Stanley Crouch
Richard H
of bashing Stanley Crouch (I won't be deeply
offended, though, if anyone does so), but when
exactly did Mr. Crouch have his change of heart
with regard to avant-garde and free jazz? I
haven't been into this type of jazz for a long
enough time to know. In1988 he wrote some very
laudatory liner notes for the David S. Ware Trio's
"Passage To Music," so it would seem it must have
occurred after that. I've researched this on my
own to no real avail. Will I have to wait for the
Stanley Crouch biography?
(It occurred to me to bring this up after I read
Ed Rhodes Jr.'s reply to Emil Harris' original
post re: Free Jazz Criticism Help, in which Rhodes
mentioned an article critical of Cecil Taylor that
Crouch wrote about fifteen years ago.)
sab...@mindspring.com
>In article <7dcdg3$cqo$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>, "Richard H" <cri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>I am NOT trying to create a forum for the purpose
>>of bashing Stanley Crouch (I won't be deeply
>>offended, though, if anyone does so), but when
>>exactly did Mr. Crouch have his change of heart
>>with regard to avant-garde and free jazz? I
>>haven't been into this type of jazz for a long
>>enough time to know. In1988 he wrote some very
>>laudatory liner notes for the David S. Ware Trio's
>>"Passage To Music," so it would seem it must have
>>occurred after that.
>
>If that's the case, then I don't think you'll find a single date at
>which he had a sudden change of heart, because by 1988 he had already
>been taking pot shots at free jazz for several years, and he continued
>saying nice things about *some* freer players for years to come.
=============================
Y'mean Stanley liked SOME "free" jazz players and not OTHERS?
OUTRAGEOUS !!!
This is the "free" jazz scene in a nutshell.
If Stanley Crouch (or anyone else) has the temerity to suggest that
certain members of the avant-garde are good and certain others NOT so
good, or even that some of them are rather uneven in their production,
the monolithic "free jazz" cadre immediately labels him as "anti"
free jazz.
==============================
>Although even then, it often came with an underhanded twist: Don Pullen
>was great because he used the same devices that certain unnamed other
>pianists used, but he did them in a valid way, where the other guys did
>it in an invalid way.
========================
Yah ???
Y'mean Mr. Crouch could hear the roots and talent in Don Pullen's
playing (They certainly were there...) and disliked some other
pianists who in his view were lacking in them?
Y'mean he had to name all the OTHER "free" pianists that DIDN'T
please him ?
More bullshit.
I generally don't follow the jazz criticism wars...I find them
boring, by and large...so I don't really have much more than a casual
and cursory view of what it is that Stanley has or hasn't said over
the years regarding "free" players. I DO know, however, that he tends
to reject blanket statements on ANY and ALL labels, preferring to use
his ears and mind to decide for himself who's making it and who isn't.
I devoutly wish that were the case w/more of the people who listen
to music.
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
>In article <36f8da97...@news.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>> Y'mean Stanley liked SOME "free" jazz players and not OTHERS?
>>
>> OUTRAGEOUS !!!
>>
>> This is the "free" jazz scene in a nutshell.
>>
>> If Stanley Crouch (or anyone else) has the temerity to suggest that
>>certain members of the avant-garde are good and certain others NOT so
>>good, or even that some of them are rather uneven in their production,
>>the monolithic "free jazz" cadre immediately labels him as "anti"
>>free jazz.
>
>This is a fine way of twisting my words. There is nothing wrong with
>liking some and disliking others. Everyone does this, including me. I
>do take issue with the way in which he expresses his views - he implies
>that the default state of free jazz is that is incompetence, and only
>those very few who have proved their ability to play changes have
>validity. This demonstrates a profound ignorance of and lack of respect
>for the traditions of free jazz.
>
>> Y'mean he had to name all the OTHER "free" pianists that DIDN'T
>>please him ?
>
>If he wants to criticize someone, and defend his criticism, then yes,
>this would certainly help. As it is, he knows he is far too musically
>ignorant to say respond intelligently to specific rebuttals, so he hides
>behind anonymity. That way, when someone calls him on one of his
>preposterous proclaimations, he can say, "oh, but I was talking about
>those *other* free jazz players".
>
>>I generally don't follow the jazz criticism wars...I find them
>>boring, by and large...so I don't really have much more than a casual
>>and cursory view of what it is that Stanley has or hasn't said over
>>the years regarding "free" players. I DO know, however, that he tends
>>to reject blanket statements on ANY and ALL labels
>
>Wow, you really *don't* read much Stanley Crouch, do you? This is like
>the most incorrect thing one could possibly say about him. He makes
>blanket statements *all the time* about fusion (bad), free jazz (bad),
>and jazz that respects his idea of the tradition (good).
================
Y'know, Marc..here's an article Stanley wrote about Don Cherry when
he died. I found it after 5 minutes of searching on the net.
Read it. Then YOU tell ME w/a straight face that he thinks "free
jazz"is "bad".
=======================
Don Cherry, took jazz on wild ride
by Stanley Crouch
The New York Daily News - October 22, 1995
When Don Cherry died at 58 in Spain on Thursday, one of the few true
giants of jazz was gone. Cherry was one of the
fountainheads of the avant-garde movement that began more than 35
years ago, and he was the most swinging, melodically
inventive and soulful trumpeter of that school. Which is why, by the
mid-1960s, he was influencing Miles Davis. Ten years
younger than Davis, Cherry never became nearly as well known, but his
role as an innovator was similar. Physically incapable
of virtuoso trumpet playing, Cherry developed a whimsical approach
that was thrilling in its audacious curiosity and poignant in
its declaration of unsentimental human pain.
Even if Cherry couldn't bring something off technically, be would
often reach for it, making his playing a particular embodiment
of heroism, He was also an organizer of different musical
personalities, and his interest in the unusual led him into a broad
range
of musical situations.
Cherry arrived in New York in l959 to perform at the legendary Five
Spot. He was second horn to the white plastic alto
saxophone of Ornette Coleman, a revolutionary muse of fire. They had
met a few years earlier in Los Angeles, and that resulted
in Coleman's embracing the fresh direction in jazz improvisation and
group playing he would use to challenge the conventions of
the period. Together, they made a new sound, shaping something so
fresh that it would radically influence other musicians over
the next decade. None, however, even vaguely equaled the two
progenitors.
"The skinniest person I had ever seen" is how the great American
painter Emilio Cruz remembers the young Cherry as he stood
on the bandstand of the Five Spot next to the bearded Coleman, playing
a stunted brass instrument he called a pocket trumpet
Their music, accompanied only by Charlie Haden on bass and Billy
Higgins on drums, created an incredible furor. As the 1959
album "The Shape of Jazz to Come" shows, Coleman had conceived a style
of jazz that didn't depend on chords or steady
tempos or key signatures. It was more purely improvisational than even
jazz musicians were accustomed to.
As drummer Roy Brooks remembers: "There was all this debating going on
at the Five Spot's bar and out in the street and on
telephones. It was a fake, it wasn't I a fake. But what l noticed was
that Ornette didn't stomp off any tempo. Nobody looked at
anybody else to get ready, then bam! He and Don Cherry would start
together perfectly. Then they would play all these free
structures I couldn't measure any kind of way, and they would suddenly
come back together perfectly and stop - bam! It was
like a magical mystery."
The quality of Cherry's work would roller coaster after he left
Coleman in 1961. But the feeling of blues and swing were almost
always constant, even when he was experimenting with exotic music from
the world over. Cherry played and recorded with a
remarkable range of musicians, some true giants, others borderline
frauds, still others masters of Third World idioms. In fact,
more than 30 years ago, it was Cherry who conceived the mutating
structures and varied musical materials moving through a
single performance that would later became a convention of the
avant-garde.
His social mood was that of an open door. He was jovial and
inquisitive, always ready to share his knowledge and encourage
young musicians. The same sarcastic, awed, tender and soaring
liberation one heard in his best improvisations came naturally
from the man himself. At his finest, Don Cherry was one of those who
specialize in melodically revealing the sweet and sour
complexities at the center of the human heart.
===========================
Didja read it ?
Good.
S.
Marc Sabatella
>I am NOT trying to create a forum for the purpose
>of bashing Stanley Crouch (I won't be deeply
>offended, though, if anyone does so), but when
>exactly did Mr. Crouch have his change of heart
>with regard to avant-garde and free jazz? I
>haven't been into this type of jazz for a long
>enough time to know. In1988 he wrote some very
>laudatory liner notes for the David S. Ware Trio's
>"Passage To Music," so it would seem it must have
>occurred after that.
If that's the case, then I don't think you'll find a single date at
which he had a sudden change of heart, because by 1988 he had already
been taking pot shots at free jazz for several years, and he continued
saying nice things about *some* freer players for years to come.
Although even then, it often came with an underhanded twist: Don Pullen
was great because he used the same devices that certain unnamed other
pianists used, but he did them in a valid way, where the other guys did
it in an invalid way.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Second Course"
Available on Cadence Jazz Records
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
tst...@businessobjects.com
"Richard H" <cri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I am NOT trying to create a forum for the purpose
> of bashing Stanley Crouch (I won't be deeply
> offended, though, if anyone does so), but when
> exactly did Mr. Crouch have his change of heart
> with regard to avant-garde and free jazz?
I'm not sure - I believe there was a transition period, when I guess you
could say he had fallen in love with Wynton but still had feelings for David
Murray. I recall an article for the Voice sometime in the 80's when he
reviewed a concert by a Cecil Taylor large ensemble in New York. He was full
of praise for many things about Taylor and for many of the musicians in the
band, while lambasting many others as inept hacks and skewering Taylor for
hiring them. This may have been during the time when the about-face was in
full swing. Maybe a big-city public library would have the Voice on
microfilm? That's if you're really intent on researching the subject.
- Tom Storer
"When you're swinging, swing some more." - Thelonious Monk
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Marc Sabatella
--------------
SwingDoug
authority on things. He's a very intelligent man with controversial views.
Is it worth it to fight over him? I defend Crouch a lot. I happen to agree with
a lot of things he says. I know he thinks a lot of the so-called "free jazz"
music is great and undeniably part of the jazz tradition. He, as do I, also
believes that a lot of music passed under the "free jazz" header really has
nothing to do with a certain tradition of music laid down by the established
greats of jazz music. Much of the European improv music comes more out of
aleatoric classical music than it does out of American jazz traditions. I think
Crouch says a lot of jive stuff sometimes, too. But he isn't at all the
reprehensible human many make him out to be.
JC Martin
-JC
sab...@mindspring.com wrote in message
<36f8da97...@news.mindspring.com>...
>ma...@outsideshore.com (Marc Sabatella) wrote:
>
>>In article <7dcdg3$cqo$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>, "Richard H"
<cri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>I am NOT trying to create a forum for the purpose
>>>of bashing Stanley Crouch (I won't be deeply
>>>offended, though, if anyone does so), but when
>>>exactly did Mr. Crouch have his change of heart
>>>with regard to avant-garde and free jazz? I
>>>haven't been into this type of jazz for a long
>>>enough time to know. In1988 he wrote some very
>>>laudatory liner notes for the David S. Ware Trio's
>>>"Passage To Music," so it would seem it must have
>>>occurred after that.
>>
>>If that's the case, then I don't think you'll find a single date at
>>which he had a sudden change of heart, because by 1988 he had already
>>been taking pot shots at free jazz for several years, and he continued
>>saying nice things about *some* freer players for years to come.
>
>=============================
>
> Y'mean Stanley liked SOME "free" jazz players and not OTHERS?
>
> OUTRAGEOUS !!!
>
> This is the "free" jazz scene in a nutshell.
>
> If Stanley Crouch (or anyone else) has the temerity to suggest that
>certain members of the avant-garde are good and certain others NOT so
>good, or even that some of them are rather uneven in their production,
>the monolithic "free jazz" cadre immediately labels him as "anti"
>free jazz.
>
>==============================
>
>>Although even then, it often came with an underhanded twist: Don Pullen
>>was great because he used the same devices that certain unnamed other
>>pianists used, but he did them in a valid way, where the other guys did
>>it in an invalid way.
>
>========================
>
> Yah ???
>
> Y'mean Mr. Crouch could hear the roots and talent in Don Pullen's
>playing (They certainly were there...) and disliked some other
>pianists who in his view were lacking in them?
>
> Y'mean he had to name all the OTHER "free" pianists that DIDN'T
>please him ?
>
> More bullshit.
>
> I generally don't follow the jazz criticism wars...I find them
>boring, by and large...so I don't really have much more than a casual
>and cursory view of what it is that Stanley has or hasn't said over
>the years regarding "free" players. I DO know, however, that he tends
JC Martin
DD Jackson posted this quote on another thread. For all of you that don't
know, DD is probably one of the best and most original players out there
today.
Here's the quote, which I find is very applicable to the attitude displayed
by our friend "S.":
"Jazz is probably the only art form whose
existence depends on resistance to
theories....If someone is an expert on
jazz, you can be pretty sure he/she is not
a vital jazz musician..."
- Keith Jarrett
Pretty much says it all...
-JC
Marc Sabatella
> Y'know, Marc..here's an article Stanley wrote about Don Cherry when
>he died. I found it after 5 minutes of searching on the net.
>
> Read it. Then YOU tell ME w/a straight face that he thinks "free
>jazz"is "bad".
One article proves nothing. But note even here, he is only praising the
one "free jazz" musician he had been praising from the beginning. I've
read plenty of essays by him where he speaks of so-and-so being the
*exception* to the fakery that generally passes for free jazz. You can
even see evidence of this in the essay you reproduce:
>Together, they made a new sound, shaping something so
>fresh that it would radically influence other musicians over
>the next decade. None, however, even vaguely equaled the two
>progenitors.
In other words, most free jazz musicians are not very good.
>The quality of Cherry's work would roller coaster after he left
>Coleman in 1961.
In other words, as long as Cherry's experimentation stayed close to the
tree, it was OK, but after that, it was not as good.
>But the feeling of blues and swing were almost
>always constant, even when he was experimenting with exotic music from
>the world over.
Implication: music without blues and swing (as Crouch defines them) is
the antithesis of high quality.
>Cherry played and recorded with a
>remarkable range of musicians, some true giants, others borderline
>frauds, still others masters of Third World idioms.
There's that unsubstantiated word, "fraud".
> Didja read it ?
