialized jazz that
he heard during the 1940's... but that's a different thread!]
Do you think white people are the only people to diss jazz?
Freddie Hubbard once joked during a concert that his mother
told him not to play the devil's music and stick to the good
stuff played in church! Just about every wave of innovation
in jazz has been opposed by black jazz musicians.
I'm no big fan of Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms, but I'm not
going to use that political opinion to form wildly inaccurate
blanket statements about jazz and politics. It is true that
these politicians did make life really difficult for a lot
of black [and white!] people in this country, but I fail
to see how that has affected jazz. Think about this: the guys
who own the Reader's Digest fortune have sponsored Steve Coleman's
residence in Oakland. ANd remember R.D. is pretty conservative magazine.
You can sometimes find reviews of jazz books in "Commentary" magazine,
and that is the epitome of intelelctual conservativism in this
country. I am not going to pretend that just cuz you are
conservative that means that you wildly embrace jazz, but
you can't figure out what a person's artistic taste is from
his political orientation. Here's some reality: people are
complex things. Just get a grip on that concept, and you can
then start to worry about more important issues in jazz.
Late Night Ranting,
Fabio
PS Aside from opera, George Bush and his hatchet man, the late Lee
Atwater, were known to play blues guitar at various Republican
fund raisers. I guess that mean all republicans support blues,
doesn't it?
Fabio Rojas
In article <8654980...@dejanews.com>, <tst...@natsys.fr> wrote:
>In article <33960aa8...@news.idt.net>,
> ole...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>>
>> [SNIP]
>> I've always, naively I guess, wondered why there aren't more avowed
>> libertarians in jazz, especially free jazz. It strikes me as ironic
>> that musicians who champion, correctly in my view, their right to play
>> any music they deem fit, subject only to restrictions or structure
>> which *they* choose to impose, tend to advocate totalitarian political
>> systems which deny others those same rights in their chosen fields.
>> Curious, no?
>
>What on earth?? What totalitarian political systems are you referring to,
>and which "free jazz" musicians advocate them?
>
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
As an amateur jazz player, libertarian and fan of free music, let
add my $.02 here.
Some musicians have actually been fans of oppressive regimes. Charlie
Haden's Liberation Music Orchestra album has a track entitled
"Song for Che'". For those unaware of the history of the left,
Che Guevara was a Latin American MArxist revolutionary who
worked with and for Fidel Castro [a pretty nasty and evil
fellow if you ask me] and died while trying to lead
violent, guerilla uprisings in Bolivia.
In the book "No Sound is Innocent" by AMM member Edwin Prevost,
there are numerous points where he discusses the politics
of some of the AMM'ers. At one point, they were hard core
Maoists. For those who aren't aware, China has been a brutal
regime whose "high lights" include the millions of deaths
in the Great Leap Forward [1950's] and the Cultural Revolution
[1970's]. Or just remember the Tienanmen massacre a few years
ago. If someone holds left wing politics, that really doesn't
bother me but when the dedicate tunes and proclaim the greatness
of Mao Tse-tung and Che Guevara, two people who were directly
responsible for some of the worst atrocities of all time, then
I consider that pretty evil in itself.
As far as libertarianism goes, I think the poster fails to
grasp the nuances of libertarian thought. Sure, there are
some libertarians who hate structure of any type, including
artistic structure. But others are opposed to government
in particular, while being advocates of other sorts of structure.
A friend of mine who is a hard core libt'rn thinks Richard
Wagner is the height of music and cannot understand jazz
at all. While Murray ROthbard, one of the founders of modern
libt'rnism, was quite an avid jazz fan. They hold similar
beliefs but guess what? They have different musical tastes!!!
Wow, can you belive that? Ayn Rand had some odd musical tastes
and once even wrote that she thought that one of Beethoven's
great symphonies was "anti-life" - one of the strangest
things I've read.
As far as free jazz goes, it's such an acquired taste for most people
that I can't imagine most people at all being able to appreciate it.
So it's no surprise that I am the only libertarian that I've
ever met that likes free jazz!! The pattern amongst my libertarian
associates is either a) classical or b)eclectic, with few
hard core jazz, rap, or other kinds of music.
The only famous musician with remotely libertarian inclinations
is the late Frank Zappa, but I'm not sure about that.
Another late night rant from me. Why can't people just accept the
fact that music can seep through the thickest of heads, even
a libertarian one like mine?
Late Night Meanie,
Fabio
Tom Waters
Brian Olewnick (ole...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
: As usual, in discussions of this kind, folks tend to get caught up in
: the left/right, lib/con dichotomies. Crouch, though dismissed by his
: foes (political and musical) as 'conservative', is, politically at
: least, closer to libertarian in his views.
Crouch is a moralist who consistently argues for the necessity of
cultural continuity to create a livable social order. He also argues that
social change must be driven by changes in the subjective, cultural realm
rather than in objective power relations or the economy. This is
conservatism. It may be that, like many conservatives today, Crouch has
adopted some libertarian rhetoric here and there, but I think he must be
one of the least libertarian conservatives out there.
: I've always, naively I guess, wondered why there aren't more avowed
: libertarians in jazz, especially free jazz. It strikes me as ironic
: that musicians who champion, correctly in my view, their right to play
: any music they deem fit, subject only to restrictions or structure
: which *they* choose to impose, tend to advocate totalitarian political
: systems which deny others those same rights in their chosen fields.
: Curious, no?
Perhaps the black people who made the link between free jazz and
revolutionary politics had some experience that suggested to them that
political oppression can come an some agency other than the state. I doubt
that anyone who had had such an experience would be drawn even to left
libertarianism, and certainly not to today's right libertarianism.
skip elliott bowman
LGEvilEye <lgev...@aol.com> wrote:
: >>Some famous musician Republican conservatives: Ray Charles, BB King,
Re. BB King and Ray Charles: I don't think the Republican National
Commitee would invite D's to perform at their conventions. BTW BB King
opened with "The Thrill Is Gone" at the '92 convention. Mayhaps he knew
something 8^/#
Re. Duke & Sweet Pea: Haven't you ever heard of the Log Cabin Republicans?
And remember what I said about the reactionary vocal minority who profess
to speak for all R's.
: And Sonny Rollins? Huh?
It's easy to check any registered voter's political party affiliation.
Just get what's called a "walking list" from that person's political
precinct and look it up. This wouldn't keep me from digging a musician's
artistic endeavors anyway.
Skippo
Genie Baker
In article <5n4m44$gcf$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,
skip elliott bowman <skip...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Fabio Rojas <fro...@durban.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>: So here's some neat questions:
>: dedicated to the civil rights struggle or are about racism?
>Charles Mingus, "Free Rockefeller At Attica 'tis Nazi USA"
> "Haitian Fight Song"
Can't forget Fables of Faubus.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Baker gba...@umich.edu
jb...@in219b.iit.edu
In article <5n64tg$u...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
fro...@durban.berkeley.edu (Fabio Rojas) wrote:
> The only famous musician with remotely libertarian inclinations
> is the late Frank Zappa, but I'm not sure about that.
>
> Another late night rant from me. Why can't people just accept the
> fact that music can seep through the thickest of heads, even
> a libertarian one like mine?
This is strictly an aside in the for-what-its-worth-department,
but Chicago political satirist Aaron Freeman defines a Libertarian
as an anarchist with a credit card.
Jeff
John Purves
>On 3 Jun 1997 16:55:17 GMT, twa...@use.usit.net (Tom Waters) wrote:
>
>Crouch,
(snip)
>is, politically at
>least, closer to libertarian in his views.
How unfortunate
>
>I've always, naively I guess, wondered why there aren't more avowed
>libertarians in jazz, especially free jazz.
Because life ain't art.
jp
Skip Elliott Bowman
Fabio Rojas wrote:
> Aside from opera, George Bush and his hatchet man, the late Lee
> Atwater, were known to play blues guitar at various Republican
> fund raisers. I guess that mean all republicans support blues,
> doesn't it?
This reminds me of something that happened when my wife was campaigning
for her first public office (as a Democrat). I was walking the
neighborhood with her and meeting constituents when we came up on a
house with Little Milton blasting from a nice stereo inside, and a guy
sitting on the porch sipping a cold one. I said to her, this one's a
shoo-in vote for you. Well, he turned out to be a Republican, said he'd
always voted Republican no matter who it was, and swore he'd never vote
for a Democrat under any circumstances. He wouldn't even let us leave
any campaign materiel for his wife (who was a registered Democrat), let
alone say anything to her. Ironically, the song playing was "Sweet Home
Chicago", a song about the most Democratic city in America (my
hometown). BTW he was in his mid-thirties, with long beard and mustache
(for those who think all conservatives are fat white guys in suits and
smoking cigars).
Anyway, she still won, with over 70% of the vote.
Skippo
Tom Waters
Fabio Rojas (fro...@durban.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: Theodor Adorno, one
: of the most famous Marxist critics, seems to have hated jazz.
: [A freind of mine claims that he hated commercialized jazz that
: he heard during the 1940's... but that's a different thread!]