Yep. Did you? And have you read anything else by Crouch to notice
the trend evidenced above? Sure, none of those comments, taken
individually, seems all that harmful. Add up a few hundred of these
over the years, with some considerably harsher, and you get a pretty
clear picture of a man who can only appreciate "free" jazz that doesn't
get very free. Nothing wrong with that until you go around
rudely criticizing the musicians who create the music you don't like,
which is precisely what Crouch does.
Marc Sabatella
sentences all we want, and miss the bigger picture. So I'll ask this:
When was the last time you read liner notes to an album by, say, John
Coltrane, that talked about how lousy all the other saxophone players
were? Or one from Miles that criticized other trumpet players? Most
people seem perfectly capable of writing liner notes that say good
things about the artists on the recording without cutting anyone else
down to do so. This is, I believe, as it should be. For some reason,
though, Crouch seems to delight in obliquely criticizing others
virtually every times he wants to say something good about someone. I
don't find this constructive at all.
thel...@my-dejanews.com
ma...@outsideshore.com (Marc Sabatella) wrote:
>
> If that's the case, then I don't think you'll find a single date at
> which he had a sudden change of heart, because by 1988 he had already
> been taking pot shots at free jazz for several years, and he continued
> saying nice things about *some* freer players for years to come.
> Although even then, it often came with an underhanded twist: Don Pullen
> was great because he used the same devices that certain unnamed other
> pianists used, but he did them in a valid way, where the other guys did
> it in an invalid way.
I don't think it is fair to include Pullen among the whackos of free/a.g.
jazz. With a few exceptions in his recordings, Pullen was always capable
of reining in excesses, and with the Afro-Brazilian Connection, he effectively
said adios to all of the weirdness of a.g./free jazz -- the return of the
prodigal. Crouch was absolutely correct.
Amos Omondi
Foundation For Real Jazz
Simon Weil
>Crouch says a lot of jive stuff sometimes, too. But he isn't at all the
>reprehensible human many make him out to be.
>
last summer (apparently not the first time he's done this sort of thing).
Reading Wynton's _Sweet Swing Blues on the Road_ I was interested to find these
two quotes:
"Wycliffe Gordon loves to play some coutry, tailgate trombone...He has a
tremendous range of personality - introspective, funny, he has a spiritual
side, he reads the Bible. But he will put his foot in someone's boodie if
disrespected. And that is a large foot. He is the strongest member of the
band..."
p24-5
"Ed Arrendell, my business manager, is largely responsible for our being able
to stay on the road. 'Cause I have no sense or liking for money matters at
all...
Ed has an MBA from Harvard, but he is not above putting his foot in some behind
if need be. "Let me pull my watch off," he'll say, " and we can settle this in
the final court."
p66
Judging from this, Wynton doesn't have any problem with someone from his
entourage resorting to physical violence. Indeed I get the sense that he rather
enjoys have such people around.
Interestingly, he construes Jazz itself in terms of (sublimated) violence,
referring to its "elders" as "unfazed warriors". Indeed he makes a poetic
connection between swinging and violence:
"[The elders, all male natch] were born to proclaim the majesty of the blues
[Marsalis has a record out called The Majesty of the Blues implying that he
sees himself as one of the these warriors] , and it is how they will go down,
swinging. What a glorious way to go. And if you pay them close enough
attention, they might just let you swing with 'em.
My father always used to say, "If you're gonna get beat up, you might as well
fight."
All quotes p165
He also seems to feel that he is taking part in some sort of culture war (he
uses the word "war"):
Q: "Why are you so serious?"
Wynton:"Because as Mr. Murray says, culture is life-style, and wars are fought
over what style of life a society will lead."
p145
This last suggests to me at least part of the explanation for the Wynton Wars.
Simon Weil
JC Martin
<7deeri$auc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <5ZjK2.460$h3.188...@news.frii.net>,
> ma...@outsideshore.com (Marc Sabatella) wrote:
>
>>
>> If that's the case, then I don't think you'll find a single date at
>> which he had a sudden change of heart, because by 1988 he had already
>> been taking pot shots at free jazz for several years, and he continued
>> saying nice things about *some* freer players for years to come.
>> Although even then, it often came with an underhanded twist: Don Pullen
>> was great because he used the same devices that certain unnamed other
>> pianists used, but he did them in a valid way, where the other guys did
>> it in an invalid way.
>
>I don't think it is fair to include Pullen among the whackos of free/a.g.
>jazz. With a few exceptions in his recordings, Pullen was always capable
>of reining in excesses, and with the Afro-Brazilian Connection,
...which is probably the only recording Amos has ever heard of Don's.
-JC
sab...@mindspring.com
>In article <36f92c03...@news.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>> Y'know, Marc..here's an article Stanley wrote about Don Cherry when
>>he died. I found it after 5 minutes of searching on the net.
>>
>> Read it. Then YOU tell ME w/a straight face that he thinks "free
>>jazz"is "bad".
>
>One article proves nothing.
==============================
Bullshit.
It proves that he has great respect for Ornette, Don Cherry, Charlie
Haden and Ed Blackwell.
==========================
> But note even here, he is only praising the
>one "free jazz" musician he had been praising from the beginning. I've
>read plenty of essays by him where he speaks of so-and-so being the
>*exception* to the fakery that generally passes for free jazz. You can
>even see evidence of this in the essay you reproduce:
>
>>Together, they made a new sound, shaping something so
>>fresh that it would radically influence other musicians over
>>the next decade. None, however, even vaguely equaled the two
>>progenitors.
====================
And who EVER "equals their progenitors" w/out formenting a
revolution themselves?
Who "equalled" Bird?
Pops?
Ellington?
Makes good sense to me...
===========================
>
>In other words, most free jazz musicians are not very good.
>
>>The quality of Cherry's work would roller coaster after he left
>>Coleman in 1961.
>
>In other words, as long as Cherry's experimentation stayed close to the
>tree, it was OK, but after that, it was not as good.
>
>>But the feeling of blues and swing were almost
>>always constant, even when he was experimenting with exotic music from
>>the world over.
>
>Implication: music without blues and swing (as Crouch defines them) is
>the antithesis of high quality.
>
>>Cherry played and recorded with a
>>remarkable range of musicians, some true giants, others borderline
>>frauds, still others masters of Third World idioms.
>
>There's that unsubstantiated word, "fraud".
>
>> Didja read it ?
>
>Yep. Did you? And have you read anything else by Crouch to notice
>the trend evidenced above? Sure, none of those comments, taken
>individually, seems all that harmful. Add up a few hundred of these
>over the years, with some considerably harsher, and you get a pretty
>clear picture of a man who can only appreciate "free" jazz that doesn't
>get very free. Nothing wrong with that until you go around
>rudely criticizing the musicians who create the music you don't like,
>which is precisely what Crouch does.
>
===============================
"A man who can only appreciate "free" jazz that doesn't
get very free."
How much FREER can one BE than "free"?
You're either "free" or you're not.
By "free" do you mean "dissonant"???
"Having no implied time"???
NOT swinging in some way related to way the term is traditionallly
used?
Are THESE your definitions of "free" ?
Sounds kinda "unfree" to me, laboring under all those rules....
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
>Is it safe to say that this guy is a troll now?
>
>-JC
=========================
Define your terms.
I'm entering into a discussion.
I have views.
Am I a "troll"?
Not by my lights, I'm not.
If you really BELIEVE I'm
trolling" (whatever the hell THAT is...)
Just ignore me.
S.
Damon Short
Simon Weil wrote:
> One of the problems people have had with Crouch is his hitting Matthew Shipp
> last summer (apparently not the first time he's done this sort of thing).
...in the interest of historical accuracy, it was another critic (I think Howard
Mandel, but I can't recall precisely - the account is still available online
somewhere and I'm sure someone else can point out where) that ol' Stanley took a
swing at - although Matthew Shipp was related to the background of the whole
situation.
While one critic trying to punch out another reminds me of the joke that begins
'what do you call a boatload of lawyers at the bottom of the ocean...' I'm by no
means condoning what Livingston Squat did (regards to T. Storer), nor certainly
what he writes.
--
Damon Short
damon...@compuserve.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DamonShort
Richard H
response to my query. I guess there are a couple
of things that make this interesting to me. One
is the power or control that
Murray/Crouch/Marsalis seem to or actually do have
over what is considered to be authentic jazz
today. The second is that Stanley Crouch didn't
start out as the conservative, traditionalist jazz
critic that he is today; he was, as I'm sure
everyone knows, a very active member of the 70's
loft scene in NYC (i.e. he was a free jazz
musician). I mean, that's quite a turnaround.
While I don't know what exactly happened, and I
respect a person's right to change his mind, I
can't help but wonder if Crouch didn't become
smitten with the money, power and prestige he
might gain if he threw in with Albert Murray and
new king of jazz, Wynton Marsalis. Beats playing
for donations at Ali's Alley. Or does it? But
maybe this is all old news.
Also, if anyone knows where I can find an account
of the Crouch/Mandel/Shipp melee, I'd appreciate
you passing it along.
Thanks.
Richard
tst...@businessobjects.com wrote in message
<7dcvgk$3k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <7dcdg3$cqo$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>,
> "Richard H" <cri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> I am NOT trying to create a forum for the
purpose
>> of bashing Stanley Crouch (I won't be deeply
>> offended, though, if anyone does so), but when
>> exactly did Mr. Crouch have his change of heart
>> with regard to avant-garde and free jazz?
>
>I'm not sure - I believe there was a transition
period, when I guess you
>could say he had fallen in love with Wynton but
still had feelings for David
>Murray. I recall an article for the Voice
sometime in the 80's when he
>reviewed a concert by a Cecil Taylor large
ensemble in New York. He was full
>of praise for many things about Taylor and for
many of the musicians in the
>band, while lambasting many others as inept hacks
and skewering Taylor for
>hiring them. This may have been during the time
when the about-face was in
>full swing. Maybe a big-city public library would
have the Voice on
>microfilm? That's if you're really intent on
researching the subject.
>
>- Tom Storer
>
>"When you're swinging, swing some more." -
Thelonious Monk
>
R. Lynn Rardin
> you passing it along.In article <7devvm$iqa$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>,
"Richard H" <cri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> ...Also, if anyone knows where I can find an account
> of the Crouch/Mandel/Shipp
Check out:
http://addictedtonoise.com/html/lofi/Columns/American_Grandstand/408/
and
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/birdlives/bl-8.htm
-Lynn (rar...@orion.rose.brandeis.edu)
Keith Myath
>
> How much FREER can one BE than "free"?
>
This discussion reminds me of an interview with Bill Evans (on Jazz Time not too long ago) in which he said something like..
"Freedom is finding space where there isn't any".
And he certainly found it!
On the same interview he called Ornette's violin playing "violation".
I have to agree with him on this one too..
KM
JC Martin
<36f992bd...@news.mindspring.com>...
Actually I'd like to hear your opinion of the Keith Jarrett quote I posted.
-JC
Simon Weil
>> One of the problems people have had with Crouch is his hitting Matthew
>Shipp
>> last summer (apparently not the first time he's done this sort of thing).
>
>...in the interest of historical accuracy, it was another critic (I think
>Howard
>Mandel, but I can't recall precisely - the account is still available online
>somewhere and I'm sure someone else can point out where) that ol' Stanley
>took a
>swing at - although Matthew Shipp was related to the background of the whole
>situation.
>
No, you're right.
>While one critic trying to punch out another reminds me of the joke that
>begins
>'what do you call a boatload of lawyers at the bottom of the ocean...'
LOL. I dunno...Slime-dwellers? Sightless worms? They can't sue you.
Simon Weil
nils
> When was the last time you read liner notes to an album by, say, John
> Coltrane, that talked about how lousy all the other saxophone players
> were?
<SNIP>
Good point, Marc. For me that's the biggest
problem with Crouch.
-Nils
SwingDoug
players in the world are lousy. He just points out the things about Wynton that
_he_ thinks are unique and unparalleled. He talks the guy up on his own record,
is that so bad?
Who has read liner notes for Wes Montgomery or Cannonball Adderly? Those
records contain quotes of people saying how great they are, and lots of fawning
compliments no worse than Stanley's about Wynton.
I swear, for someone ya'll have such distaste for, you sure do spend lots of
time thinking about him.
A secret crush perhaps?
Howard Peirce
> The second is that Stanley Crouch didn't
> start out as the conservative, traditionalist jazz
> critic that he is today; he was, as I'm sure
> everyone knows, a very active member of the 70's
> loft scene in NYC (i.e. he was a free jazz
> musician). I mean, that's quite a turnaround.
> While I don't know what exactly happened, and I
> respect a person's right to change his mind, I
> can't help but wonder if Crouch didn't become
> smitten with the money, power and prestige . . .
OK, this is sheer, reckless speculation on my part, and some rather
broad amatuer psychoanalysis. With these caveats in mind, I'll plunge
in.
Suppose Crouch himself, as a free player, was one of those "frauds"?
Suppose he really was banging around on the drums, and had no idea what
it was all about. Or, even more likely, suppose he was a fine if not
outstanding drummer, but, like all musicians, went through a crisis of
confidence in which he became convinced he was just faking? I mean,
anyone who plays at all has had those feelings. Sometimes you get over
it, sometimes you quit the business. Sometimes, you project those
feelings onto others.
I think Crouch's change of heart may reveal more about his relationship
to his own musicianship, than to his personal likes or dislikes, or to
money, power, and prestige. (I mean, in the grand scheme of things,
"money, power, and prestige" really has nothing to do with the jazz
community, even at Wynton's level. These are relative terms only.)
HP
Marc Sabatella
>>One article proves nothing.
>
> Bullshit.
>
>It proves that he has great respect for Ornette, Don Cherry, Charlie
>Haden and Ed Blackwell.
OK, I should have been more specific - it doesn't prove the point that I
thought you were trying to make.
> "A man who can only appreciate "free" jazz that doesn't
>get very free."
>
> How much FREER can one BE than "free"?
>
> You're either "free" or you're not.
This makes no sense at all. The word "free" implies lack of constraint.
But there are all sorts of potential constraints. One can be
harmonically free while still using bebop / postbop conventions of
rhythm and form (which is precisely what the Ornette Coleman Quartet
did).
> By "free" do you mean "dissonant"???
Of course not. Although the constraint of consonance is certainly one
possible example of a constraint that the Coleman Quartet didn't stray
too far from.
> "Having no implied time"???
>
> NOT swinging in some way related to way the term is traditionallly
>used?
>
> Are THESE your definitions of "free" ?
They are *definitions* of freedom, but they are examples of it.
Brian Olewnick
<howard...@sdrc.com> wrote:
>Suppose Crouch himself, as a free player, was one of those "frauds"?
>Suppose he really was banging around on the drums, and had no idea what
>it was all about. Or, even more likely, suppose he was a fine if not
>outstanding drummer, but, like all musicians, went through a crisis of
>confidence in which he became convinced he was just faking?
FWIW, I caught him a few times (usually with Murray, often in duet)
around 1976-77 and thought he was a pretty fine drummer. Cared a lot
about tonal qualities and was a sympathetic listener.
Check out his liners for the Jenkins/Ali album 'Swift Are the Winds of
Life' for a laudatory assessment of two "free" players along with some
slight portents of suspected frauds on the scene.
Brian Olewnick
Marc Sabatella
>Let's be fair now, Crouch doesn't specifically say how all the other trumpet
>players in the world are lousy. He just points out the things about Wynton that
>_he_ thinks are unique and unparalleled. He talks the guy up on his own record,
>is that so bad?
This is not all he does, though. He says things like "In order to
address how muc sophisticated learning has been largely forgotten - when
not arrogantly dismissed", and "those trend-victims and theorists who
use every possible argument to sidestep the weights and achievements of
history" and "Marsalis demotes the avant-garde trumpet players one and
all" and "the contemporary jazz world, where pop forms, ineptitutde, and
trivial trends are discussed with a sociological seriousness that avoids
the issue of artistry" and "frauds are showered with explanatory ink"
and "fumbling or pretentious eccentricities are misconstrued as
innovative" and "this music has a tension and release that
moment-to-moment avant-garde playing never does" and "the reaction
against the arrogant sloth and snarling decadence that face us all,
threatneing to devour all craft and purity" and "a declaration of war
against the contrived and the worthless" and so on and so on and so on.
Again, taken individually, none of these statements seems particularly
objectionable. But it does establish a trend - more so than any
jazz writer alive, Crouch seems to delight in taking potshots at the
music he doesn't like, in order to promote the music he does.
>Who has read liner notes for Wes Montgomery or Cannonball Adderly? Those
>records contain quotes of people saying how great they are, and lots of fawning
>compliments no worse than Stanley's about Wynton.
It's not about the compliments. It's about the criticisms of others.
Find me liner notes to a Wes or Cannonball album that criticizes other
musicians, and you'll have the beginnings of a point (find as many
examples as I just gave above and you'll have a full point).
>I swear, for someone ya'll have such distaste for, you sure do spend lots of
>time thinking about him.
>
>A secret crush perhaps?
An awareness that attitudes like his, given major media prominence, is
making life harder for some of the musicians so consistently denigrated.
Richard H
Howard Peirce wrote in message
<36FBFC67...@sdrc.com>...
>Richard H wrote:
>
>> The second is that Stanley Crouch didn't
>> start out as the conservative, traditionalist
jazz
>> critic that he is today; he was, as I'm sure
>> everyone knows, a very active member of the
70's
>> loft scene in NYC (i.e. he was a free jazz
>> musician). I mean, that's quite a turnaround.
>> While I don't know what exactly happened, and I
>> respect a person's right to change his mind, I
>> can't help but wonder if Crouch didn't become
>> smitten with the money, power and prestige . .
.
>
>OK, this is sheer, reckless speculation on my
part, and some rather
>broad amatuer psychoanalysis. With these caveats
in mind, I'll plunge
>in.
>
of those "frauds"?
>Suppose he really was banging around on the
drums, and had no idea what
>it was all about. Or, even more likely, suppose
he was a fine if not
>outstanding drummer, but, like all musicians,
went through a crisis of
>confidence in which he became convinced he was
>anyone who plays at all has had those feelings.
Sometimes you get over
>it, sometimes you quit the business. Sometimes,
you project those
>feelings onto others.
>
>I think Crouch's change of heart may reveal more
about his relationship
>to his own musicianship, than to his personal
likes or dislikes, or to
>money, power, and prestige.
(I mean, in the grand scheme of things,
>"money, power, and prestige" really has nothing
to do with the jazz
>community, even at Wynton's level. These are
relative terms only.)
>
>HP
>******So I guess Crouch may have figured that he
wasn't going to have a fulfilling career as a
musician, so he gave that life up to become a
writer/critic, however gradually that came about.
But that still doesn't explain why he had such a
drastic "change of heart" as to the relative value
of the type of music he had been so much a part
of. And why he went from being part of a scene
that was politically way to the left to becoming a
Reagan Republican. I can only guess that his
political views, like his musical opinions, go to
the highest bidder. Okay, my true feelings have
come out.
You say that "money, power and prestige" have
nothing to do with the jazz community, even at
Wynton's level, and that these are relative terms
only. I'm not real clear on exactly what you
mean, other than perhaps Crouch couldn't have
known he'd gain anything in terms of money, power
and prestige by becoming the spokesperson for the
Young Lions. My opinion is that Stanley Crouch is
a shrewd opportunist with no original opinions of
his own (I think someone at the Village Voice once
said that Albert Murray is the mind of Stanley
Crouch is the mind of Wynton Marsalis), whose
primary personal concerns are with gaining in
money, power and prestige. And he's done a damn
good job of it!
Richard
Damon Short
Simon Weil wrote:
> >While one critic trying to punch out another reminds me of the joke that
> >begins
> >'what do you call a boatload of lawyers at the bottom of the ocean...'
> LOL. I dunno...Slime-dwellers? Sightless worms? They can't sue you.
>
> Simon Weil
...."a good start", but yours are fine punch lines as well....
sab...@mindspring.com
===============================
Stanley Crouch is an idealogue who belives he is in the midst of a
cultural war. He further believes that the jazz scene is one of the
primary battlegrounds.
I can see his point.
One of the Greek philosophers...was it Aristotle???
Socrates???...was purported to have said ( I say "purported" because
after a few thousand years and twenty FIVE thousand different
translators, commentators, and people w/their own take on the matter,
we can't be sure the Greek thinkers even EXISTED, let alone what it is
they really said.) something to the effect that if you change the
style of a culture's music, you change that culture.
WhoEVER said it, sounds about right to me.
Stanley's fighting a war.
And he appears to be on the winning side, as of the present moment.
Now you can use the words "conservative", "reactionary", "purist",
etc. regarding what he's doing, but I believe what we in the "jazz"
world are witnessing is just a small battle in the larger process of
natural selection as it appears in the evolution of any culture, be it
that of a small town, that of a great country, or indeed that of the
world.
Other battles in this ongoing war have been fought in the jazz
world, at other times, and the results have been superficially
different...when the champions of the beboppers slugged it out w/those
of the older style players, the so-called "moldy figs" lost
resoundingly, for example...but whether the so-called "new" or the
so-called "old" win in this kind of competitiion, what's REALLY
winning is what's "better".
Really. That's the secret of this particular democratic,
capitalistic system, flawed though it undeniably may be. Eventually
the market balances everything out; the weaker products (styles,
companies, poltical ideas, you name it...) are rejected by the people,
the stronger products (styles, companies, and so on) continue and
dominate the market until THEY lose their power and are in turn
replaced by OTHER products in a continuing flow of cultural evolution.
I believe this to be healthy. Further, whether one believes it to
be healthy or NOT...that's the way it is.
As in any war model, people get hurt. You say that Stanley Crouch
is "making life harder for some of the musicians" he so consistently
denigrates. I believe that's true. ( (Whether he takes pleasure in
this wounding is a moot point.)
HE obviously believes that's part of the fortunes of war, and is
willing to put HIS ass on the line for what he believes.
If what he is saying and championing did NOT resonate w/some larger
part of the society than those things in which you seem to believe,
he'd eventually end up writing for the Podunk Gazette and appearing on
public access TV, and Wynton would be playing club dates and weddings
outside of Omaha, Nebraska.
They're not.
From up close, it can seem pretty nasty. Portions of this war have
impacted me in a negative way as well, but I try to get on up over it,
take a longer view, and understand what's REALLY going on.
I expect SOMEONE to answer this post w/some version of "In this
day and age, to have WARS still..." and my answer will be "THIS day
and age is NO different than any OTHER day and age."
No different. Birds still compete for seeds, countries and ideas
still compete for dominance...and musicians and styles still compete
for gigs.
They say in boxing that "styles make fights".
May the best style win.
C'est la guerre.
Later...
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
>Sabutin wrote:
><snip>
>> Stanley's fighting a war.
>>
>> And he appears to be on the winning side, as of the present moment.
>>
>> Now you can use the words "conservative", "reactionary", "purist",
>>etc. regarding what he's doing, but I believe what we in the "jazz"
>>world are witnessing is just a small battle in the larger process of
>>natural selection as it appears in the evolution of any culture, be it
>>that of a small town, that of a great country, or indeed that of the
>>world.
>
>Please explain the phrase:
>" process of natural selection as it appears in the evolution of any culture"
>
>Are you, as you appear to be doing, applying Darwinian ideas to Culture? I
>assume it's not Crouch, but your take on Crouch here. Surely you are not asking
>us to believe in Cultural (i.e some subset of Social) Darwinism?
===========================
Dunno about "Darwinism"...I don't much like labels, if they can be
avoided. Every time you "name" something..."Social Darwinism",
"Avant-garde jazz", "liberal ideas", etc. you stop it from living and
pin it to a piece of cardboard like a captured butterfly.
I know it's almost impossible NOT to use labels...but I try.
As far as what I said...it was pretty clear.
Societies, societal ideas, cultures, styles, all compete.
Some win; some lose;, sometimes the battle continues for decades,
even centuries.
Call it what you will. (In fact, call it what you MUST.)
I call it my observations on how things are.
============================
> This is
>horrible, depressing, sad.
>
>Simon Weil
============================
No, it isn't.
To YOU it's "horrible, depressing, sad".
To me, it's how I see the world shaking out. It's neither
depressing nor encouraging in and of itself. Only one's OWN PERSONAL
REACTION TO IT can be termed "horrible, depressing, sad". (In passing,
I would point out that your reaction to it seems entirely emotional.)
This appears to me to be a variation on the "In this day and
age..." argument that I hear so often.
"In this day and age, to still have wars !!!"
"In this day and age, to still have unfairness !!!"
"In this day and age, to still have ignorance !!!"
But " this day and age" is the same as every OTHER day and age.
Just later.
Later...
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
>In article <36fb806...@news.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>> Stanley Crouch is an idealogue who belives he is in the midst of a
>>cultural war. He further believes that the jazz scene is one of the
>>primary battlegrounds.
>
>This sums it up pretty well, I'd say. And I agree that there is a war -
>but it is not the war between different styles of music than Stanley
>seems to think it is. It is a war between who wish to see the styles of
>music they enjoy continue to ceexist peacefully with other styles, and
>those determined to stamp out the styles they don't like. A war that
>need not exist.
======================
Well...from an idealist perspective, I can agree w/that.
However...that apparently ain't how it works.
The widespread, almost embarrassed reaction at Rodney King's
televised plea "Can't we all just get along?" was, in my view, largely
due the the fact that most people realize that indeed we CANNOT "just
get along", and that further that might be the way things are S'POSE
to be, on some level.
Almost the whole of human narrative art can be broken down into the
good guys vs. the bad guys, and as Mark Twain so aptly observed,
fiction is at a disadvantage compared w/non-fiction because fiction
has to at least APPEAR to follow the laws of probability, to be
"realistic". "Good guy-bad guy" IS realistic, and whether you consider
that to be "correct" or "desirable" or not, that's the way things
appear to work.
The question that always remains to be decided is..."which one IS
the 'good guy' "?
I submit that, at least in the short term culture wars, the "good
guy" is and has ALWAYS been "the one who wins".
Salieri vs. Mozart, bebop vs. the "moldy figs", two track stereo
cassettes vs. eight track, indeed one could make a case for democracy
vs. fascism and capitalism vs. communism...the GOOD guy is the one who
survives to define the very MEANING of "good".
It's a real hall of mirrors, and we're walking right on down one of
the side halls right now.
===============================
>
>> From up close, it can seem pretty nasty. Portions of this war have
>>impacted me in a negative way as well, but I try to get on up over it,
>>take a longer view, and understand what's REALLY going on.
>
>Let me know when you get there.
>
>--------------
>Marc Sabatella
========================
OK...
But will you really believe me ???
S.
Marc Sabatella
>> Are THESE your definitions of "free" ?
>
>They are *definitions* of freedom, but they are examples of it.
Ooops, should have said these are NOT definitions of freedom, but
rather examples of it.
SwingDoug
I see your points, and I understand. But Crouch has well thought out opinions
on why he has a problem with certain musicians in the "free" scene and how he
feels that they bypass learning harmony and how to swing in the traditional
ways in order to play music that he feels isn't all that great.
I don't really agree with him all the time, but he does make some sense on some
of these issues. I think he questions the study time it takes for a player to
play "free" music, and he questions their dedication to craft.
He gets out there, sometimes. But he has a right to speak his mind like we all
do.
Doug
Simon Weil
>> >While one critic trying to punch out another reminds me of the joke that
>> >begins
>> >'what do you call a boatload of lawyers at the bottom of the ocean...'
>> LOL. I dunno...Slime-dwellers? Sightless worms? They can't sue you.
>>
>> Simon Weil
>
>...."a good start", but yours are fine punch lines as well....
... "a warning"? Naaah. Yours is unbeatable.
Simon Weil
Simon Weil
<snip>
> Stanley's fighting a war.
>
> And he appears to be on the winning side, as of the present moment.
>
> Now you can use the words "conservative", "reactionary", "purist",
>etc. regarding what he's doing, but I believe what we in the "jazz"
>world are witnessing is just a small battle in the larger process of
>natural selection as it appears in the evolution of any culture, be it
>that of a small town, that of a great country, or indeed that of the
>world.
Please explain the phrase:
" process of natural selection as it appears in the evolution of any culture"
Are you, as you appear to be doing, applying Darwinian ideas to Culture? I
assume it's not Crouch, but your take on Crouch here. Surely you are not asking
us to believe in Cultural (i.e some subset of Social) Darwinism? This is
Matt Snyder
>I don't really agree with him all the time, but he does make some sense on some
>of these issues. I think he questions the study time it takes for a player to
>play "free" music, and he questions their dedication to craft.