Some of Adorno's criticism was clearly directed against commercial stuff,
but he also wrote about good jazz music and he hated that too, although
he has a number of intelligient and interesting things to say on the
subject amid the venom.
Adorno was not much of a Marxist by the time he wrote most of his stuff
on jazz, though. In fact his attention was probably drawn to the subject
by the shallow praise being given jazz by a segment of the left he detested.
Tobocman
> Political conservatives tend to be jazz haters, because jazz is a
cutting
> edge art form. Conservatism, by definition, seeks to maintain the
statis
> quo. Jazz seeks to break with the statis quo. Plus, Conservatism is
> responsible for the racism that has harmed African American musicians.
>It is the Liberals who fought for civil rights in the 60s.
The problem here is that terms like Liberal and Conservative change every
30 years or so (not in essence, but in specific). I believe that the
original "troll" is accurate on some level, but you'd really have to
squint to see it. That said, within the confines of Jazz, there is a
definite dimension of conservatism/traditionalism (1990's devotees of
1950's Jazz are traditionalists, and conservative by definition).
However, this does not correlate politically (I'm a Jazz Traditionalist,
but political Liberal). Anyway, Liberalism has been co-opted by the
mainstream; both parties advocate such Liberal concepts as Social
Security, Medicare, Internationalism, Equality, anti-racism, and even
minimum wage and welfare (to some degree). It's hard to say who's a
Liberal anymore because everyone now is a Liberal to some degree.
In the past (1930's until the 70's), it's my impression that the vast
majority of artists and musicians were Liberal by nature. Is this in
dispute? I think the converse would be a hard argument to make. However,
nowadays, politics are such a peripheral part of the modern experience
that, alas, the point is essentially irrelevant.
Just my priceless opinion,
David
Los Angeles
William Barkin
Fabio Rojas wrote:
> 1) What are some famous pieces of jazz music that are about or
> dedicated to the civil rights struggle or are about racism?
Alabama - Coltrane
Brian Olewnick
On 5 Jun 1997 10:37:36 GMT, fro...@durban.berkeley.edu (Fabio Rojas)
wrote:
>Some musicians have actually been fans of oppressive regimes. Charlie
>Haden's Liberation Music Orchestra album has a track entitled
>"Song for Che'". For those unaware of the history of the left,
>Che Guevara was a Latin American MArxist revolutionary who
>worked with and for Fidel Castro [a pretty nasty and evil
>fellow if you ask me] and died while trying to lead
>violent, guerilla uprisings in Bolivia.
>
>In the book "No Sound is Innocent" by AMM member Edwin Prevost,
>there are numerous points where he discusses the politics
>of some of the AMM'ers. At one point, they were hard core
>Maoists. For those who aren't aware, China has been a brutal
>regime whose "high lights" include the millions of deaths
>in the Great Leap Forward [1950's] and the Cultural Revolution
>[1970's]. Or just remember the Tienanmen massacre a few years
>ago. If someone holds left wing politics, that really doesn't
>bother me but when the dedicate tunes and proclaim the greatness
>of Mao Tse-tung and Che Guevara, two people who were directly
>responsible for some of the worst atrocities of all time, then
>I consider that pretty evil in itself.
Fabio,
Excellent examples and observations thereto. I was thinking less
along the lines of specific pieces than of the general impression
created through interviews, writings (including liner notes, etc.)
that most jazz musicians, free or otherwise, if they had their
druthers would prefer a system at least modeled on some form of
socialism; ie., "The government [read:other people] should [be forced
to] support my music." etc. Tom Storer may not equate socialism with
totalitarianism; I do (I have this problem with guns being pointed at
my head). But that's a discussion for another newsgroup...
>As far as libertarianism goes, I think the poster fails to
>grasp the nuances of libertarian thought. Sure, there are
>some libertarians who hate structure of any type, including
>artistic structure. But others are opposed to government
>in particular, while being advocates of other sorts of structure.
I didn't mean that libertarians should automatically love jazz (hey,
everybody should!) or that all jazz musicians should be libertarians,
but you'd think there might be two or three out there who've perhaps
considered the philosophical underpinnings of their music and might've
seen where else in life they could be applied.
<snip>
>As far as free jazz goes, it's such an acquired taste for most people
>that I can't imagine most people at all being able to appreciate it.
>So it's no surprise that I am the only libertarian that I've
>ever met that likes free jazz!!
Hey, that makes two of us!
>The only famous musician with remotely libertarian inclinations
>is the late Frank Zappa, but I'm not sure about that.
Um, maybe of the more bitter variety...
>Another late night rant from me. Why can't people just accept the
>fact that music can seep through the thickest of heads, even
>a libertarian one like mine?
Yep, sure can.
Perhaps my favorite piece of music in the world is Frederic Rzewski's
'The People United Will Never Be Defeated!". Imagine that, a
libertarian anarcho-capitalist falling in love with a piece based on a
Chilean worker's song arranged by an avowedly socialist composer!
As Mr. Rojas pointed out, people are complex creatures.
Cheers,
Brian O.
.
Tom Waters
Fabio Rojas (fro...@durban.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: If someone holds left wing politics, that really doesn't
: bother me but when the dedicate tunes and proclaim the greatness
: of Mao Tse-tung and Che Guevara, two people who were directly
: responsible for some of the worst atrocities of all time, then
: I consider that pretty evil in itself.
I won't argue with you about Mao or the Cultural Revolution, but Guevara
was not directly responsible for any more atrocities than that ither
violent guerilla leader, George Washington.
: Wow, can you belive that? Ayn Rand had some odd musical tastes
: and once even wrote that she thought that one of Beethoven's
: great symphonies was "anti-life" - one of the strangest
: things I've read.
I'm guessing Rand was referring to the 9th, in which case I agree with
her. The violent and desperate edge of the Ode to Joy reveal a rage at
the limitations of life and the body that points directly at the bitter,
more obviously "anti-life" (and anti-death, which says the same
thing) sublimity of the last quartets.
Fabio Rojas
Brian Olewnick <ole...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>>As far as free jazz goes, it's such an acquired taste for most people
>>that I can't imagine most people at all being able to appreciate it.
>>So it's no surprise that I am the only libertarian that I've
>>ever met that likes free jazz!!
>
>Hey, that makes two of us!
>
Actually, that makes three if you count one of the other posters.
Maybe if we could corner Eddie Prevost at the next AMM performance,
we could make a difference! :-)
>>The only famous musician with remotely libertarian inclinations
>>is the late Frank Zappa, but I'm not sure about that.
>
>Um, maybe of the more bitter variety...
I once heard that he was offered the LP presidential nomination.
It might mean his politics are libr'tn, but on the other hand,
they offered the nomination to Camille Paglia - a self-proclaimed
democrat and Jesse Jackson supporter.
>
>Perhaps my favorite piece of music in the world is Frederic Rzewski's
>'The People United Will Never Be Defeated!". Imagine that, a
>libertarian anarcho-capitalist falling in love with a piece based on a
>Chilean worker's song arranged by an avowedly socialist composer!
It's funny that you mention that. My very liberal freind gave
me a recording of that for my birthday a few months ago!!
I like it a lot.
Strange coincidince. Maybe you are my missing twin brother.
I hear Twighlight Zone music...
>As Mr. Rojas pointed out, people are complex creatures.
>Brian O.
Which would explain why they don't all agree with everything I say!
Evening Rants,
Fabio
David J. Strauss
: Well, even moribund Communism is still cool, but Haden's Song for Che,
: referred to in another post, glorified a man who, after all, was
: plumping for a Cuban regime that has a horrific record of repression,
: brutality, & torture.
Batista's?
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <3396A2...@teleport.com>,
skip...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> [SKIP]
> This reminds me of something that happened when my wife was campaigning
> Anyway, she still won, with over 70% of the vote.
>
And I'll bet she likes jazz, too! See?? ;-)
- Tom Storer
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <33975F...@community.net>,
Robert & Leslie Spencer <spe...@community.net> wrote:
>
> tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>
> > What on earth?? What totalitarian political systems are you referring to,
> > and which "free jazz" musicians advocate them?
> >
> > - Tom Storer
> >
>
> referred to in another post, glorified a man who, after all, was
> plumping for a Cuban regime that has a horrific record of repression,
> that I'll bet Fidel would get a big hand if he walked into the Blue Note
> one night.
OK, Charlie Haden likes Che and the Sandinistas and so on. That's one. Not
much of a statistical base. What makes you think "Communism is still cool"
(or that it was once cool, for that matter) among "free jazz" musicians in
general?
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <3397601d...@news.idt.net>,
ole...@mail.idt.net wrote:
> [SNIP]I was thinking less
> along the lines of specific pieces than of the general impression
> created through interviews, writings (including liner notes, etc.)
> that most jazz musicians, free or otherwise, if they had their
> druthers would prefer a system at least modeled on some form of
> socialism; ie., "The government [read:other people] should [be forced
> to] support my music." etc.
I don't think people complaining because they don't get enough grants is
solid evidence that jazz musicians are all a bunch of Reds. <g>
>Tom Storer may not equate socialism with
> totalitarianism; I do (I have this problem with guns being pointed at
> my head). But that's a discussion for another newsgroup...