Many musicians in the free area put just as much blood, sweat, tears
and time into their music as those who play in more mainstream styles,
and some of them have been doing it for decade after decade. Just how
long do they have to practice, starve, gig, and absorb bashing from
guys like Crouch before they can be considered "dedicated?" How many
dozens of years do they have to practice their craft before they have
amassed enough "study time?" On the whole, I don't attempt to play
free very often, but I realize I would have to practice it a lot
before I would feel comfortable performing it live, and have nothing
but the utmost respect for people who have spent their lives working
on it.
Playing music of any kind requires untold amounts of practice, and
it's way too obvious to me as a musician that there are VERY serious
players out there who are extremely dedicated to playing in styles
that don't receive much approval from the press and the public, or
indeed other musicians. Their lives are difficult enough without
folks like Crouch around. If a critic doesn't like them, he shouldn't
see them or talk about them. I mean, if Crouch wasn't bringing up the
avant-garde so often, who in major publications would be talking about
them at all? In this case, no publicity is better than some. Why
does he have to denigrate one cat in order to praise another?
Matt Snyder
http://msnyder.dragonfire.net
To email me, remove NOSPAM from my address.
Marc Sabatella
> Stanley Crouch is an idealogue who belives he is in the midst of a
>cultural war. He further believes that the jazz scene is one of the
>primary battlegrounds.
This sums it up pretty well, I'd say. And I agree that there is a war -
but it is not the war between different styles of music than Stanley
seems to think it is. It is a war between who wish to see the styles of
music they enjoy continue to ceexist peacefully with other styles, and
those determined to stamp out the styles they don't like. A war that
need not exist.
> From up close, it can seem pretty nasty. Portions of this war have
>impacted me in a negative way as well, but I try to get on up over it,
>take a longer view, and understand what's REALLY going on.
Let me know when you get there.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
>He gets out there, sometimes. But he has a right to speak his mind like we all
>do.
Which is all I'm doing, too. I think it would be better for the music
in general if he would stop doing what he does the way he does it.
SwingDoug
>but it is not the war between different styles of music than Stanley
>seems to think it is. It is a war between who wish to see the styles of
>music they enjoy continue to ceexist peacefully with other styles,
And who would those people be? The free players? I don't think so. I've got
lots of close friends in the Lincoln Center band, including Wynton and in all
our discussions about music, not once has he said negative things about people
in the free scene. Same goes for the other cats. They might dog the smooth jazz
folks, but he, don't we all?
I have, on the other hand, heard many a raging discussion at places like The
Bottom Line, The Knit, even Small's, where musicians tell of the tyrannical
Marsalis rule over jazz and how Wynton is a reprehensible human and subpar
musicians. In fact, I can't name one person other than Kenny G who gets beat on
at RMB for his music more than Wynton. Of course, he and Crouch get beat on for
their public views, too.
The point is, I agree with Marc that the jazz world is too small for there to
be any divisions, even if certain parts of the jazz scene don't think other
people in it are playing what they deem jazz to be. But I have a problem with
making it out like Crouch is the only one supporting those divisions.
Walter Davis
the avant-garde, he is talking from personal experience. :-)
However, I believe Crouch's critical "support" of the avant-garde
continued well after his giving up the drums (early 80's Murray and
Taylor liner notes for example, the Carter/Bradford/Tapscott _West Coast
Hot_ liner notes).
My take on this comes from something I realized when I happened to
re-read those notes over the course of a couple weeks (because I
happened to choose those albums to listen to at the time). And my take
is that Crouch really hasn't changed much at all, at least from his
early critic days to now. Read the liner notes to those Murray albums
and you'll hear him saying some very familiar things about "swing",
about how Murray is one of the few who's _truly_ melded the history of
jazz, how his music is true postmodernism not like those downtown
imitators, how he's technically proficient and others aren't, etc. Same
with the Carter/Bradford/Tapscott which recognizes them as pretty much
the only folks (at least at the time of the recording) who truly
understood, captured, extended what Ornette was doing in 1960.
So the only real shift in Crouch's critical take is that he now draws
his line in the sand on "true jazz" more conservatively. But he was
just as obnoxious and dismissive when he was writing in support of Cecil
Taylor as he is when writing in support of Marsalis.
-walt
Walter Davis walter...@unc.edu
Health Data Analyst at the ph: (919) 962-1019
Institute for Research in Social Science fax: (919) 962-8980
UNC - Chapel Hill
Hal Vickery
wrote:
> simo...@aol.com (Simon Weil) wrote:
>
> >Sabutin wrote:
<snip>
> >>...but I believe what we in the "jazz"
> >>world are witnessing is just a small battle in the larger process of
> >>natural selection as it appears in the evolution of any culture...
> >
> >Please explain the phrase:
> >" process of natural selection as it appears in the evolution of any culture"
> >
> >Are you, as you appear to be doing, applying Darwinian ideas to Culture?
<snip>
> ===========================
>
> Dunno about "Darwinism"...I don't much like labels, if they can be
> avoided. Every time you "name" something..."Social Darwinism",
> "Avant-garde jazz", "liberal ideas", etc. you stop it from living and
> pin it to a piece of cardboard like a captured butterfly.
>
> I know it's almost impossible NOT to use labels...but I try.
>
> As far as what I said...it was pretty clear.
>
> Societies, societal ideas, cultures, styles, all compete.
>
> Some win; some lose;, sometimes the battle continues for decades,
> even centuries.
>
> Call it what you will. (In fact, call it what you MUST.)
>
> I call it my observations on how things are.
You were the one who used the phrase "natural selection." That is a phrase
out of Darwin and biological evolution. Societies do not undergo natural
selection in terms of culture. All changes in culture are driven by social
process, not natural ones. To imply that there is a "natural selection"
that drives changes in culture is to imply a kind of social Darwinism.
I don't think you meant this, but to anyone with an education in the realm
of science, you have accidentally done so.
> ============================
>
> > This is
> >horrible, depressing, sad.
> >
> >Simon Weil
>
> ============================
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> To YOU it's "horrible, depressing, sad".
>
> To me, it's how I see the world shaking out. It's neither
> depressing nor encouraging in and of itself. Only one's OWN PERSONAL
> REACTION TO IT can be termed "horrible, depressing, sad". (In passing,
> I would point out that your reaction to it seems entirely emotional.)
I don't particularly like that argument. Hitler argued that the natural
order of things was for Arians to be on top and other groups, particularly
Jews to be on the bottom. That's the natural order of things to his mind,
and he and his cronies did their best to help along what was, after all,
only natural.
The same was done in the eugenics movement in the United States, where
people who were defective were sterilized against their wills improve the
breed, so to speak. Those people thought that they were giving natural
selection just a little bit of a shove.
Again, I don't think you meant to support either of those. It is your
choice of words from biology that got you into trouble.
> This appears to me to be a variation on the "In this day and
> age..." argument that I hear so often.
>
> "In this day and age, to still have wars !!!"
>
> "In this day and age, to still have unfairness !!!"
>
> "In this day and age, to still have ignorance !!!"
>
> But " this day and age" is the same as every OTHER day and age.
It is the same but it is not the same. Humans have the intelligence to
overcome things like war, unfairness, and ignorance. That we choose not to
is not necessarily an argument that things always have to be that way.
> Just later.
Unfortunately, with nuclear arsenals, it could be that later could be too late.
At any rate here is the problem as I see it. The term natural selection is
a term that Darwin used to describe the driving force behind evolution of
species in nature. It has nothing to do with how societies evolve, and you
misappropriated a term from biology that has all kinds of ramifications due
to its misapplication in the past.
Natural selection refers to what goes on in nature. Period. Had you just
said that there is a selection process by which societies evolve, I
wouldn't have a bit of trouble. By adding the word "natural" you
unwittingly borrowed an argument used by social Darwinists. Ideas that
Darwin himself said were misapplied.
nsmf
Simon Weil
>>Please explain the phrase:
>>" process of natural selection as it appears in the evolution of any
>culture"
>>
>>assume it's not Crouch, but your take on Crouch here. Surely you are not
>asking
>>us to believe in Cultural (i.e some subset of Social) Darwinism?
>
> Dunno about "Darwinism"...I don't much like labels, if they can be
>avoided. Every time you "name" something..."Social Darwinism",
>"Avant-garde jazz", "liberal ideas", etc. you stop it from living and
>pin it to a piece of cardboard like a captured butterfly.
>
> I know it's almost impossible NOT to use labels...but I try.
>
> As far as what I said...it was pretty clear.
>
> Societies, societal ideas, cultures, styles, all compete.
>
> Some win; some lose;, sometimes the battle continues for decades,
>even centuries.
>
> Call it what you will. (In fact, call it what you MUST.)
>
> I call it my observations on how things are.
I wrote:
>> This is
>>horrible, depressing, sad.
Sabutin replied:
> No, it isn't.
>
> To YOU it's "horrible, depressing, sad".
>
> To me, it's how I see the world shaking out. It's neither
>depressing nor encouraging in and of itself. Only one's OWN PERSONAL
>REACTION TO IT can be termed "horrible, depressing, sad". (In passing,
>I would point out that your reaction to it seems entirely emotional.)
<snip>
OK, clearly you don't really understand what I'm getting at. I want to preface
this by saying that I don't want an argument. This is a "for your information"
post. Basically I feel you're digging yourself a hole and you don't know it -
and I just want you to stop. Here's the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Social
Darwinism. I hope, after you've read it you might understand more about my
reaction. It seems clear to me that your ideas fit under this rubric. There is
one set of related Social Darwinist ideas that have had particularly
devastating results this century (see below). You are therefore, albeit
unknowingly, connecting yourself with these events. I would - once more - urge
you to rethink.
SOCIAL DARWINISM
the theory that persons, groups, and races are subject to the same laws of
natural selection as Charles Darwin had perceived in plants and animals in
nature. According to the theory, which was popular in the late 19th and early
20th centuries, the weak were diminished and their cultures delimited, while
the
strong grew in power and in cultural influence over the weak. Social Darwinists
held that the life of humans in society was a struggle for existence ruled by
"survival of the fittest," a phrase proposed by the British philosopher and
scientist Herbert Spencer.
The social Darwinists--notably Spencer and Walter Bagehot in England and
William
Graham Sumner in the United States--believed that the process of natural
selection acting on variations in the population would result in the survival
of
the best competitors and in continuing improvement in the population.
Societies,
like individuals, were viewed as organisms that evolve in this manner.
The theory was used to support laissez-faire capitalism and political
conservatism. Class stratification was justified on the basis of "natural"
inequalities among individuals, for the control of property was said to be a
correlate of superior and inherent moral attributes such as industriousness,
temperance, and frugality. Attempts to reform society through state
intervention
or other means would, therefore, interfere with natural processes; unrestricted
competition and defense of the status quo were in accord with biological
selection. The poor were the "unfit" and should not be aided; in the struggle
for existence, wealth was a sign of success. At the societal level, social
Darwinism was used as a philosophical rationalization for imperialist,
colonialist, and racist policies, sustaining belief in Anglo-Saxon or Aryan
cultural and biological superiority. (see also Index: social differentiation)
Social Darwinism declined during the 20th century as an expanded knowledge of
biological, social, and cultural phenomena undermined, rather than supported,
its basic tenets.
It's the second last sentence, in particular, that worries me.
Simon Weil
ENIGVAR6
> I submit that, at least in the short term culture wars, the "good<BR>
>guy" is and has ALWAYS been "the one who wins".<BR>
><BR>
> Salieri vs. Mozart, bebop vs. the "moldy figs", two track stereo<BR>
>cassettes vs. eight track, indeed one could make a case for democracy<BR>
>vs. fascism and capitalism vs. communism...the GOOD guy is the one who<BR>
>survives to define the very MEANING of "good".<BR>
-----
There is a name for this sort of 'justice is the will of the strong', 'the good
is what wins' type of philosophy. It's called fascism. Your model of musical
and cultural development - as wars - is a very poor one. It does not describe
what really happens in culture anyway: historically the 'loser' has a way of
quietly engulfing the 'winner'. As a personal philosophy justifying one's
actions in the world, it's merely odious.
-----
Jerry
Marc Sabatella
>I've got
>lots of close friends in the Lincoln Center band, including Wynton and in all
>our discussions about music, not once has he said negative things about people
>in the free scene.
Fine, but he continues to employ someone (Crouch) who does, repeatedly.
>The point is, I agree with Marc that the jazz world is too small for there to
>be any divisions, even if certain parts of the jazz scene don't think other
>people in it are playing what they deem jazz to be. But I have a problem with
>making it out like Crouch is the only one supporting those divisions.
True. But he is the one we are discussing right now.
Richard H
SwingDoug wrote in message
<19990327191611...@ng-da1.aol.com>...
>>True. But he is the one we are discussing right
now.
>
Shipp, David Murray, Evan
>Parker, or Myra Melford said some mean stuff
about Wynton's music, I somehow
>doubt that certain people hear would object.
That's all I'm saying.
I don't know if it's proper or not for me to jump
in here, but what about the criticism I've heard
several times re: Wynton's music -- that it really
isn't anything new, that he doesn't seek to
advance on the musical ideas that have come before
him, but that, rather, what he plays and composes
has already been done? (Max Roach is purported to
have said with regard to Marsalis and his
followers something like, "What's wrong? Didn't
we get it right the first time?") That's the only
thing I've heard any so-called avant-garde jazz
musicians criticize him for.
At the same time, I realize that he is immensely
talented, is technically probably one of the 2 or
3 best on his instrument, and is overall a model
human being.
Richard
JC Martin
>>True. But he is the one we are discussing right now.
>
>Yes he is but my point is still valid. If Matt Shipp, David Murray, Evan
>Parker, or Myra Melford said some mean stuff about Wynton's music, I
somehow
>doubt that certain people hear would object. That's all I'm >saying.
That's a valid point. Of course, none of the people you mentioned condones
violence. I never had any problem with Stanley's views (some of his views I
agree with) until the shit he pulled at that awards event. Classless IMO.
-JC
sab...@mindspring.com
>In article <36fbde34...@news.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com
>wrote:
>
>> simo...@aol.com (Simon Weil) wrote:
>>
>> >Sabutin wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >>...but I believe what we in the "jazz"
>> >>world are witnessing is just a small battle in the larger process of
>> >>natural selection as it appears in the evolution of any culture...
>> >
>> >Please explain the phrase:
>> >" process of natural selection as it appears in the evolution of any culture"
>> >
>> >Are you, as you appear to be doing, applying Darwinian ideas to Culture?
>
><snip>
>
>> ===========================
>>
>> Dunno about "Darwinism"...I don't much like labels, if they can be
>> avoided. Every time you "name" something..."Social Darwinism",
>> "Avant-garde jazz", "liberal ideas", etc. you stop it from living and
>> pin it to a piece of cardboard like a captured butterfly.
>>
>> I know it's almost impossible NOT to use labels...but I try.
>>
>> As far as what I said...it was pretty clear.
>>
>> Societies, societal ideas, cultures, styles, all compete.
>>
>> Some win; some lose;, sometimes the battle continues for decades,
>> even centuries.
>>
>> Call it what you will. (In fact, call it what you MUST.)
>>
>> I call it my observations on how things are.
>
>You were the one who used the phrase "natural selection." That is a phrase
>out of Darwin and biological evolution. Societies do not undergo natural
>selection in terms of culture. All changes in culture are driven by social
>process, not natural ones.
==========================
Then you believe that humanity is not "natural"?
I hear this often...that man has "upset the balance of nature",
etc.
Humankind is PART of "the balance of nature", and the "social
process" IS natural.
The same laws apply up and down the scale of "nature"
As above, so below
=========================.
>To imply that there is a "natural selection"
>that drives changes in culture is to imply a kind of social Darwinism.
========================
No, it is to say that this is WHAT I SEE.
I would see it WITHOUT reading Darwin, and I would not use the term
"social Darwinism" in polite society.
If you feel compelled to do so, you're welcome to it, but I repeat,
when you attempt tocompress an idea to fit a label, you are reducing
it to a line drawing. The sketch of a tree is not that tree, the map
of an area is not that area, and "social Darwinism" is not what I
said.
=============================
>
>I don't think you meant this, but to anyone with an education in the realm
>of science, you have accidentally done so.
>
>> ============================
Depends on how GOOD an education.
I've met doctors, physicists, people from all areas of "the realm
of science" (sounds like some royal game preserve), who haven't had an
original thought since they realized that sucking up to teachers and
studying to learn the correct answers on tests would net them a good
career and some money.
I've met others who could think for themselves....but, as in every
discipline, they're few and far between.
========================
>>
>> > This is
>> >horrible, depressing, sad.
>> >
>> >Simon Weil
>>
>> ============================
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>>
>> To YOU it's "horrible, depressing, sad".
>>
>> To me, it's how I see the world shaking out. It's neither
>> depressing nor encouraging in and of itself. Only one's OWN PERSONAL
>> REACTION TO IT can be termed "horrible, depressing, sad". (In passing,
>> I would point out that your reaction to it seems entirely emotional.)
============================
>I don't particularly like that argument. Hitler argued that the natural
>order of things was for Arians to be on top and other groups, particularly
>Jews to be on the bottom. That's the natural order of things to his mind,
>and he and his cronies did their best to help along what was, after all,
>only natural.
>
>The same was done in the eugenics movement in the United States, where
>people who were defective were sterilized against their wills improve the
>breed, so to speak. Those people thought that they were giving natural
>selection just a little bit of a shove.
>
>Again, I don't think you meant to support either of those. It is your
>choice of words from biology that got you into trouble.
=======================
BNO, I did not mean to support either of those ideas, and no, I'm
NOT in "trouble".
Had Hitler (or the eugenicists) won...and the battle continues to
this day, in other forms, best believe it...THEY would have been
"right". You and I and a WHOLE lotta others would probably be dead;
"jazz" would probably be nonexistent, and whoever survived would on
one level or another have of necessity bought into their program.
BUT...they DIDN'T "win", As I said, the battle continues, but a
good case could be made that all over the world those ideas are
"losing".
WHY are they losing?
Because OTHER ideas work better, produce societies that function
more efficiently, that are capable of stronger efforts in competition
w/them. This is tested in shooting wars, in economic wars...AND in
cultural wars. This brings us back to the present subject...Mr.
Crouch, the "avant-garde", and (sorry to use this word, but here goes)
the "evolution" of jazz.
If this sounds suspiciously like the competition amongst the
species, so be it. Darwin saw what he saw on the Galapagos Islands; I
see what I see on Manhattan Island.
I'm not copping his licks; I'm just playing MY music.
=========================
>> This appears to me to be a variation on the "In this day and
>> age..." argument that I hear so often.
>>
>> "In this day and age, to still have wars !!!"
>>
>> "In this day and age, to still have unfairness !!!"
>>
>> "In this day and age, to still have ignorance !!!"
>>
>> But " this day and age" is the same as every OTHER day and age.
>
==================
>It is the same but it is not the same. Humans have the intelligence to
>overcome things like war, unfairness, and ignorance.
========================
AH HA...an OPTIMIST !!!
====================
>That we choose not to
>is not necessarily an argument that things always have to be that way
==================================
I'm sorry, Mr. Vickery, but I must disagree.
That we CONSISTENTLY AND FOREVER have"choosen" not to overcome
things like war, unfairness, and ignorance is INDEED an argument that
things "always have to be that way", or is at the very least an
indication that things are likely to remain the much same for some
time.
The very use of the word "choose" implies some choice in the
matter.
So far I have seen no choice whatsoever.
People compete.
Styles compete.
Cultures compete.
Countries compete.
Hell, even Communism, which was at least to some degree BASED on
the idea not competing, devolved into (and eventually failed because
of) competition w/OTHER forms of social organization.
The individual choice NOT to compete is a form of suicide, because
unless we ALL choose that...not bloody likely...then that individual
will, on one level or another, get his or her ass THOROUGHLY kicked by
those who have not (I would argue CANNOT) "chosen" to do so
themselves.
If we had "chosen" not to compete w/Hitler, we'd all be either
Nazis or corpses now.
============================
>
>> Just later.
>
>Unfortunately, with nuclear arsenals, it could be that later could be too late.
==========================
Could be...but we're talking about Stanley Crouch, not Clinton.
=========================
>
>At any rate here is the problem as I see it. The term natural selection is
>a term that Darwin used to describe the driving force behind evolution of
>species in nature. It has nothing to do with how societies evolve, and you
>misappropriated a term from biology that has all kinds of ramifications due
>to its misapplication in the past.
>
===========================
I disagree.
================
>Natural selection refers to what goes on in nature. Period. Had you just
>said that there is a selection process by which societies evolve, I
>wouldn't have a bit of trouble. By adding the word "natural" you
>unwittingly borrowed an argument used by social Darwinists. Ideas that
>Darwin himself said were misapplied.
===================
I no more give a shit about terms or arguments among a bunch of
academic sociologists than I do about arguments among a bunch of
academic jazz critics.
Darwin thought they were wrong...I'm sure Bird thought most critics
were wrong, whether they "liked" his music or not.
They pursue THEIR "art"...I pursue mine.
Where their pursuits and mine intersect...there maybe I pay a
little attention before going back to work.
Later...gotta go back to work.
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
>I wrote:
>>>Please explain the phrase:
>>>" process of natural selection as it appears in the evolution of any
>>culture"
>>>
>>>Are you, as you appear to be doing, applying Darwinian ideas to Culture? I
>>>assume it's not Crouch, but your take on Crouch here. Surely you are not
>>asking
>>>us to believe in Cultural (i.e some subset of Social) Darwinism?
>>
>Sabutin replied:
>> Dunno about "Darwinism"...I don't much like labels, if they can be
>>avoided. Every time you "name" something..."Social Darwinism",
>>"Avant-garde jazz", "liberal ideas", etc. you stop it from living and
>>pin it to a piece of cardboard like a captured butterfly.
>>
>> I know it's almost impossible NOT to use labels...but I try.
>>
>> As far as what I said...it was pretty clear.
>>
>> Societies, societal ideas, cultures, styles, all compete.
>>
>> Some win; some lose;, sometimes the battle continues for decades,
>>even centuries.
>>
>> Call it what you will. (In fact, call it what you MUST.)
>>
>> I call it my observations on how things are.
>
>I wrote:
>>> This is
>>>horrible, depressing, sad.
>Sabutin replied:
>> No, it isn't.
>>
>> To YOU it's "horrible, depressing, sad".
>>
>> To me, it's how I see the world shaking out. It's neither
>>depressing nor encouraging in and of itself. Only one's OWN PERSONAL
>>REACTION TO IT can be termed "horrible, depressing, sad". (In passing,
>>I would point out that your reaction to it seems entirely emotional.)
=============================
Here's where it falls apart.
This is the "bad" USE of this theory, not the theory itself.
If one were to say that the use of the amplified guitar resulted in
the destruction of music as exemplified by all the terrible heavy
metal guitarists out there, and thus argue that amplified guitar be
banned, you'd be doing much the same as saying that what I see is
wrong because it was put to bad purposes by some people.
Further, the fact that that misuse of thias idea was eventually
defeated IN SOCIETAL/ACADEMIC COMBAT is IN ITSELF an example of that
idea in action.
Trumpets don't kill people, PEOPLE do.
Same w/guns and ideas.
===========================
>Class stratification was justified on the basis of "natural"
>inequalities among individuals, for the control of property was said to be a
>correlate of superior and inherent moral attributes such as industriousness,
>temperance, and frugality. Attempts to reform society through state
>intervention
>or other means would, therefore, interfere with natural processes; unrestricted
>
>competition and defense of the status quo were in accord with biological
>selection. The poor were the "unfit" and should not be aided; in the struggle
>for existence, wealth was a sign of success. At the societal level, social
>Darwinism was used as a philosophical rationalization for imperialist,
>colonialist, and racist policies, sustaining belief in Anglo-Saxon or Aryan
>cultural and biological superiority. (see also Index: social differentiation)
>Social Darwinism declined during the 20th century as an expanded knowledge of
>biological, social, and cultural phenomena undermined, rather than supported,
>its basic tenets.
>
>
>It's the second last sentence, in particular, that worries me.
>
>Simon Weil
=====================
And well indeed SHOULD you be worried, Mr. Weil.
But I have not used this idea in this manner, nor is it my
intention to do so.
It IS my intention to point out that Stanley Crouch is engaged as
part of a competition between jazz styles, that he is a socially
aware writer w/other agendas WAY beyond "jazz", and that I personally
see the whole thing as a small battle in the midst of a much larger
and continuing war amongst competing ways of life.
Further, I personally see the "free" movement in jazz as a sort of
analogue to the "anarchist" movement among societies, and I predict an
eventual similar level of success for both.
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
>Sabutin wrote:
>
>> I submit that, at least in the short term culture wars, the "good<BR>
>>guy" is and has ALWAYS been "the one who wins".<BR>
>><BR>
>> Salieri vs. Mozart, bebop vs. the "moldy figs", two track stereo<BR>
>>cassettes vs. eight track, indeed one could make a case for democracy<BR>
>>vs. fascism and capitalism vs. communism...the GOOD guy is the one who<BR>
>>survives to define the very MEANING of "good".<BR>
>-----
>There is a name for this sort of 'justice is the will of the strong', 'the good
>is what wins' type of philosophy. It's called fascism.
================================
No...using this very model of competition "fascism" LOST, and I
personally am very glad of it.
There is required here a certain level of personal faith, but it is
a faith backed up by repeated observations of the truth of the matter.
I truly believe that society inevitably eventually chooses that
which works best, and I FURTHER believe (and have observed repeatedly)
that it does NOT finally choose the rigid, life denying disciplines
that come under the general rubric of "fascism".
The idea arises repeatedly, on every level of society from
kindergarten teachers and orchestra conductors to policemen and
dictators. It has a more or less limited amount of success and then
disappears, devoured by its own lack of flexibility,and defeated by
more efficient ways of action.
Like musclebound heavyweight fighters, it eventually meets its Joe
Louis, Jack Dempsey, or Muhammad Ali.
==========================
>Your model of musical
>and cultural development - as wars - is a very poor one. It does not describe
>what really happens in culture anyway: historically the 'loser' has a way of
>quietly engulfing the 'winner'. As a personal philosophy justifying one's
>actions in the world, it's merely odious.
>-----
>Jerry
========================
As you wish...
If historically the 'loser' has a way of quietly engulfing the
'winner' then you'd best look on out behind you, because Hitler and
Stalin may be getting ready to 'quietly engulf' YOUR ass.
Paul Whiteman and Cab Calloway too.
Further...be careful w/the 'odious' stuff.
You want to disagree, fine...however if you want to say I'm some
kind of crypto- fascist because I see (and approve of...as if
NONapproval would change anything one way or another) competition
among styles of music, then you are simply a fool.
Odious, shit...
You read too many editorial pages.
Later...
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
>A brief summary of my post below before I address individual points:
>
>Sabutin used the term "natural selection" to describe societal behaviors
>and changes. That term comes from Darwin and is a mechanism by which he
>proposed evolution of species occurred. It has to do with the passing on
>of those traits that aid in survival of individuals because individuals
>with those traits have a better opportunity than those that do not or those
>with traits that would actually hinder survival and reproduction.
>
>My argument is that the term is misused when taken out of that context. My
>bailiwick is science education, and I've had a lot of contact with
>scientists over the years. Scientists get very upset when very precise
>terms (such as "natural selection") are used in an imprecise manner.
>Applying the term "natural selection" to such social processes is just such
>a misuse, whether it was intentional or unintentional.
>
>In article <36fcc3e...@news.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>> hvic...@svs.com (Hal Vickery) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <36fbde34...@news.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com
>> >wrote:
>
><snip to relevant portion>
>
>> >You were the one who used the phrase "natural selection." That is a phrase
>> >out of Darwin and biological evolution. Societies do not undergo natural
>> >selection in terms of culture. All changes in culture are driven by social
>> >process, not natural ones.
>>
>> ==========================
>>
>> Then you believe that humanity is not "natural"?
>
>Two points:
>
>(1) The term "natural selection" refers to the ability of members to
>survive and reproduce. As we now understand it (because Darwin knew
>nothing about genetics, Mendel's work would not be discovered for several
>decades) natural selection involves the expression of those phenotypes that
>appear to aid in survival. Those with the genotype that expresses thses
>have a better chance to survive and reproduce. Those that do not are at a
>disadvantage. Those that have genotypes that express phenotypes that aid
>predators, cause early death, etc. will be at an extreme disadvantage and
>will have a much greater chance of dying before reproducing. Thus, those
>genes producing advantageous phenotypes will spread throughout a
>population, and those with phenotypes that are disadvantageous will be
>reduced in number.
>
>So we see the fleetest gazelles survive while slower ones get eaten, dark
>peppered moths survive in polluted areas while white one survive in
>non-polluted areas, walking sticks survive becuase they look like sticks
>and those that are the worst camouflaged or who move at the wrong times get
>eaten, etc.