I confess I am no political scientist and so am neither willing nor able
to get into this full-scale. One thing I will say is that "socialism"
seems to be a term that has been applied to many different political
realities. For example, for all the faults of the French Socialists
during the Mitterand years, French society during that period was very
far from "totalitarian." I can't recall a single gun being pointed at my
head during all that time, nor do I expect the jackboots of Jospin's
storm troopers to sound on my landing anytime soon. <g> This isn't to say
that regimes calling themselves "socialist" have not actually been
totalitarian. But I guess there's socialist and socialist.
Ross Lipman
ss wrote:
>
> tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
> >
> > In article <19970603072...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> > libgu...@aol.com (Libguy9754) wrote:
> > >
> > > edge art form. Conservatism, by definition, seeks to maintain the statis
> > > quo. Jazz seeks to break with the statis quo. Plus, Conservatism is
> > > responsible for the racism that has harmed African American musicians. It
> > > is the Liberals who fought for civil rights in the 60s.
> >
6/6
I am a staunch conservative who loves Jazz.
First: Conservatism by definition does not seek to maintain the status
quo. The term you are looking for is Reactionary, which is to the right
of "Conservative" Conservative by definition is " moderate, cautious";
a good working syn. is Pragmatic.
Second: If political conservatives tend to be jazz haters then male
dancers tend to be gay. If one is I guess they all tend to be, right?
Third: Conservatism is not responcible for all of the racism that has
harmed black musicians. The father of the modern Republican party was
Lincoln, remember him? He ended slavery. After his death, "Jim Crow"
flourished under largely democratic leadership. If the leading liberals
of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were so concerned about the
plight of blacks, why did it take 90 years for desegregation to begin?
The landmark Topeka case is considered to be the start of the civil
rights movement in this country. The case was decided during the
Eisenhower (Republican) administration and enforced, at taxpayer
expense, by the National Guard. The Guard was called out by the
Eisenhower Justice Department.
A good case can be made for the theory that the Democratic party is
responcible for the plight of the black in this country. If you give a
man a fish (welfare) he eats but once (to borrow a bible lesson).
Affirmative action reinforces prejudice by legislating that various
groups can not compete on merit but only on the basis of skin color. By
"rewarding" groups based upon skin color (or any other non merit based
criteria) you reinforce division among groups and increase hostility
towards the recipients of the "benefit". The last time I checked,
Democrats and liberals were seen as the protectors of the "status quo"
with regard to race relations and Republicans were seen as the group
attempting to remove all non-merit based criteria from the decision
process.
Ross Lipman
David Gascon
David J. Strauss wrote:
>
> : Well, even moribund Communism is still cool, but Haden's Song for Che,
> : referred to in another post, glorified a man who, after all, was
> : plumping for a Cuban regime that has a horrific record of repression,
> : brutality, & torture.
>
>
> DS
> djs...@is.nyu.edu
Ah yes, we tend to forget about Fulgencio the bloody dictator, whom we
all (even Eisenhower) were so glad to see ousted by Castro back in them
good ol' days... Most of what we now despise Castro for came about some
years later, when Che had run off to fight another revolution & was
conveniently dead. So let's lay off beating Charlie Haden for being a
romantic/nostalgic...
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
[Email address above has been modified for the purpose of killing spam;
sorry for the inconvenience -- David]
David Gascon
So far we seem to have established the following:
Not all (socialists)/(conservatives) are totalitarians.
Not all totalitarians are (socialists)/(conservatives).
Not all (socialists)/(conservatives) are jazz (fans)/(haters).
This much seems evident; but -
ARE ALL TOTALITARIANS JAZZ HATERS?
Or are some jazz fans totalitarians?
It seems the possibilities are endless... (like this thread)
George Traynor
tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>
> I don't think people complaining because they don't get enough grants is
> solid evidence that jazz musicians are all a bunch of Reds. <g>
>
> >Tom Storer may not equate socialism with
> > totalitarianism; I do (I have this problem with guns being pointed at
> > my head). But that's a discussion for another newsgroup...
>
> I confess I am no political scientist and so am neither willing nor able
> to get into this full-scale. One thing I will say is that "socialism"
> seems to be a term that has been applied to many different political
> realities. For example, for all the faults of the French Socialists
> during the Mitterand years, French society during that period was very
> far from "totalitarian." I can't recall a single gun being pointed at my
> head during all that time, nor do I expect the jackboots of Jospin's
> storm troopers to sound on my landing anytime soon. <g> This isn't to say
> that regimes calling themselves "socialist" have not actually been
> totalitarian. But I guess there's socialist and socialist.
That's true. Remember the 'Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics' or
the 'National *Socialist* German Worker's Party' (NSDAP)? We know it as
Nazism. Even this party of the extreme right was socialist in nature.
George
-
LGEvilEye
In spite of the fact that this thread really needs to die, I just gotta
say something.
I am SO tired of all of this neo-con revisionist history twisting i.e.
Castro and Guevara's revolutionary regime in Cuba was somehow brutal and
oppressive. The amen corner for that point of view is filled with a bunch
of de-cashed exploiters that saw their businesses flushed down the toilet
with the fall of Batista. These people, Cuban, American and others have
done everything in their power, including almost total economic isolation
to crush the results of a legitimate, popular revolution, all with the
blessing and cooperation of our government.
These same folks never seemed to have a problem with US support of real
brutal, totalitarian regimes like those of the Shah of Iran, Pinochet,
Marcos and every other mega-right, fascist US puppet.
As far as the music goes, what passes for 'conservative' thought these
days is the very antithesis of the ideas at the heart of jazz. This isn't
to say that 'conservatives' can't like jazz (see Clint Eastwood and Wm. F.
Buckley among others). They are after all only human. However I find it
impossible to believe that someone that shares the empty ideas of an
Oliver North, Limbaugh, Reagan/Bush etc. would be capable of CREATING
great jazz.
LG
GJuke
>>>>In spite of the fact that this thread really needs to die<<<<
I liked this part of it...
GJ
Brian Olewnick
On Fri, 06 Jun 1997 14:37:57 -0700, Robert & Leslie Spencer
<spe...@community.net> wrote:
>
>What makes me think it is that I love free jazz & read liner notes.
>Gayle's "Touchin on Trane" for one. Braxton's "Three Compositions of
>New Jazz." Anything written by Graham Lock. I love Braxton, but he &
>Lock sure spout a lot of ill-informed trendy leftism in the book "Forces
>in Motion." People think statism equals love & peace, when all its
>record shows is murder.
Robert,
If I had to pick one contemporary musical figure I admire above all
others it would be Mr. Braxton, but he does drive me up a goddamn wall
when he gets into politics (or, worse, mysticism) . I mean, leaving
aside any dopey or naive political views, it's frustrating to hear
someone of such obvious intelligence in many facets of his existence
speak glowingly of Scientology, astrology and numerology! To me it's
as exasperating and embarassing as if an adult spoke in sincere terms
about the real existence of Santa Claus.
Yeah, I know, Fabio, complex creatures, complex creatures...
On the plus side, I love AB tweaking his fellow band member's delicate
sensibilities by insisting that they eat at McDonalds. :->
Cheers,
Brian O.
Tom Waters
Ross Lipman (rl1...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: The father of the modern Republican party was
: Lincoln, remember him? He ended slavery. After his death, "Jim Crow"
: flourished under largely democratic leadership.
Not many informed people will be convinced by an argument that hinges on the
theory that Lincoln was conservative. The pattern that Republican =
conservative and Democrat = liberal was established long after
Reconstruction and has more to do with immigrant vs. native politics than
with slavery.
: If the leading liberals
: of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were so concerned about the
: plight of blacks, why did it take 90 years for desegregation to begin?
The leading liberals weren't so concerned about the plight of blacks
during most of that perios, and even if they had been, they still would
have had to contend with the leading conservatives.
: The landmark Topeka case is considered to be the start of the civil
: rights movement in this country. The case was decided during the
: Eisenhower (Republican) administration and enforced, at taxpayer
: expense, by the National Guard. The Guard was called out by the
: Eisenhower Justice Department.
Eisenhower called out the Guard in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, 3
years after Brown vs. Bd. Ed. of Topeka. And he did so reluctantly. It
was the black people of Little Rock who won equal education for their
children, not Ike.
: A good case can be made for the theory that the Democratic party is
: responcible for the plight of the black in this country. If you give a
: man a fish (welfare) he eats but once (to borrow a bible lesson).
This is nonsense. Welfare and social programs greatly reduced the
severity of poverty in this country. A program that gave people control
of the means to support themselves ("a fishing rod," or whatever) has
never been seriously attempted in this country. What we've had is either
welfare or the conservative's choice -- nothing. History has shown that
welfare is better than nothing. I might add that "liberals" only created
or increased welfare at times when poor people's demand for survival was
unruly enough to threaten the social order.
: The last time I checked,
: Democrats and liberals were seen as the protectors of the "status quo"
: with regard to race relations and Republicans were seen as the group
: attempting to remove all non-merit based criteria from the decision
: process.