>
>Now I'd like you to show me the relevance of natural selection to this thread.
>
==================
OK, I will.
A few definitions are in order here first, though:
1-natural selection( noun)
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of
evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend
to survive and transmit their genetic characters in increasing numbers
to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be
eliminated.
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of
evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend
to survive and transmit their genetic characters in increasing numbers
to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be
eliminated.
phenotype (fę´ne-těp´) noun
1. a. The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of
an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental
influences. b. The expression of a specific trait, such as stature or
blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences.
2. An individual or group of organisms exhibiting a particular
phenotype.
genotype (jčn´e-těp´, ję´ne-) noun
1. The genetic constitution of an organism or a group of
organisms.
2. A group or class of organisms having the same genetic
constitution.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third
Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights
reserved.)
==============================
I'll deal w/natural selection first. The dictionary definition
(Sorry if it's not a particlarly prestigious dictionary...but it's one
well w/in the mainstream of commion American usage, and I'm not
writing this for Scientific American", let alone a specialized
scientific journal of some sort.) uses the words:
"The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of
evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend
to survive and transmit their genetic characters in increasing numbers
to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be
eliminated."
In music...or any other audience based medium...the audience IS the
environment, and I would contend that the analogue to "genetic
characteristics" would be "stylistic characeristics". Those things
that make a wolf a recognizeably a wolf or a tulip a tulip are its
"genetic characteristics"..ditto those things that make bebop
recognizeably bebop or bluegrass bluegrass.
Thus I would approve of a rewriting of the above selection to
describe the "natural selection" of music as this:
natural selection:
The process in nature by which, according to Sabutin's theory of
evolution, only the styles most pleasing to their audience tend to
survive and transmit their stylistic characteristics in increasing
numbers to succeeding generations while those less well adapted tend
to be eliminated.
As far as phenotypes and genotypes are concerned, I'd slightly
rewrite them too if I wished to find a musical (or indeed, cultural)
analogue:
phenotype (fę´ne-těp´) noun
1. a. The observable stylistic characteristics of an idiom, as
determined by both stylistic makeup and environmental influences.
b. The expression of a specific trait, such as harmonic content or
rhythmic approach,largely based on cultural (environmental)
influences.
2. An individual or group of idioms exhibiting a particular
phenotype.
genotype (jčn´e-těp´, ję´ne-) noun
1. The stylistic constitution of an idiom or a group of idioms
2. A group or class of idioms having the same stylistic
constitution
=====================================
>(2) We are subject to the same laws of nature as all other organisms.
>Thus if we cut down too many rain forests for cattle, if we put too many
>greenhouse gases in the air, etc., we may alter the climate of the earth
>just enough to guarantee our own extinction.
>
>However, looking at it another way, we are beyond nature in several
>respects. We are the only species that practices medicine, makes lenses to
>aid those members who have difficulty seeing, and who have the ability to
>destroy entire habitats and introduce other species into them for our own
>use.
>
==================
Just different definitions of a word. I include all the universe,
including mankind, in the idea of "nature" or "natural".
You do not.
I think you are wrong.
======================
>We are the only species capable of forcing other species to breed in order
>to bring out characteristics we wish them to have (artificial selection)
>which we do regularly with dogs, cats, sheep, cattle, etc. There is a
>species of crab in Japan whose shell looks like a human face. This is
>because those individuals in that species who through genetic accident had
>that characteristic were thrown back while those who didn't were eaten by
>people. No other species than us would do that. This is another example
>of introducing a new factor into the selection process other than those
>found in nature.
>
>> I hear this often...that man has "upset the balance of nature",
>> etc.
>
>That is because we do exactly that. We introduced rabbits into Australia,
>where they had no natural enemies, and they overran the continent. We
>introduced Africanized honeybees (accidentally) into the bee population in
>South America, and they took over. We killed off predators such as wolves
>and coyotes in North America, and discovered that species competing with
>farm animals grew too much in population, so that the predator species had
>to be reintroduced.
>
======================
This is NOT "unbalancing the balance of nature"...it IS "altering"
that pre-human balance, and further, if we continue to do so we will
be either checked or eliminated...but we ARE part of that (as yet)
contiuing "balance of nature". If there comes a time when what we do
"unbalances" the balanced bicycle of nature...we will be thrown off.
====================
>Notice what balance of nature implies in these examples. Herbivores are
>eaten by carnivores. Remove the carnivores (or introduce a species where
>carnivores don't eat the new herbivores) and you have one population run
>amok.
>
>We're now cutting down rainforests at an alarming rate and releasing
>greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the population. These two
>factors combined upset another type of balance, that which maintains the
>planet's climate. We don't have good enough information to know if we are
>causing global warming (the computer models are still not complex enough),
>but when we find out, we may discover we are in the process of altering the
>earth's climate to such an extent that we may drive ourselves into
>extinction, and take out thousands or even millions of species with us.
>
=====================
Indeed...and I devoutly pray that we do not do that.
However, if we do, then THAT is the "balance of nature", and
farewwell to our sorry, meddling, primitive asses.
==========================
>Of course at that point, natural selection will then be the only form of
>selection, and an earth radically different from the one we live in, as far
>as species dominance, will take form.
>
>Yes, we do upset the balance of nature. Ecosystems may take centuries or
>even millennia to develop, maybe even longer. We can destroy them in a
>matter of days.
=====================
So could a massive volcanic eruption or a huge meteor strike.
Are THEY not "natural"?
==========================
>
>> Humankind is PART of "the balance of nature", and the "social
>> process" IS natural.
>
>Then why are there so many different social processes as you go from
>culture to culture?
==================
You may as well ask why are there so many variations among species
from environment to environment?
=============
>Those are imposed for reasons that may have little to
>do with survival? For example, why are men in some societies circumcised
>but not in others? There is no natural reason.
=====================
You absolutely cannot say that, unless you were THERE at the time
the process started. Could damned WELL be because of survival.
Hygiene, sensitvity, maybe even "attractiveness". I don't know, and
neither do you.
There may be no "natural" reason NOW...and further, with that
particular act, it is disappearing all over the world. Why? Maybe
universally available hot water might have something to do w/it...???.
=====================
> It is strictly cultural.
>Are arranged marriages natural? Is human monogamy natural? Or were these
>culturally imposed because of factors dealing with civilization?
==========================
They arose because they were seen as giving SURVIVAL OF THE CULTURE
a better chance.
=======================
>
>> The same laws apply up and down the scale of "nature"
>
>Actually natural selection isn't a law. It is a scientific theory. It
>describes a mechnanism by which we believe evolution occurs. The term
>"law" is rarely used these days, having been replaced by the word
>"principal," but in either case they describe events in nature that always
>seem to occur. Thus, in physical and chemical changes, matter is neither
>created nor destroyed (law of conservation of matter).
>
>Laws described observed facts. Theories propose explanations for these facts.
==================
I'm describing observed facts.
Fact: Musical styles that do not please a certain number of people
over a certain period of time (enough to pay for the practitioners'
livelihood) tend to eventually disappear and not be widely copied.
(See Paul Whiteman and that particular style of playing.)
Fact: Musical styles that DO please a certain number of people over
a certain period of time (enough to pay for the practitioners'
livelihood) tend to sustain, be more widely copied, and (here's that
dreaded word again...) EVOLVE. (See Charlie Parker and the bebop
movement, upon which easily 90% of the "jazz" being played today is
more or less based.)
Certainly Whiteman was in fashion and made lots of money for a
period of time, and certainly the beboppers scuffled their asses off
for decades, but eventually Whiteman's style of playing all but
disappeared and Bird's style of playing became the basis for a
thriving idiom.
Why???
Because alternatives to Whiteman appeared that pleased more
people...the swing era big bands...but the alternatives to bebop (I
use the term VERY generally, to include most Miles + 'Trane,
Brookmeyer and Lovano and Wynton, even Machito and Andy
Gonzalez...basically tonal music played around changes w/a rhythm
section and "swing" 8th notes) have NEVER attracted much more than the
bare minimum of paying customers. Enough to survive, but not much more
than that.
================================
>
>Finally, the fact that you misapply the theory of evolution by natural
>selection (which, btw, is only one mechanism by which evolution may occur),
>means that your entire argument was invalid. You would have been better
>off stating that you misunderstood the term than to continue arguing for
>something that only pseudoscientists believe to be true and that no
>respectable practicing scientist would even think of stating.
>
>> As above, so below
>
>See above.
===============
See below.
=====================
>> =========================.
>> >To imply that there is a "natural selection"
>> >that drives changes in culture is to imply a kind of social Darwinism.
>>
>> ========================
>>
>> No, it is to say that this is WHAT I SEE.
>>
>> I would see it WITHOUT reading Darwin, and I would not use the term
>> "social Darwinism" in polite society.
>
>No, you would not have used the term "natural selection" without having
>read or read of Darwin or his ideas. "Natural selection" is a term from
>biology, and biologists use it for a specific set of circumstances. Using
>it in any other circumstance is applying in the same way social Darwinists
>did, whether you realized it or not. Again, to be informed that you are
>doing so, and I said from the start that I thought you used the term
>"natural selection" out of its biological context unwittingly, is not
>attacking you.
================
Nor do I feel personally attacked.
I'm just trying to communicate an idea using idiomatic late 20th
century English, and I maintain that the term "natural selection" does
NOT imply social Darwinism, nor is it the sole property of biologists.
If I were talking to a footbal fan and said that such and such a
team had dropped out of contention due to "natural selection" he would
doubtless understand JUST what I was saying, REGARDLESS of whether he
was a beer swilling grammar school dropout or a Harvard professor.
In fact, ANY common sense workingman's bar would be a better place
to have this discussion...maybe not about "jazz" per se, but certainly
about idioms and styles...than this particular forum, because plumbers
and cops generally don't bring such a load of academic bullshit to the
table.
=======================
>As far as using a term in polite society, that's another can of worms.
>Neo-nazis don't say they want Jews or blacks exterminated, but their
>behavior shows that they aren't much different from the brownshirts of the
>'20s and '30s. They don't use the term "genocide" in polite society.
>Unfortunately, by implying that those societal practices that are the
>fittest survive because of nature, you're putting yourself into the same
>bed as those who embraced those same ideas 75 odd years ago. I still don't
>think you wanted to do that.
=============================
No,you're right, I don't wish to sleep w/them.
I DO wish to say what I see, I DO see styles as competing in the
marketplace for audiences, and I DO see it as a form of "natural
selection" . People listen to the various offerings, and they SELECT
that which is most NATURAL for themTO select.
I draw ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS from it than the so called
"social Darwinists" did, however.
I want EVERYONE to get their chance to compete. I don't
care...bebop, free, latin, shakuhachi, bring 'em on. Let's see what
shakes out the other side.
As far as cultures or styles (OR races) in society, ditto.
====================================
>
>> If you feel compelled to do so, you're welcome to it, but I repeat,
>> when you attempt tocompress an idea to fit a label, you are reducing
>> it to a line drawing. The sketch of a tree is not that tree, the map
>> of an area is not that area, and "social Darwinism" is not what I
>> said.
>
>No, but the ideas were those of social Darwinism, or something very much
>akin to them. I can be a racist without ever using the term, can't I?
>What I say and what I think or feel may be two different things.
====================
Indeed, but for the sake of this discussion, let's assume we're
each speaking honestly, OK ?
I'm a working jazz and latin musician, and the NYC culture in which
I live would have so horrified Hitler (or the "social Darwinists",
I'll bet) he would have had us all murdered well BEFORE he got to the
Jews.
============================
>
>That's precisely why I pointed out that you had misused the term "natural
>selection." That's what introduced this whole thread, and it could have
>been avoided if you had only said, you misused the term unthinkingly or
>unknowingly.
>
>> =============================
But I won't say that.
Sorry.
================
>> >
>> >I don't think you meant this, but to anyone with an education in the realm
>> >of science, you have accidentally done so.
>> >
>> >> ============================
>>
>> Depends on how GOOD an education.
>
>My degree is in chemistry. I've taught biology, chemistry, and physics. I
>think my education in science was quite good.
======================
If you can't see past the limitations of your education, then no,
it appears it wasn't that good after all.
I don't care WHAT degrees you hold, or from where you hold them...
If I, a musician, were to write in and take someone to task for
using the word "harmony" in a social context , it would be much the
same as what you're doing.
-===============================
==========================
>
>> I've met doctors, physicists, people from all areas of "the realm
>> of science" (sounds like some royal game preserve), who haven't had an
>> original thought since they realized that sucking up to teachers and
>> studying to learn the correct answers on tests would net them a good
>> career and some money.
>>
>> I've met others who could think for themselves....but, as in every
>> discipline, they're few and far between.
>
>Yeah, we're not all Newtons and Einsteins and Lavoisiers. And musicians
>aren't all Armstrongs or Parkers or Davises. So?
>
>> ========================
So?
==============================
===big snip========
>
>> Later...gotta go back to work.
>
>I'm on vacation, so I'll just be going back to reading here.
>
>nsmf
=====================
I'll not involve myself in this much more, if at all...I've made my
point, you've made yours.
I disagree w.much of what you have to say, and you the same.
So be it.
Enjoy yopur vacation...
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
>In article <36fcd06b...@news.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>> Trumpets don't kill people, PEOPLE do.
>
>Exactly why comparing stylistic "wars" to WWII makes no sense
>whatsoever. Human lives were at stake in the latter case only. There
>is nothing inevitable or healthy about wars between musical styles.
>
>--------------
>Marc Sabatella
====================================
What BETTER reason to move the competition from the battlefield to
the bandstand and marketplace?
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
>Look, suppose you're right about all the following points:
>
>(i) There's a war going on for cultural ascendancy in music (ie gigs,
>recordings, etc.).
>
>(ii) We are all to some extent or other soldiers in this war.
>
>(iii) Whoever wins will be considered by these victors to have captured the
>market on aesthetic value.
>
>It's hard to dispute any of those things. As you correctly point out, it's
>not much different from squirrels scratching around for that last acorn.
>
>The problem is, as Hume pointed out, to derive "ought" from "is" is just a
>simple fallacy. That is, it can never follow from a statement of the form
>"Everyone thinks so-and-so is good" (which is a factual statement) that
>"So-and-so actually IS good" which is not a factual statement at all, but an
>aesthetic or moral judgement.
================
Well...I'm not USING the word "good" in a aesthetic sense, I'm
simply stating that what music "survives" is what is liked by a
certain number of people, and that what doesn't survive is what is NOT
liked by a certain number of people.
I PERSONALLY think that any NUMBER of players that are
"good"...that is, make fine music to which I personally enjoy
listening...have been totally ignored by the marketplace, and further
that there are any number of players who HAVE been blessed w/large
sales who have absolutely NO redeeming musical characteristics.
The market doesn't really care what I think.
==================
>It's only these leaps into might-makes-right territory that give your
>generally thoughtful posts a fascistic ring. When you say stuff to the
>effect that "Hey, I wouldn't have liked it if Hitler had succeeded, but if
>he had, I would have been proven wrong, and he would have been proven right"
=================
NO NO NO !!!
I DID NOT SAY THAT.
I DID say that I had a certain faith in the eventual dominance of
styles AND governments that were the most efficient, and further that
in the progression of history up to the present time humanity had
ALWAYS made the ultimate decision AWAY from what is generally called
"fascism".
Takes some time, takes some competition (wars in the international
political arena), but the "bad guys" always lose eventually.
WHY ? Because their stuff doesn't WORK as well as the "good guys".
I also said that it seemed to me the very moral DEFINITIONS of
"good" and "bad" were based on what really worked over the long term
and what didn't, and I'll stand by that too.
==============
>you're just committing this fallacy. The statement "Jews are inferior and
>ought to be destroyed" is not merely a prediction about the future: it's an
>incorrect and EVIL statement.
===================
And its EVIL lies in its INCORRECTNESS.
If it WERE "correct" (and my belief is that it certainly is
NOT...wars are STILL being fought to prove that point), then it
wouldn't BE "evil".
But it is, and Hitler's defeat proves it.
Had Germany WON W.W. II, the battle would have continued until the
idea WAS defeated. And I would have been one of the fighters.
In fact, come to think of it that battleIS still being fought, and
I AM one of the fighters.
=========================
>If your aesthetic/moral theory is doesn't
>recognize this, then it is an incorrect and EVIL theory. Sorry, but that's
>the case. Hume was right. You are wrong.
>
>Walter Horn
>
=================================
Hume may have been right...not my field of speciality.
I'm right too.
Maybe it's YOU who is wrong.
S.
SwingDoug
nils
<SNIP!> of intelligent discussion
> They say in boxing that "styles make fights".
>
> May the best style win.
>
> C'est la guerre.
I suppose. I myself don't see aesthetics as the
place to wage war. More a place to make your
statement and stand back, see if anyone relates
and can take it any further. Negative energy only
serves to distract people from the process of
creation and appreciation.
-Nils
Hal Vickery
Sabutin used the term "natural selection" to describe societal behaviors
and changes. That term comes from Darwin and is a mechanism by which he
proposed evolution of species occurred. It has to do with the passing on
of those traits that aid in survival of individuals because individuals
with those traits have a better opportunity than those that do not or those
with traits that would actually hinder survival and reproduction.
My argument is that the term is misused when taken out of that context. My
bailiwick is science education, and I've had a lot of contact with
scientists over the years. Scientists get very upset when very precise
terms (such as "natural selection") are used in an imprecise manner.
Applying the term "natural selection" to such social processes is just such
a misuse, whether it was intentional or unintentional.
In article <36fcc3e...@news.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
> hvic...@svs.com (Hal Vickery) wrote:
>
> >In article <36fbde34...@news.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com
> >wrote:
<snip to relevant portion>
> >You were the one who used the phrase "natural selection." That is a phrase
> >out of Darwin and biological evolution. Societies do not undergo natural
> >selection in terms of culture. All changes in culture are driven by social
> >process, not natural ones.
>
> ==========================
>
> Then you believe that humanity is not "natural"?
Two points:
(1) The term "natural selection" refers to the ability of members to
survive and reproduce. As we now understand it (because Darwin knew
nothing about genetics, Mendel's work would not be discovered for several
decades) natural selection involves the expression of those phenotypes that
appear to aid in survival. Those with the genotype that expresses thses
have a better chance to survive and reproduce. Those that do not are at a
disadvantage. Those that have genotypes that express phenotypes that aid
predators, cause early death, etc. will be at an extreme disadvantage and
will have a much greater chance of dying before reproducing. Thus, those
genes producing advantageous phenotypes will spread throughout a
population, and those with phenotypes that are disadvantageous will be
reduced in number.
So we see the fleetest gazelles survive while slower ones get eaten, dark
peppered moths survive in polluted areas while white one survive in
non-polluted areas, walking sticks survive becuase they look like sticks
and those that are the worst camouflaged or who move at the wrong times get
eaten, etc.
Now I'd like you to show me the relevance of natural selection to this thread.
(2) We are subject to the same laws of nature as all other organisms.
Thus if we cut down too many rain forests for cattle, if we put too many
greenhouse gases in the air, etc., we may alter the climate of the earth
just enough to guarantee our own extinction.
However, looking at it another way, we are beyond nature in several
respects. We are the only species that practices medicine, makes lenses to
aid those members who have difficulty seeing, and who have the ability to
destroy entire habitats and introduce other species into them for our own
use.
We are the only species capable of forcing other species to breed in order
to bring out characteristics we wish them to have (artificial selection)
which we do regularly with dogs, cats, sheep, cattle, etc. There is a
species of crab in Japan whose shell looks like a human face. This is
because those individuals in that species who through genetic accident had
that characteristic were thrown back while those who didn't were eaten by
people. No other species than us would do that. This is another example
of introducing a new factor into the selection process other than those
found in nature.
> I hear this often...that man has "upset the balance of nature",
> etc.
That is because we do exactly that. We introduced rabbits into Australia,
where they had no natural enemies, and they overran the continent. We
introduced Africanized honeybees (accidentally) into the bee population in
South America, and they took over. We killed off predators such as wolves
and coyotes in North America, and discovered that species competing with
farm animals grew too much in population, so that the predator species had
to be reintroduced.
Notice what balance of nature implies in these examples. Herbivores are
eaten by carnivores. Remove the carnivores (or introduce a species where
carnivores don't eat the new herbivores) and you have one population run
amok.
We're now cutting down rainforests at an alarming rate and releasing
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the population. These two
factors combined upset another type of balance, that which maintains the
planet's climate. We don't have good enough information to know if we are
causing global warming (the computer models are still not complex enough),
but when we find out, we may discover we are in the process of altering the
earth's climate to such an extent that we may drive ourselves into
extinction, and take out thousands or even millions of species with us.
Of course at that point, natural selection will then be the only form of
selection, and an earth radically different from the one we live in, as far
as species dominance, will take form.
Yes, we do upset the balance of nature. Ecosystems may take centuries or
even millennia to develop, maybe even longer. We can destroy them in a
matter of days.
> Humankind is PART of "the balance of nature", and the "social
> process" IS natural.
Then why are there so many different social processes as you go from
culture to culture? Those are imposed for reasons that may have little to
do with survival? For example, why are men in some societies circumcised
but not in others? There is no natural reason. It is strictly cultural.
Are arranged marriages natural? Is human monogamy natural? Or were these
culturally imposed because of factors dealing with civilization?
> The same laws apply up and down the scale of "nature"
Actually natural selection isn't a law. It is a scientific theory. It
describes a mechnanism by which we believe evolution occurs. The term
"law" is rarely used these days, having been replaced by the word
"principal," but in either case they describe events in nature that always
seem to occur. Thus, in physical and chemical changes, matter is neither
created nor destroyed (law of conservation of matter).
Laws described observed facts. Theories propose explanations for these facts.
Finally, the fact that you misapply the theory of evolution by natural
selection (which, btw, is only one mechanism by which evolution may occur),
means that your entire argument was invalid. You would have been better
off stating that you misunderstood the term than to continue arguing for
something that only pseudoscientists believe to be true and that no
respectable practicing scientist would even think of stating.
> As above, so below
See above.
> =========================.
> >To imply that there is a "natural selection"
> >that drives changes in culture is to imply a kind of social Darwinism.
>
> ========================
>
> No, it is to say that this is WHAT I SEE.
>
> I would see it WITHOUT reading Darwin, and I would not use the term
> "social Darwinism" in polite society.
No, you would not have used the term "natural selection" without having
read or read of Darwin or his ideas. "Natural selection" is a term from
biology, and biologists use it for a specific set of circumstances. Using
it in any other circumstance is applying in the same way social Darwinists
did, whether you realized it or not. Again, to be informed that you are
doing so, and I said from the start that I thought you used the term
"natural selection" out of its biological context unwittingly, is not
attacking you.
As far as using a term in polite society, that's another can of worms.
Neo-nazis don't say they want Jews or blacks exterminated, but their
behavior shows that they aren't much different from the brownshirts of the
'20s and '30s. They don't use the term "genocide" in polite society.
Unfortunately, by implying that those societal practices that are the
fittest survive because of nature, you're putting yourself into the same
bed as those who embraced those same ideas 75 odd years ago. I still don't
think you wanted to do that.
> If you feel compelled to do so, you're welcome to it, but I repeat,
> when you attempt tocompress an idea to fit a label, you are reducing
> it to a line drawing. The sketch of a tree is not that tree, the map
> of an area is not that area, and "social Darwinism" is not what I
> said.
No, but the ideas were those of social Darwinism, or something very much
akin to them. I can be a racist without ever using the term, can't I?
What I say and what I think or feel may be two different things.
That's precisely why I pointed out that you had misused the term "natural
selection." That's what introduced this whole thread, and it could have
been avoided if you had only said, you misused the term unthinkingly or
unknowingly.
> =============================
> >
> >I don't think you meant this, but to anyone with an education in the realm
> >of science, you have accidentally done so.
> >
> >> ============================
>
> Depends on how GOOD an education.
My degree is in chemistry. I've taught biology, chemistry, and physics. I
think my education in science was quite good.
> I've met doctors, physicists, people from all areas of "the realm
> of science" (sounds like some royal game preserve), who haven't had an
> original thought since they realized that sucking up to teachers and
> studying to learn the correct answers on tests would net them a good
> career and some money.
>
> I've met others who could think for themselves....but, as in every
> discipline, they're few and far between.
Yeah, we're not all Newtons and Einsteins and Lavoisiers. And musicians
aren't all Armstrongs or Parkers or Davises. So?
> ========================
As far as trying to make a point, you are having a great deal of trouble
because the use of the term "natural selection" out of context obscures
what you ARE trying to say. And your defending this misuse is making you
less credible. That's "trouble" in my book.
> Had Hitler (or the eugenicists) won...and the battle continues to
> this day, in other forms, best believe it...THEY would have been
> "right". You and I and a WHOLE lotta others would probably be dead;
> "jazz" would probably be nonexistent, and whoever survived would on
> one level or another have of necessity bought into their program.
But none of this would have occurred by natural processes, unless you
consider mass slaughter of "racial" groups in the name of "racial
superiority" to be natural processes. I don't.
> BUT...they DIDN'T "win", As I said, the battle continues, but a
> good case could be made that all over the world those ideas are
> "losing".
>
> WHY are they losing?
>
> Because OTHER ideas work better, produce societies that function
> more efficiently, that are capable of stronger efforts in competition
> w/them. This is tested in shooting wars, in economic wars...AND in
> cultural wars.
War is also not a natural process, at least modern war isn't. Domination
and subjugation, racism, and other causes of modern war have little to do
with survival as individuals or as species. They have to do more with
ideologies, and ideologies don't fit in the realm of nature.
This brings us back to the present subject...Mr.
> Crouch, the "avant-garde", and (sorry to use this word, but here goes)
> the "evolution" of jazz.
>
> If this sounds suspiciously like the competition amongst the
> species, so be it. Darwin saw what he saw on the Galapagos Islands; I
> see what I see on Manhattan Island.
And to say you were making an analogy with competition would be fine. But
you didn't.
> I'm not copping his licks; I'm just playing MY music.
Then either say (a) "this is analogous to" and then show how, or (b) don't
use the term "natural selection" out of context.
>
> =========================
>
> >> This appears to me to be a variation on the "In this day and
> >> age..." argument that I hear so often.
> >>
> >> "In this day and age, to still have wars !!!"
> >>
> >> "In this day and age, to still have unfairness !!!"
> >>
> >> "In this day and age, to still have ignorance !!!"
> >>
> >> But " this day and age" is the same as every OTHER day and age.
> >
> ==================
>
> >It is the same but it is not the same. Humans have the intelligence to
> >overcome things like war, unfairness, and ignorance.
>
> ========================
>
> AH HA...an OPTIMIST !!!
Damn straight.
> ====================
>
> >That we choose not to
> >is not necessarily an argument that things always have to be that way
>
> ==================================
>
> I'm sorry, Mr. Vickery, but I must disagree.
>
> That we CONSISTENTLY AND FOREVER have"choosen" not to overcome
> things like war, unfairness, and ignorance is INDEED an argument that
> things "always have to be that way", or is at the very least an
> indication that things are likely to remain the much same for some
> time.
But not forever.
> The very use of the word "choose" implies some choice in the
> matter.
Correct.
> So far I have seen no choice whatsoever.
I do every two years. I choose using a ballot box. That the majority may
at times disagree with me does not mean I have less of a choice, it just
means that more people choose to go a different direction. So when was the
last war Switzerland fought in?
> People compete.
But not always for survival. Sometimes it's because of pride, prejudice,
or even greed. All of these are social reasons for competition. Darwin
used competition in a more fundamental sense, the competition to survive,
reproduce, and pass on your genes.
> Styles compete.
Which again has nothing to do with "natural selection," does it?
> Cultures compete.
And cultures are very artificial artifices.
> Countries compete.
And borders that are lines on a map are about as artificial and unnatural
as you can get.
> Hell, even Communism, which was at least to some degree BASED on
> the idea not competing, devolved into (and eventually failed because
> of) competition w/OTHER forms of social organization.
And Communism was based on ideology which had nothing to do with Darwin's
ideas and, therefore, qualify as artificial, not natural.
> The individual choice NOT to compete is a form of suicide, because
> unless we ALL choose that...not bloody likely...then that individual
> will, on one level or another, get his or her ass THOROUGHLY kicked by
> those who have not (I would argue CANNOT) "chosen" to do so
> themselves.
The place of the individual in natural selection has to do with whether
it's genes get passed on by the ability to reproduce. In evolution, if you
have lived to be an adult and have produced one offspring, you have
successfully competed. That, sir, is natural selection. The description
above has absolutely nothing to do with it.