The purpose of affirmative action is not to preserve the status quo but to
correct the subordinate poisiotn of black people, members of other
minorities, and women in this society. It has been somewhat effective in
the case of women, but not too effective in the cases of the other
groups. None of the groups yet have an equal place in this society.
"Conservatives" don't have a serious plan to remove the many non-merit
based criteria that work to make our society unequal. They are only
against the criteria that work (perhaps not very effectively) to make
our society more equal. I don't think this is consistent with a
commitment to equality.
David Tenner
David Gascon wrote:
>
> So far we seem to have established the following:
>
> Not all (socialists)/(conservatives) are totalitarians.
> Not all totalitarians are (socialists)/(conservatives).
> Not all (socialists)/(conservatives) are jazz (fans)/(haters).
>
> This much seems evident; but -
>
> ARE ALL TOTALITARIANS JAZZ HATERS?
> Or are some jazz fans totalitarians?
>
> It seems the possibilities are endless... (like this thread)
Well, there were certainly some Stalinist jazz fans. For example, there
was Sidney Finkelstein, whose Jazz: a People's Music was one of the
better 1940's books on jazz, however much one might want to argue with
some of its musical and political judgments.
Stalinist jazz fans faced a dilemma after the hardening of the cultural
line in the USSR in the late 1940's--the era of the Zhdanov decrees
against "decadent modernism." The most interesting thing--and a real
tribute to the power of jazz over ideology--is that according to Eric
Hobsbawm, the English communist historian and jazz critic, none of the
communist jazz fans he knew lost their taste for jazz as a reult of the
party line. This was not by any means true in other cultural fields;
many of them tried to "educate" themselves out of their former tastes
for, say, cubist painting or twelve-tone music. But on jazz, they all
agreed that the Soviet cultural commisars were simply ignorant.
--
David Tenner
ten...@m3.sprynet.com
H. Loess
ole...@mail.idt.net (Brian Olewnick) wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Jun 1997 14:37:57 -0700, Robert & Leslie Spencer
><spe...@community.net> wrote:
>>What makes me think it is that I love free jazz & read liner notes.
>>Gayle's "Touchin on Trane" for one. Braxton's "Three Compositions of
>>New Jazz." Anything written by Graham Lock. I love Braxton, but he &
>>Lock sure spout a lot of ill-informed trendy leftism in the book "Forces
>>in Motion." People think statism equals love & peace, when all its
>>record shows is murder.
>If I had to pick one contemporary musical figure I admire above all
>others it would be Mr. Braxton, but he does drive me up a goddamn wall
>when he gets into politics (or, worse, mysticism) . I mean, leaving
>aside any dopey or naive political views, it's frustrating to hear
>someone of such obvious intelligence in many facets of his existence
>speak glowingly of Scientology, astrology and numerology! To me it's
>as exasperating and embarassing as if an adult spoke in sincere terms
>about the real existence of Santa Claus.
You might want to re-read the Scientolgy section. About the only 'positive'
statement he makes is to note that Chick Corea, by doing things Braxton was
unwilling to do, did indeed become wealthy, as promised. (In fact, the
discussion of Scientology grows out of the discussion of how Braxton
declined Sid Bernstein's offer to make Braxton a millionaire, in exchange
for abandoning his principles and ideals.)
As for the "Three Compositions" liner notes, Braxton points out in "Forces
in Motion" that these were written in his early twenties, and feature
statements he would no longer make (he was turning forty when the interviews
for the book were conducted).
--
Henry L.
hlo...@pipeline.com
Brian Olewnick
On Sat, 07 Jun 1997 16:15:25 GMT, hlo...@pipeline.com (H. Loess)
wrote:
>You might want to re-read the Scientolgy section. About the only 'positive'
>statement he makes is to note that Chick Corea, by doing things Braxton was
>unwilling to do, did indeed become wealthy, as promised. (In fact, the
>discussion of Scientology grows out of the discussion of how Braxton
>declined Sid Bernstein's offer to make Braxton a millionaire, in exchange
>for abandoning his principles and ideals.)
>
Henry,
I wasn't actually referring to 'Forces in Motion' re: the Scientology
issue but rather to the basic association with Corea and to interviews
I recall hearing with AB back in the mid 70's--but I'll cede your
point and assume he's recanted; glad to hear it. But the other
nonsense has still surfaced in virtually every in-depth article or
interview I've seen in the last few years and it's troubling. He
needs a quick refresher course in 'The Art of the Scam', perhaps led
by Martin Gardner or the Amazing Randi.
(I realize it's all kinda beside the point to carp on this stuff when
the man is still producing more beautiful and amazing music than
almost anyone else around; it's just a pet peeve of mine and gnaws at
me).
Brian O.
Fabio Rojas
Sre all totalitarians jazz haters?
NOPE!!! In the book "The Russians", I think, Yuri Andropov, former KGB
head and Soviet top bannana, is described as a real jazz fan.
Fabio
tst...@compuserve.com
In article <339883...@community.net>,
>
> > What makes you think "Communism is still cool"
> > (or that it was once cool, for that matter) among "free jazz" musicians in
> > general?
> >
> > - Tom Storer
>
> Gayle's "Touchin on Trane" for one. Braxton's "Three Compositions of
> New Jazz." Anything written by Graham Lock.
Well, you're better read in free jazz liner notes than I am, I guess. But
do they specifically come out for *Communism* or do you use that as a
blanket term for the opposite of libertarianism? Some people think you're
a Communist sympathizer if you vote for a Democrat. <g>
>
> I love free jazz, but I am uncomfortable w/ a widespread equation of its
> "freedom" with the illusory freedom offered by the left. Since
> instrumental music is abstract, this equation is not necessary.
I agree with your last sentence whole-heartedly.
Tom Waters
George Traynor (radia...@idsonline.com) wrote:
: the 'National *Socialist* German Worker's Party' (NSDAP)? We know it as
: Nazism. Even this party of the extreme right was socialist in nature.
This is silly. The Nazis had the support of Germany's leading capitalists
and were more strongly opposed by the Socialists and Communists than
anyone else. There was nothing socialist about them. You might as well cite
the German *Democratic* Republic to bash democracy, or the *People's*
Republic of China to bash people.
Tom Waters
David Tenner (ten...@m3.sprynet.com) wrote:
: The most interesting thing--and a real
: tribute to the power of jazz over ideology--is that according to Eric
: Hobsbawm, the English communist historian and jazz critic, none of the
: communist jazz fans he knew lost their taste for jazz as a reult of the
: party line.
Interesting. Hobsbawm, by the way, is no fan of jazz's "left wing."
Tom Waters
: In article <339883...@community.net>,
: Robert & Leslie Spencer <spe...@community.net> wrote:
: > I love free jazz, but I am uncomfortable w/ a widespread equation of its
: > "freedom" with the illusory freedom offered by the left. Since
: > instrumental music is abstract, this equation is not necessary.
To which tst...@compuserve.com replied:
: I agree with your last sentence whole-heartedly.
Well, instrumental music is avstract and even non-abstract art has a
relationship to meaning that falls short of being necessary -- but we
attribute meaning to music all the time, sometimes even without being
aware of it. Talk about freedom has been swirling around jazz music from
the get go, and this talk has done a lot to shape the direction jazz has
gone in. This discussion has strayed off topic ( and I've been as much
an offender as anyone), but it has also been valuable as a chance to see how
different concepts of freedom (liberal, libertarian, or radical) interact
with our assumptions about the freedom of free jazz and other styles of jazz.
It doesn't surprise me that libertarians, whose definition of
political freedom is shaped by a focus on the state as a denier of
freedom, don't see any connection between free jazz's freedom and
political freedom, even in those cases where a musicians is consciously
trying to create such a connection. People like Charlie Haden (and Archie
Shepp I think, though it's been a while since I read up on this) conceive
of freedom as an experience that is lived by free people. From this point
of view, if the state is debying someone freedom, then the point is in
the experience of limitation, not in the question of how the state is
constituted -- and if someone other than the state is denying freedom,
then the distinction means much less than it would to a libertarian. The
experience of limitation is the same.
As for a liberal definition of freedom, it tends to focus on the state as
the arbiter of competing claims of freedom. My freedom to kick you versus
your freedom not to be kicked and so on. Some people have seen the
governence of groups of improvisers by a jazz composer such as Duke
Ellington in this light. Integrationism has been associated with
liberalism by a lot of people in the US. (I think the association is
sometimes overstated, but that's another story.) I don't think you can
seriously deny that ideas of integrationism versus black cultural
autonomy have been played out both in jazz rhetoric and in the actual
musical practise.
George Traynor
Tom Waters wrote:
>
> George Traynor (radia...@idsonline.com) wrote:
>
> : the 'National *Socialist* German Worker's Party' (NSDAP)? We know it as
> : Nazism. Even this party of the extreme right was socialist in nature.
>
> This is silly. The Nazis had the support of Germany's leading capitalists
> and were more strongly opposed by the Socialists and Communists than
> anyone else. There was nothing socialist about them. You might as well cite
> the German *Democratic* Republic to bash democracy, or the *People's*
> Republic of China to bash people.
Not quite. Nazi Germany offered state run health care (that is if you
were a pure Aryan) free child care, bonuses for producing more 'Aryan'
offspring, housing grants and other social services to those that were
loyal to the Reich. They also created state run organizations such as
the Hitler Youth (boy scouts were banned) civil defense, civil
construction projects that were goverment financed. An example of this
would be the autobahn and the extensive road network Germany created
after Hitler came to power.
Even though farm owners owned their property (by title), they were
dictated to by the state on what to grow and what quotas to put on
crops. All traits that were 'socialist' in nature. They were run by a
central government, controlled by a party apparatus. The NSDAP. There
is nothing silly about this at all because all these traits are
'socialist' in nature. Read the history of pre-war Germany (1933-1939)
and you will know what I am talking about.
George
-
Marc Sabatella
>
>> What makes you think "Communism is still cool"
>> (or that it was once cool, for that matter) among "free jazz" musicians in
>> general?
>
>Gayle's "Touchin on Trane" for one. Braxton's "Three Compositions of
>New Jazz." Anything written by Graham Lock.
Are we talking about the same Gayle who lectures audiences on the evils
of abortion? Not that this is necessarily inconsistent with communism,
but I'd hardly paint Gayle as a liberal in general. Also, while Braxton
& Lock clearly share certain liberal traits, I don't recall either
specifically advocating communism per se.
--
Marc Sabatella
--
ma...@outsideshore.com
http://www.outsideshore.com/
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <5nfgti$t6m$1...@news.usit.net>,
twa...@use.usit.net (Tom Waters) wrote:
>
> : In article <339883...@community.net>,
> : > "freedom" with the illusory freedom offered by the left. Since
> : > instrumental music is abstract, this equation is not necessary.
>
> To which tst...@compuserve.com replied:
>
> : I agree with your last sentence whole-heartedly.
>
> relationship to meaning that falls short of being necessary [SNIP] This
discussion has strayed off topic ( and I've been as much
> an offender as anyone), but it has also been valuable as a chance to see how
> different concepts of freedom (liberal, libertarian, or radical) interact
> with our assumptions about the freedom of free jazz and other styles of jazz.
>
> political freedom is shaped by a focus on the state as a denier of
> Shepp I think, though it's been a while since I read up on this) conceive
> of freedom as an experience that is lived by free people. From this point
> the experience of limitation, not in the question of how the state is
> constituted -- and if someone other than the state is denying freedom,
> then the distinction means much less than it would to a libertarian. The
> experience of limitation is the same.
>
> As for a liberal definition of freedom, it tends to focus on the state as
> the arbiter of competing claims of freedom. My freedom to kick you versus
> your freedom not to be kicked and so on. Some people have seen the
> governence of groups of improvisers by a jazz composer such as Duke
> Ellington in this light. Integrationism has been associated with
> liberalism by a lot of people in the US. (I think the association is
> sometimes overstated, but that's another story.) I don't think you can
> seriously deny that ideas of integrationism versus black cultural
> autonomy have been played out both in jazz rhetoric and in the actual
> musical practise.
>
Hey, this is the most interesting and least polemical post in this thread
so far! Thanks. That last sentence is worth a thread of its own.
Tom Waters
Robert & Leslie Spencer (spe...@community.net) wrote:
: Marx and
: Guevara? All they hoped to achieve on a social level was the boot on
: the face.
Che Guevara is best remembered for leading military struggles against
coapitalist regimes that didn't lack for boots on the face. Fabio Rojas
tells me Guevara was also a minister in Castro's Cuban government
for a time, in which case he may well hold some responsibility for
repression in that country. Still, when people praise Guevara they are
usually thinking of him as a revel leader, not a statesman.
Marx wrote a lot of books where he argues for a society where
workers not only own the maens of production but also practice a very
thorough-going democracy. Chapter III of The Civil War In France is the
best source for his political ideas. Marx was a radical democrat.
And in any case, Gayle's liner-note writer included most of the human
race in his or her list of aspirers toward freedom, so it seems a little
forced to make that into an endorsement of communism. Or Communism.
Tom Waters
George Traynor (radia...@idsonline.com) wrote:
: Not quite. Nazi Germany offered state run health care (that is if you
: were a pure Aryan) free child care, bonuses for producing more 'Aryan'
: offspring, housing grants and other social services to those that were
: loyal to the Reich. They also created state run organizations such as
: the Hitler Youth (boy scouts were banned) civil defense, civil
: construction projects that were goverment financed. An example of this
: would be the autobahn and the extensive road network Germany created
: after Hitler came to power.
: Even though farm owners owned their property (by title), they were
: dictated to by the state on what to grow and what quotas to put on
: crops. All traits that were 'socialist' in nature. They were run by a
: central government, controlled by a party apparatus. The NSDAP. There
: is nothing silly about this at all because all these traits are
: 'socialist' in nature. Read the history of pre-war Germany (1933-1939)
: and you will know what I am talking about.
I take it you regard the United States and every other industrial
country today as socialist.
Who owned Germany's factories and received the surplus value created in
those factories?
Joe Germuska
In article <33998696...@news.idt.net>, ole...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>If I had to pick one contemporary musical figure I admire above all
>others it would be Mr. Braxton, but he does drive me up a goddamn wall
>when he gets into politics (or, worse, mysticism) . I mean, leaving
>aside any dopey or naive political views, it's frustrating to hear
>someone of such obvious intelligence in many facets of his existence
>speak glowingly of Scientology, astrology and numerology! To me it's
>as exasperating and embarassing as if an adult spoke in sincere terms
>about the real existence of Santa Claus.
It's funny, this thread _has_ turned up some interesting discussion in the
wake of the original flame bait :-)
I take the view that Braxton's "obvious intelligence" demands from me a
more careful response to his "dopey or naive political views," and perhaps
even more so, his mystical ideas -- mysticism, by definition, aspires to
something beyond language, and so when someone who seems to be intelligent
talks crazy shit, it's worth considering the metaphorical implications of
their speech, instead of simply writing it off...
I don't think you need to adopt his views, but I think that if his views
provide order in his life that allows him to make these achievements in
music, then they deserve a little more respect.
There's a great Jackie McLean documentary where he's lecturing to a class
and one of the students asks why Sun Ra has to wear such weird clothes.
McLean goes off, ranting "can't a man be a king?" and some other great
heated defenses of Ra's "idiosyncracies". That's how I feel. The verbal
elaboration of political and spiritual views is fraught with inaccuracy --
it's how a person behaves that really matters.
Just my $0.03.
Joe
PS in John Corbett's "Extended Play," there's an interesting essay
discussing the space imagery in Sun Ra, Lee "Scratch" Perry, and George
Clinton. It's an interesting piece, if considerably less funky than its
subjects :-) It may provide good context for Braxtonian mysticism as
well...
--
Joe Germuska * Learning Technologies Group * Northwestern University
j-ger...@nwu.edu * http://www.nwu.edu/people/j-germuska
"I felt so good I told my leaders how to follow..." - Sly Stone
George Traynor
In article <5nh7qb$guj$2...@news.usit.net>,
twa...@use.usit.net (Tom Waters) wrote:
>
> George Traynor (radia...@idsonline.com) wrote:
>
> : Not quite. Nazi Germany offered state run health care (that is if you
> : were a pure Aryan) free child care, bonuses for producing more 'Aryan'
> : offspring, housing grants and other social services to those that were
> : loyal to the Reich. They also created state run organizations such as
> : the Hitler Youth (boy scouts were banned) civil defense, civil
> : construction projects that were goverment financed. An example of this
> : would be the autobahn and the extensive road network Germany created
> : after Hitler came to power.
>
> : Even though farm owners owned their property (by title), they were
> : dictated to by the state on what to grow and what quotas to put on
> : crops. All traits that were 'socialist' in nature. They were run by a
> : central government, controlled by a party apparatus. The NSDAP. There
> : is nothing silly about this at all because all these traits are
> : 'socialist' in nature. Read the history of pre-war Germany (1933-1939)
> : and you will know what I am talking about.
>
> I take it you regard the United States and every other industrial
> country today as socialist.
Facism and Communism shared many similar qualities in the 1930s. Both
were run by a one-party state apparatus, led by the party leader(s) with
very distinct ideological agendas that the party shared. Both used a
state-run police apparatus in order to control dissent and perserve their
power, hence we had the NKVD (later KGB) in the U.S.S.R. and the Gestapo
in Germany. And both were *very* ruthless in supressing the opposition.
Both also had a monopoly on the press, radio and film, not allowing those
who were not 'state' approved to express themselves.
My point is that *every* society has 'social'istic tendancies to *wildly*
varying degrees, otherwise you would have anarchy.
>
> Who owned Germany's factories and received the surplus value created in
> those factories?
The capitalist/industrialists of course. But the government still called
the shots and determined *what* they were to produce (war material etc..)
and *when* they were to produce it. In effect, these 'private'
corporations were only private in name only.
George
-
Brian Olewnick
On Mon, 09 Jun 1997 16:44:02 -0500, j-ger...@nwu.edu (Joe Germuska)
wrote:
>
>It's funny, this thread _has_ turned up some interesting discussion in the
>wake of the original flame bait :-)
Joe,
Yeah, that's one of the wonderful aspects of newsgroups like this
(seriously): the spontaneous flowering of arguments and ideas from the
unlikeliest of seeds.
>I take the view that Braxton's "obvious intelligence" demands from me a
>more careful response to his "dopey or naive political views," and perhaps
>even more so, his mystical ideas -- mysticism, by definition, aspires to
>something beyond language, and so when someone who seems to be intelligent
>talks crazy shit, it's worth considering the metaphorical implications of
>their speech, instead of simply writing it off...
Sorry, but as one coming from a profoundly atheist and rational point
of view, I have short patience with this argument. I have no problem
with arguing the _philosophical_ implications of this or that
religio-mystical stance as to how the practice thereof affects an
individual's life (even while denying the ultimate 'source' of that
philosophy). It's a distressing fact of life that people who are
brilliant in one (or more) facet of their existence can be (to be
charitable) naive in others. (There are countless examples, of course,
but the one that springs to mind is Arthur Conan Doyle's amazing
ability to be taken in by the hokiest of sham spiritualists. I think
we probably all have acquaintences who thought that Uri Geller
really bent spoons with brain power).
Sorry if I seem like I'm being a prick about it, but if _anyone_ who I
greatly admired told me he believed that Farrakan's mothership is
hovering above awaiting the Armageddon, I'd have to say, "You, sir,
are an idiot." Astrology and numerology fall in the same boat.
>I don't think you need to adopt his views, but I think that if his views
>provide order in his life that allows him to make these achievements in
>music, then they deserve a little more respect.
My guess is that a more rational view of existence could not but help
lift his achievements to an even higher (non-mystical :->) plane.
>There's a great Jackie McLean documentary where he's lecturing to a class
>and one of the students asks why Sun Ra has to wear such weird clothes.
>McLean goes off, ranting "can't a man be a king?" and some other great
>heated defenses of Ra's "idiosyncracies". That's how I feel. The verbal
>elaboration of political and spiritual views is fraught with inaccuracy --
>it's how a person behaves that really matters.
Again, I hate to be a killjoy, but (some of you might want to sit down
for this) Sun Ra was NOT from Saturn.
>Just my $0.03.
Hey, I enjoy hearing it. It's actually been a fun discussion and one
that deserves a lot of thought. No hard feelings (we
atheist/libertarians are really a gentle bunch).
Cheers,
Brian O.
David J. Strauss
: Here I must respectfully differ. While it is true that many of the
: really brutal aspects of Communism come later from Lenin, not Marx, they
: are there in abundance in old Karl. See, for just one example, his
: writings on the "Jewish Question."
Now this is where I might learn something. Where in that essay does the
Jewish Marx advocate a boot in the face? The general reading of it
suggests the opposite. I realize RMB isn't exactly the spot for this sort
of discourse, but I find the above statement sort of eccentric. Explicate?
Tom Waters
Ross Lipman (rl1...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: You are possibly correct in implying I may have mislabeled Lincoln. I
: will amend. My assertion should be that Lincoln is the father of modern
: conservatives.
I just wrote Ross a long response by e-mail, without realizing that the
same message would appear here as well.
Oh well, perhaps that is better for everyone else on this list anyway.
In this short response, I will confine myself to saying that I think that
Ross's analysis of parallels between the Republican Party of Lincoln and
that of Dole shortchanges the importance of the slavery issue to the
former, and that the parallels, though real, would seem much less
compelling if slavery were restored to its rightful place.
Tom Waters
Robert & Leslie Spencer (spe...@community.net) wrote:
: Here I must respectfully differ. While it is true that many of the
: really brutal aspects of Communism come later from Lenin, not Marx, they
: are there in abundance in old Karl. See, for just one example, his
: writings on the "Jewish Question."
I think I've read "On the Jewish Question," but I don't have a copy. In
it he argues that liberal conceptions of freedom don't go far enough,
right? If he also argues that they in some sense go too far, I don't
remember his exact points.
Without going into too much detail, could you summarize them? Or go into
more detail in an email.
Or is it that he draws some spurious, obnoxious connection between Jews
and money, as I think he also does in Capital? Fill me in.
Tom Waters
George Traynor (radia...@idsonline.com) wrote:
: My point is that *every* society has 'social'istic tendancies to *wildly*
: varying degrees, otherwise you would have anarchy.
In that case we do not disagree.
: > Who owned Germany's factories and received the surplus value created in
: > those factories?
:
: The capitalist/industrialists of course. But the government still called
: the shots and determined *what* they were to produce (war material etc..)
: and *when* they were to produce it. In effect, these 'private'
: corporations were only private in name only.
The profits were private. That strikes me as the essence of capitalism.
And of course wartime production was heavily controlled by the state in
wartime US as well.
LGEvilEye
>>The father of the modern Republican party was
No matter how thin you slice it, this is still baloney.
LG
Malte Rogacki
In article <5neebu$f8c$1...@news.usit.net>, Tom Waters writes:
>
> George Traynor (radia...@idsonline.com) wrote:
>
> : the 'National *Socialist* German Worker's Party' (NSDAP)? We know it
as
> : Nazism. Even this party of the extreme right was socialist in nature.
>
> This is silly. The Nazis had the support of Germany's leading capitalists
> and were more strongly opposed by the Socialists and Communists than
> anyone else. There was nothing socialist about them. You might as well
cite
> the German *Democratic* Republic to bash democracy, or the *People's*
> Republic of China to bash people.
Not completely true. The NSDAP did indeed incorporate many "socialist"
ideas, that's why it did appeal to the working masses so much.
As far as the German Democratic Republic goes: this is a question of the
definition of "democratic". The system in the GDR was indeed called
"Socialist Democracy" and it was always made clear that this is something
different than "Bourgeois Democracy".
--
Malte Rogacki ga...@sax.sax.de
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't forget to TURN ON THE SYNTHESIZER. Often this is the reason why
you get no sound out of it." (ARP 2600 Owner's Manual)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coutier Thierry
LGEvilEye wrote :
> These same folks never seemed to have a problem with US support of real
> brutal, totalitarian regimes like those of the Shah of Iran, Pinochet,
> Marcos and every other mega-right, fascist US puppet.
You also must not forget the very totalitarian concept of "new world order", we
had to endure during the Gulf War, which was a pure domination demonstration
from western capitalist countries.
What about the army in Los Angeles during the riot after Rodney King's agressors
judgement ?
About free jazz players in the sixties, they were all concerned by the civil
rights freedom movement. "Freedom now suite" ?
Thierry.
Joe Germuska
>Sorry, but as one coming from a profoundly atheist and rational point
>of view, I have short patience with this argument. I have no problem
>with arguing the _philosophical_ implications of this or that
>religio-mystical stance as to how the practice thereof affects an
>individual's life (even while denying the ultimate 'source' of that
>philosophy). It's a distressing fact of life that people who are
>brilliant in one (or more) facet of their existence can be (to be
>charitable) naive in others.
Maybe I'm trying to argue the philosophical implications -- I don't
believe we understand creativity well enough to draw this conclusion:
>My guess is that a more rational view of existence could not but help
>lift his achievements to an even higher (non-mystical :->) plane.
seems circular to me, or at least based on elements of faith -- even
atheism/rationalism is based on faith in something, by my understanding.
I bet in day-to-day life my views are closer to yours, Brian, than to
Braxton's or Sun Ra's, but I think that ultimately, you can't remove their
world-views from their music. What would be better about their music if
they had a more rational view of existence? I would suspect a person with
a purely rational view of existence would never have the daring to
undertake a lifetime of work like Braxton's. Maybe I just haven't met
such a person, but...
Creativity is a slippery thing. Lots of people say about free jazz or
some other kinds of modern art "a three year old could do it", but those
of us who have a taste for such things disagree. It's a great mystery
just what makes people creative, but it seems that for some folks it's
associated with some strange ways of describing the world. (Yes, there
are some hugely creative, extremely rational people -- Buckminster Fuller,
for example...)
>Sorry if I seem like I'm being a prick about it, but if _anyone_ who I
>greatly admired told me he believed that Farrakan's mothership is
>hovering above awaiting the Armageddon, I'd have to say, "You, sir,
>are an idiot." Astrology and numerology fall in the same boat.
I don't think you are being a prick, but I don't have your faith in
atheism! I think that human philosophies each provide a different
perspective on how the world works, and by looking around the world, I see
evidence that there is more than one "right" perspective. (I don't think
that numerology or astrology are particularly clever or functional ways
for predicting how the world works -- but, for example, lately I've been
interested in the I Ching, because I think it might be a more clever tool
for tricking my brain out of its ruts...)
This isn't relativism, although it may sound like it. My unpolished ideas
come out of rudimentary exposure to cognitive science and linguistics.
(Daniel Dennett, Douglas Hofstadter, George Lakoff, Edward Sapir, Walter
Ong's "Orality and Literacy") I'm sure also from the science fiction and
fantasy I read avidly when I was younger, and also from my ongoing efforts
to understand many kinds of "world" and "creative" music which are made
based on different assumptions than western conventions...
Or you can just go back to Lao Tse: "The Tao which can be spoken is not
the true Tao." This is the one thing I take on faith. The world is too
damn big for language to do it justice. But it can be fun to try :-)
joe
--
Joe Germuska {j-ger...@nwu.edu} |
<http://www.nwu.edu/people/j-germuska> | "I seem to be a verb."
Learning Technologies Group | - Buckminster Fuller
Northwestern University |
John Sullivan
>> Still, when people praise Guevara they are
>> usually thinking of him as a revel leader, not a statesman.
No doubt about it, ol' Che was a Party animal.
My real address is: jsul...@fhcrc.org
Remove "antispam" to reply.
Paul Heroy
In article <j-germuska-10...@slugworth.acns.nwu.edu>,
j-ger...@nwu.edu (Joe Germuska) wrote:
> In article <339cb2e...@news.idt.net>, ole...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>
> >Sorry, but as one coming from a profoundly atheist and rational point
> >of view, I have short patience with this argument. I have no problem
> >with arguing the _philosophical_ implications of this or that
> >religio-mystical stance as to how the practice thereof affects an
> >individual's life (even while denying the ultimate 'source' of that
> >philosophy). It's a distressing fact of life that people who are
> >brilliant in one (or more) facet of their existence can be (to be
> >charitable) naive in others.
>
> Maybe I'm trying to argue the philosophical implications -- I don't
> believe we understand creativity well enough to draw this conclusion:
>
> >My guess is that a more rational view of existence could not but help
> >lift his achievements to an even higher (non-mystical :->) plane.
I'd tentatively agree with Joe on this, unless we're misinterpreting
the above statement. Although I disagree with the foundation of mystical
belief systems (i.e., any religion or other system based on deities or
superhuman/spiritual lifeforms), it's undeniable that they have often
provided inspiration for supremely creative, and emotionally compelling
works. For me, emotional communication is the main point of most art,
and it doesn't really matter whether I agree with the motivation for
that emotion, only that it's there. Does that validate the belief system
which produced the work? Not in my book. Are the belief system and the
work intertwined inseparably? This varies, though I'd say that certainly
there are *some* works which can have greater light shed on them by
understanding the belief system which inspired them.
> >Sorry if I seem like I'm being a prick about it, but if _anyone_ who I
> >greatly admired told me he believed that Farrakan's mothership is
> >hovering above awaiting the Armageddon, I'd have to say, "You, sir,
> >are an idiot." Astrology and numerology fall in the same boat.
What if that belief inspired a creative piece of music? (I'd have no
problem calling your specific examples idiocy or lunacy.)
> I don't think you are being a prick, but I don't have your faith in
> atheism! I think that human philosophies each provide a different
> perspective on how the world works, and by looking around the world, I see
> evidence that there is more than one "right" perspective. (I don't think
> that numerology or astrology are particularly clever or functional ways
> for predicting how the world works -- but, for example, lately I've been
> interested in the I Ching, because I think it might be a more clever tool
> for tricking my brain out of its ruts...)
I haven't been following whatever thread inspired this, but I've had a
handful of conversations vaguely along these lines recently, usually with
folks who have a much more 'spiritual' worldview than I. (I'd also claim
atheism as my current dominant belief, though I was raised otherwise.) It
seems to me, however, to make perfect sense that different philosophies can
provide different ways of perceiving the world, and things in it, which
would naturally lead to different conclusions and ways of doing things. This
(the resultant differing viewpoints) doesn't seem irrational at all to me,
in fact it seems quite rational. Whether or not the actual *foundations* of
those different philosophies/viewpoints are *true* is besides the point, in
a functional sense. It only matters that they give rise to differing
perceptions and methodologies, thus opening possibilities which may not have
been previously considered, with correspondingly different end results.
> This isn't relativism, although it may sound like it. My unpolished ideas
> come out of rudimentary exposure to cognitive science and linguistics.
> (Daniel Dennett, Douglas Hofstadter, George Lakoff, Edward Sapir, Walter
> Ong's "Orality and Literacy") I'm sure also from the science fiction and
> fantasy I read avidly when I was younger, and also from my ongoing efforts
> to understand many kinds of "world" and "creative" music which are made
> based on different assumptions than western conventions...
Hmmm... interesting. You've got some of the same references as me, though
in more depth. I picked up Dennett's _Consciousness Explained_ a couple of
years ago and started it early this year, though I put it down and haven't
picked it back up. Very fascinating reading, which I fully intend to return
to when I have time to absorb it.
--
Paul Heroy <*> to reply via email, remove "nospam." from address
Ross Lipman
Tom Waters wrote:
>
> Ross Lipman (rl1...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : You are possibly correct in implying I may have mislabeled Lincoln. I
> : will amend. My assertion should be that Lincoln is the father of modern
> : conservatives.
>
> I just wrote Ross a long response by e-mail, without realizing that the
> same message would appear here as well.
>
> Oh well, perhaps that is better for everyone else on this list anyway.
>
> In this short response, I will confine myself to saying that I think that
> Ross's analysis of parallels between the Republican Party of Lincoln and
> that of Dole shortchanges the importance of the slavery issue to the
> former, and that the parallels, though real, would seem much less
> compelling if slavery were restored to its rightful place.
>
>
> --
> Thomas Waters
> twa...@use.usit.net
> 1021 East Oak Hill Avenue, Knoxville TN 37917
> Dig And Be Dug In Return
6/11
Where Tom and I basicly disagree is in the reletive importance of
slavery as to the differences between the parties at the time of
Lincoln.
My position is that slavery was a side issue. The real problems were
ones of proportional representation and economic progress.
Tom's rebutal to me touched on many more issues (as did my intial
responce to him....). I'll take up the issues with Tom.
Thank you,
Ross Lipman
Joe Germuska
In article <339E32...@cyberverse.com>, n...@cyberverse.com wrote:
>Taoism and the I-Ching are wonderful, but you should be careful how you
>regard numerology and astrology because the Taoist's themselves were
>very much concerned with these things. Also, all the famous greeks who
>laid the foundation for modern astronomy were astrologers using the
>science for astrological purposes.
mmm, I reserve the right to pick and choose from whatever ideologies I
like! Everyone does, even if they claim to be more doctrinaire.
Seems to me numerology and astrology are based on sloppy correlationism
and wishful thinking, but I suppose it depends on what you do with them.
I see Taoism and the I Ching as sources so opaque that they are
effectively mirrors -- which in some sense is how I deal with music and
art in general; I'm not looking for absolutes or universals, just a gauge
of what's going on in my head which might be hard to capture with more
direct methods...
Joe
Alon Wolman
I have found western Astrology to be a powerful tool. I have never
really experimented with Numerology. When I first encountered Astrology
I was coming from a very Taoist background. I was very much into every
aspect of Taoist living and was thoroughly obsessed with Lao Tzu, the
I-Ching, taijiquan, seaweed, asian pears, rice gruel... so obviously I
approached it skeptically but I couldn't help but notice that my sun
sign description was quite a bit much like me. I had my birthchart done
and called an astrologer to set up an appointment. I told him the info,
and then when I came to see him he truly impressed me. He described my
own personal psychological, physical, emotional, and social tendencies
in great depth and taught me how to understand myself in ways I never
knew possible. I have learned an incredible amount about human nature
from astrology. The planets and stars are markers for something,
whatever it is it is intangible to us. It isn't or is only partially the
planets and stars themselves that are at work. I consider myself to be a
pretty damn rational person and generally have a hard time believing in
stuff like this but I tried it and it is definately real and very
powerful. I feel very lucky to have discovered it's value. I suggest you
get your birthchart printed out, and then have it interpreted or you can
buy a good book and try to do it yourself. The latter is a relatively
inexpensive way to get a glimpse of what's in store, but doesn't always
work because it's not easy to interpret a chart. And if it does work
it's only a scrap of the surface. You can get a reading for about $40
for half-an-hour. Then the book will make more sense.
J. Reinschmidt
In article <5nicsa$shb$1...@news.usit.net>, twa...@use.usit.net (Tom Waters)
wrote:
> In this short response, I will confine myself to saying that I think that
> Ross's analysis of parallels between the Republican Party of Lincoln and
> that of Dole shortchanges the importance of the slavery issue to the
> former, and that the parallels, though real, would seem much less
> compelling if slavery were restored to its rightful place.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What exactly IS slavery's "rightful place" (IYHO)?
J. Reinschmidt
Remove "junk" from e-mail address to reply.
"Play vanilla," Lester Young is said
to have said to a piano player
comping too elaborately behind his solo...
--Clayton Eshleman, from "Foo to the Infinite"
Chris DuPre
Yeah, very interesting. Take it to a philosophy ng if you keep going.
You're crowding out the music posts.
Joe Germuska
>The latter is a relatively
>inexpensive way to get a glimpse of what's in store, but doesn't always
>work because it's not easy to interpret a chart. And if it does work
>it's only a scrap of the surface. You can get a reading for about $40
>for half-an-hour. Then the book will make more sense.
Forty bucks could buy a few good CDs! Seriously, though, as I believe I
alluded in a previous post, I think that "deep listening" (to cop a
concept from Pauline Oliveros) is close enough to what I believe happens
when one interprets an astrological chart that I'm satisfied to stick to
it. (I'm not sure that Oliveros means that herself, but I like the term,
so...)
To clarify, I see astrology, the I Ching, and similar oracles as a way of
tricking yourself into self-analysis. I think this is basically what we
do when we experience art, or at least I think you can use art in the same
fashion. The "answers" you get listening to music don't claim to be as
exact as the answers which astrology gives (in my limited understanding of
astrology), but then, I don't believe that either could really give exact
answers...
I think dreaming fits in here as well, or at least conscious analysis of
memories of dream states. Not sure if that would stand up to more serious
investigation, but it feels plausible.
Sometimes I think people's claims for magic also fit somewhere into this
general area, but I don't even know how to start elaborating that, or
testing it... But I think that accounts for my sympathy for mystical
claims from musicians whose music I like -- I can try to triangulate
between their music, their statements, and my experiences, and hopefully
learn something, even if I don't come away with a means of transporting
myself to Venus.
"Second stop is Jupiter..."
Joe
PS I mean no disrespect to people who find oracles, magic, or mysticism
functional in their lives, although some dogmatists may find my ideas
heretical... sometimes you need a saw, sometimes you need a hammer...
Joe Germuska
>Yeah, very interesting. Take it to a philosophy ng if you keep going.
>You're crowding out the music posts.
crabby, crabby! I referred to music more than once in the post. but I'll
allow that I was starting to get carried away :-)
In "Forces in Motion", Braxton recounts that it was the Philosophy
department at Roosevelt University that found his work interesting, not
the Music department...
anyway...
joe
Brian Olewnick
On 11 Jun 1997 15:22:27 GMT, paul_...@nospam.nt.com (Paul Heroy)
wrote:
>
>I'd tentatively agree with Joe on this, unless we're misinterpreting
>the above statement. Although I disagree with the foundation of mystical
>belief systems (i.e., any religion or other system based on deities or
>superhuman/spiritual lifeforms), it's undeniable that they have often
>provided inspiration for supremely creative, and emotionally compelling
>works.
Joe and Paul, (sorry, I missed the original reply and am not quite
sure which is which)
Of course, the last statement above is absolutely correct. There are
countless works of art which I greatly love and admire that spring
from philosophical bases which, ultimately, I oppose. My one
qualification would be that the philosophies in question are deep,
rich and thoughtful, whether or not I consider them ultimately wrong
(even evil). For example: I'm a painter; I love the work of Raphael,
including his religious work. Just because I don't think Christ rose
from the dead (and, moreover, find much of Christian theosophy
repellant) doesn't mean I don't find his 'Transfiguration' to be
extraordinarily beautiful and awe-inspiring. He painted at a time when
Christianity was at its most humane (despite Torquemada, etc.) and
most man-centered. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to
imagine the same or similar painting being done today, even by the
most devoutly religious of painters, given the advancements in
philosophy which have occurred in the last 500 years.
By the same token, while the Pythagoreans may have had some
justification for belief in astrology in that time and culture,
insisting on its reality today is, to me, not much different from
insisting on the exisitence of the Easter bunny.
Individuals may well derive inspiration from varied sources, including
ridiculous ones; Herman Blount may have persuaded himself that he was
of Saturnian descent, but its disingenuous for fans or critics not to
point out absurdities when confronted with them and insulting to shrug
their shoulders and go along for the ride.
>For me, emotional communication is the main point of most art,
>and it doesn't really matter whether I agree with the motivation for
>that emotion, only that it's there.
>
Mmmm...don't get me started on the emotional/intellectual false
dichotomy. There's just one organ that does all your thinking and
emoting for you: your brain. You (or one of you!) has read (or
started to read) Dennett. I'd strongly advise you to continue.
>Does that validate th belief system
>which produced the work? Not in my book. Are the belief system and the
>work intertwined inseparably? This varies, though I'd say that certainly
>there are *some* works which can have greater light shed on them by
>understanding the belief system which inspired them.
>
>> >Sorry if I seem like I'm being a prick about it, but if _anyone_ who I
>> >greatly admired told me he believed that Farrakan's mothership is
>> >hovering above awaiting the Armageddon, I'd have to say, "You, sir,
>> >are an idiot." Astrology and numerology fall in the same boat.
>
>What if that belief inspired a creative piece of music? (I'd have no
>problem calling your specific examples idiocy or lunacy.)
Again, I'm not saying it's impossible in a given case; quite the
contrary. However, for each instance where a nice ballad based on
numerological charts is written, the general culture gets dragged down
one more little step into the morass, so that we now live in a world
where a piece of tripe like "The X-Files" is taken seriously (he says,
ducking thrown tomatoes).
>
>> I don't think you are being a prick, but I don't have your faith in
>> atheism! I think that human philosophies each provide a different
>> perspective on how the world works, and by looking around the world, I see
>> evidence that there is more than one "right" perspective. (I don't think
>> that numerology or astrology are particularly clever or functional ways
>> for predicting how the world works -- but, for example, lately I've been
>> interested in the I Ching, because I think it might be a more clever tool
>> for tricking my brain out of its ruts...)
I often simply turn myself around and draw or paint whatever I happen
to be confronted with for the same reason: I look at and think of
things I may not have otherwise. But--I don't ascribe mystical
overtones to it.
>I haven't been following whatever thread inspired this, but I've had a
>handful of conversations vaguely along these lines recently, usually with
>folks who have a much more 'spiritual' worldview than I. (I'd also claim
>atheism as my current dominant belief, though I was raised otherwise.) It
>seems to me, however, to make perfect sense that different philosophies can
>provide different ways of perceiving the world, and things in it, which
>would naturally lead to different conclusions and ways of doing things. This
>(the resultant differing viewpoints) doesn't seem irrational at all to me,
>in fact it seems quite rational. Whether or not the actual *foundations* of
>those different philosophies/viewpoints are *true* is besides the point, in
>a functional sense. It only matters that they give rise to differing
>perceptions and methodologies, thus opening possibilities which may not have
>been previously considered, with correspondingly different end results.
Well, the "viewpoint" of the Applewhaite clan ended with the "truth"
of them being dead. The "viewpoint" of Chairman Mao ended with the
deaths of around a hundred million Chinese farmers, a very unsavory
truth. Philosophies can (in fact, always do) have consequences in the
real world.
>
>> This isn't relativism, although it may sound like it. My unpolished ideas
>> come out of rudimentary exposure to cognitive science and linguistics.
>> (Daniel Dennett, Douglas Hofstadter, George Lakoff, Edward Sapir, Walter
>> Ong's "Orality and Literacy") I'm sure also from the science fiction and
>> fantasy I read avidly when I was younger, and also from my ongoing efforts
>> to understand many kinds of "world" and "creative" music which are made
>> based on different assumptions than western conventions...
You may agree with me on this one: take a look at your average SF book
display and tell me that 99% of what's there isn't Newage (to rhyme
with sewage) garbage. That's the state of affairs that I would hate to
see jazz come to. Would I be out of line criticizing a basically good
writer like Orson Scott Card for inflicting his Mormanism on us? (I
mean, you want to talk about idiotic religions!). Give me Nancy kress
or Lucius Shepard any day.
>Hmmm... interesting. You've got some of the same references as me, though
>in more depth. I picked up Dennett's _Consciousness Explained_ a couple of
>years ago and started it early this year, though I put it down and haven't
>picked it back up. Very fascinating reading, which I fully intend to return
>to when I have time to absorb it.
As I mentioned above, I highly recommend it. Some Richard Dawkins
would be well advised also. I'm currently about two thirds through
with Hofstadter's new book "Le Ton Beau de Marot" which largely
concerns itself with the mysteries of linguistic translation. It also
gets into the interesting benefits which can accrue through the use of
constrictions and limits to freedom (such as rhyme in poetry forcing
one into thought patterns which may not have occurred in free verse) ;
there may be fascinating analogies here to jazz and the use of
standards versus freedom to think about. (If this was a
alt.fan.hofstadter, I'd be getting on his case for spending much time
on Chopin and Bach while never mentioning Cecil Taylor who strikes me
as a perfect model for him. Oh well, bitch, bitch, bitch.)
Thanks for your responses. Appreciate it. Think I'll go listen to (and
enjoy, even while griping) 'Space Is the Place'.
Cheers,
Brian O.
Brian Olewnick
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:24:09 -0600, Chris DuPre
<dup...@gbms01.uwgb.edu> wrote:
>Yeah, very interesting. Take it to a philosophy ng if you keep going.
>You're crowding out the music posts.
Hey now! While I may disagree with virtually everything in some of the
above posts, I'll be damned if music isn't an expression of philosophy
and I'd much rather read someone waxing lyrical about astrology (in
some relation to music) than their opinion on who's the fastest
drummer. Who knows, perhaps they'll plot a chart predicting when
Columbia's going to issue 'Science Fiction' on CD or some other useful
info! :->
Cheers,
Brian O.