> If we had "chosen" not to compete w/Hitler, we'd all be either
> Nazis or corpses now.
And there were a number of individuals in Congress who until Pearl Harbor
was bombed chose not to compete with the axis powers. This was a conscious
choice and had nothing to do with natural selection.
> ============================
>
> >
> >> Just later.
> >
> >Unfortunately, with nuclear arsenals, it could be that later could be
too late.
>
> ==========================
>
> Could be...but we're talking about Stanley Crouch, not Clinton.
Then don't bring Darwin into the conversation.
> =========================
> >
> >At any rate here is the problem as I see it. The term natural selection is
> >a term that Darwin used to describe the driving force behind evolution of
> >species in nature. It has nothing to do with how societies evolve, and you
> >misappropriated a term from biology that has all kinds of ramifications due
> >to its misapplication in the past.
> >
> ===========================
>
> I disagree.
>
> ================
Then you are wrong.
> >Natural selection refers to what goes on in nature. Period. Had you just
> >said that there is a selection process by which societies evolve, I
> >wouldn't have a bit of trouble. By adding the word "natural" you
> >unwittingly borrowed an argument used by social Darwinists. Ideas that
> >Darwin himself said were misapplied.
>
> ===================
>
> I no more give a shit about terms or arguments among a bunch of
> academic sociologists than I do about arguments among a bunch of
> academic jazz critics.
Then to avoid that difficulty, I'd suggest choosing your terminology better.
> Darwin thought they were wrong...I'm sure Bird thought most critics
> were wrong, whether they "liked" his music or not.
And fortunately for those who don't like racism and genocide, most of the
rest of the scientific community sees the social Darwinists as misstating
and misapplying Darwin's terminology.
> They pursue THEIR "art"...I pursue mine.
Which is how most of us behave. I've got no argument with you there. It's
when you step outside of the territory you know and misuse terminology that
comes from my turf, that led me to say anything here. Up until that point,
I was just reading the thread.
> Where their pursuits and mine intersect...there maybe I pay a
> little attention before going back to work.
Which is exactly what I'm doing here. You intersected my path, and you
misused terminology that comes from my turf (science). I'm paying you a
bit of attention before I go back to just reading the thread.
> Later...gotta go back to work.
I'm on vacation, so I'll just be going back to reading here.
nsmf
Marc Sabatella
> Trumpets don't kill people, PEOPLE do.
Exactly why comparing stylistic "wars" to WWII makes no sense
whatsoever. Human lives were at stake in the latter case only. There
is nothing inevitable or healthy about wars between musical styles.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
James P. Reed
> There is no natural reason. It is strictly cultural.
along with a lot of other statements.
One critical weakness of natural (whatever that means) scientists and
social (again, whatever that means) scientists is that social scientists
deal with the NATURE of human behavior as a SCIENCE; i.e., natural
reasons for human behavior.
This discussion is becoming altogether too anal and too academic, a
problem I often have with my college students and colleagues who are not
able to see beyond simple black and white representations of life,
particularing when they're feeling insecure or threatened regarding the
superficial ultimate truths they rely on to keep their primal fears at
bay.
Sure, when I feel insecure or inferior, I get angry and judgemental and
lose my ability to view things in a more accepting manner, as food for
thought. At my worst, I get as human as the next guy, play God, and sit
in judgement on others, whose talk has upset me WHICH IS MY PROBLEM, not
theirs. At this point, I castigate folks, use literal language, get
very anal and judgemental. None-the-less, much of the bullshit being
discussed here really only represents opinions and inferiority complexes
and human insecurites; often only projections of personal problems and
issues, not ultimate truths.
IMHO, the only absolute truth we may have to work with is that we all
get an equal opportunity to die. The rest of our theories have evolved
to surpress or quiet our damned fears and insecurites. All in the name
of knowledge! Like some damn fool out here really is God and knows
ultimate truth, other than for themselves, and maybe their colleagues.
$.02 worth on a Sunday morning.
Jim
Calliotte/Horn
(i) There's a war going on for cultural ascendancy in music (ie gigs,
recordings, etc.).
(ii) We are all to some extent or other soldiers in this war.
(iii) Whoever wins will be considered by these victors to have captured the
market on aesthetic value.
It's hard to dispute any of those things. As you correctly point out, it's
not much different from squirrels scratching around for that last acorn.
The problem is, as Hume pointed out, to derive "ought" from "is" is just a
simple fallacy. That is, it can never follow from a statement of the form
"Everyone thinks so-and-so is good" (which is a factual statement) that
"So-and-so actually IS good" which is not a factual statement at all, but an
aesthetic or moral judgement.
It's only these leaps into might-makes-right territory that give your
generally thoughtful posts a fascistic ring. When you say stuff to the
effect that "Hey, I wouldn't have liked it if Hitler had succeeded, but if
he had, I would have been proven wrong, and he would have been proven right"
you're just committing this fallacy. The statement "Jews are inferior and
ought to be destroyed" is not merely a prediction about the future: it's an
incorrect and EVIL statement. If your aesthetic/moral theory is doesn't
recognize this, then it is an incorrect and EVIL theory. Sorry, but that's
the case. Hume was right. You are wrong.
Walter Horn
--
Please check out "Screwdriver!" at http://music.acmecity.com/acidrock/93/
sab...@mindspring.com wrote in message
<36fcd3db...@news.mindspring.com>...
John Monroe
> natural selection:
> The process in nature by which, according to Sabutin's theory of
> evolution, only the styles most pleasing to their audience tend to
> survive and transmit their stylistic characteristics in increasing
> numbers to succeeding generations while those less well adapted tend
> to be eliminated.
This thread has already evolved from a simple planarian into a whole
damned *can* of worms (when the Nazis start getting discussed at length,
duck!), but I've been following it with interest all the same, and can't
resist throwing in a comment about the above point.
In the posts that started this whole farrago, I think Sabutin raised
some valid questions. Why do people enjoy sub-standard art (that is, art
perceived as "sub-standard" by an appropriately educated observer), in
whatever genre? To what extent are people's listening preferences shaped
by purely social considerations -- the desire to project a certain
"image," say, or to identify with a particular subculture? Are those
whose listening preferences *are* shaped by social considerations less
sincere in their enjoyment of the music? Is it even possible to separate
listening from social considerations in the first place? (Even Sabutin,
after all, is defining himself socially through musical preferences --
he's a professional musician, and identifies himself as part of that group
by judging music according to particular standards.) None of these
questions have simple answers, but they're all worth asking.
As an avant-garde fan myself, I've definitely had experiences where I've
listened to particular players and thought -- blech! They have no idea
what they're doing! This is awful! (See my recent post about the band
"Ayler's Ghosts" being cut by Maurice McIntyre). Usually, this perception
comes from a sense that the players involved aren't *listening* to one
another, or lack the technical means to respond to their fellow players
musically -- it's easy enough to make sounds on an instrument; it's harder
to make those sounds part of an intelligent, developed improvised
exchange. To do the latter, even if it's "bleeps and blurps" and not
"I'll Remember April," requires a player to exert a certain amount of
*control* over his or her instrument.
If you're looking for avant-garde ineptitude, though, the "big names" who
have been bashed here (though not by Sabutin) are the wrong place to turn.
Players like Evan Parker and Alex v. Schlippenbach are in fact
*virtuosos.* Whether you like their music or not, their technical command
is beyond question. If I picked up the soprano sax and noodled on it for
a couple years, there's no way I'd be able to produce the 1975 "Saxophone
Solos." The same goes, of course, for someone like Wynton Marsalis.
So up to this point, I think Sabutin's on to something interesting. What
makes a bad avant-garde player? How do you know? Ornette Coleman himself
said "I knew I was onto something when I realized I could make mistakes."
What about those players who are still at the stage where they *can't*
make mistakes?
But then, when the thread turned to bashing of the avant-garde in general,
Sabutin's position got weaker. The "natural selection" argument, in
particular, is *seriously* flawed, at least if you want to make a case
for the validity of any kind of Jazz. Right now, for example, I'm
listening to Charlie Parker's JATP recording of "Lady be Good," which I
think is one of the great moments of "straight-ahead" Jazz. My downstairs
neighbor hates it, and is playing The Offspring loudly enough that the
bass is making my floor vibrate. Who is winning the "audience selection"
sweepstakes? My downstairs neighbor, as one look at the TV will show.
If you were to judge the validity of a particular style of music on the
basis of the *number* of people who enjoy it, "straight-ahead" Jazz would
be just as badly off as avant-garde. Both represent "evolutionary
dead-ends," from the perspective of audience enthusiasm. Listen to the
radio -- hear any Jazz? No! As the ratings-wonk at the radio station
where I used to volunteer said over and over again (to justify his
enforced "smoothing" of our straight-ahead Jazz format), if you play
"traditional Jazz" to a focus group, they almost invariably *hate it.*
It's boring, corny, you name it.
If you believe that only the "best adapted" styles should continue to
survive, we might as well say goodbye to Jazz in all its forms -- from
Wynton Marsalis to Evan Parker.
John Monroe.
Hal Vickery
As pointed out by another poster, this is becoming a tedious discussion.
If someone wants to misuse terminology, I guess he is free to do so. I'm
going to point out the problems one final time and drop it. I'm taking up
too much time with this.
In article <36fcf78a...@news.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com
wrote:
> hvic...@svs.com (Hal Vickery) wrote:
<major snippage>
> >Now I'd like you to show me the relevance of natural selection to this
thread.
> >
> ==================
>
> OK, I will.
>
> A few definitions are in order here first, though:
>
> 1-natural selection( noun)
> The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of
> evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend
> to survive and transmit their genetic characters in increasing numbers
> to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be
> eliminated.
>
> The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of
> evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend
> to survive and transmit their genetic characters in increasing numbers
> to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be
> eliminated.
>
> phenotype (fÍ¥ne-tÏp¥) noun
> 1. a. The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of
> an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental
> influences. b. The expression of a specific trait, such as stature or
> blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences.
> 2. An individual or group of organisms exhibiting a particular
> phenotype.
>
>
> genotype (jËn¥e-tÏp¥, jÍ¥ne-) noun
> 1. The genetic constitution of an organism or a group of
> organisms.
> 2. A group or class of organisms having the same genetic
> constitution.
>
>
> (The American HeritageÆ Dictionary of the English Language, Third
> Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
> version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights
> reserved.)
>
> ==============================
>
> I'll deal w/natural selection first. The dictionary definition
> (Sorry if it's not a particlarly prestigious dictionary...but it's one
> well w/in the mainstream of commion American usage, and I'm not
> writing this for Scientific American", let alone a specialized
> scientific journal of some sort.) uses the words:
>
> "The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of
> evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend
> to survive and transmit their genetic characters in increasing numbers
> to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be
> eliminated."
>
> In music...or any other audience based medium...the audience IS the
> environment, and I would contend that the analogue to "genetic
> characteristics" would be "stylistic characeristics". Those things
> that make a wolf a recognizeably a wolf or a tulip a tulip are its
> "genetic characteristics"..ditto those things that make bebop
> recognizeably bebop or bluegrass bluegrass.
>
> Thus I would approve of a rewriting of the above selection to
> describe the "natural selection" of music as this:
What you have just done is deal with analogy, not with natural selection
itself. As I think I mentioned before, had you said you were using an
analogy, I'd have no problem.
<snip analogies>
> Just different definitions of a word. I include all the universe,
> including mankind, in the idea of "nature" or "natural".
>
> You do not.
>
> I think you are wrong.
>
> ======================
And vice versa. Societal constraints are not necessarily natural behavior.
In fact they may go contrary to natural behavior.
<snip telling about the rabbits, etc.>
> ======================
>
> This is NOT "unbalancing the balance of nature"...it IS "altering"
> that pre-human balance, and further, if we continue to do so we will
> be either checked or eliminated...but we ARE part of that (as yet)
> contiuing "balance of nature". If there comes a time when what we do
> "unbalances" the balanced bicycle of nature...we will be thrown off.
>
> ====================
We are the alien force in the ecosystem we have invaded. As for the last
part, I already said that.
<snip the ultimate destruction of the earth by Homo sapiens sapiens>
> =====================
>
> Indeed...and I devoutly pray that we do not do that.
>
> However, if we do, then THAT is the "balance of nature", and
> farewwell to our sorry, meddling, primitive asses.
>
> ==========================
Which would not have occurred had it not been for our meddling, i.e. going
outside of nature. You made my point with that statement.
<snip to the point>
> >Yes, we do upset the balance of nature. Ecosystems may take centuries or
> >even millennia to develop, maybe even longer. We can destroy them in a
> >matter of days.
>
> =====================
>
> So could a massive volcanic eruption or a huge meteor strike.
>
> Are THEY not "natural"?
>
> ==========================
They don't do it to introduce another ecosystem based on agriculture,
urbanization, coal mining, or whatever, though. Those are not natural
processes. There were no cities, farms, mines, etc. before we came along.
> >> Humankind is PART of "the balance of nature", and the "social
> >> process" IS natural.
> >
> >Then why are there so many different social processes as you go from
> >culture to culture?
>
> ==================
>
> You may as well ask why are there so many variations among species
> from environment to environment?
Usually there aren't. Species are usually pretty easily identified. When
the environment changes enough to cause major changes in the adaptations of
organisms to that environment, speciation often occurs, and individuals
from the new species are no longer capable of interbreeding. Every one of
those finches that Darwin looked at is a different species. Your analogy
doesn't work here.
> =============
> >Those are imposed for reasons that may have little to
> >do with survival? For example, why are men in some societies circumcised
> >but not in others? There is no natural reason.
>
> =====================
>
> You absolutely cannot say that, unless you were THERE at the time
> the process started. Could damned WELL be because of survival.
> Hygiene, sensitvity, maybe even "attractiveness". I don't know, and
> neither do you.
> There may be no "natural" reason NOW...and further, with that
> particular act, it is disappearing all over the world. Why? Maybe
> universally available hot water might have something to do w/it...???.
I wonder how all those uncircumcised groups managed to survive and proliferate.
> =====================
>
> > It is strictly cultural.
> >Are arranged marriages natural? Is human monogamy natural? Or were these
> >culturally imposed because of factors dealing with civilization?
>
> ==========================
>
> They arose because they were seen as giving SURVIVAL OF THE CULTURE
> a better chance.
And that is not natural selection by the very definition you copied from
the dictionary. Again for one more time, the use of natural selection has
a specific meaning, and you are trying to use it without saying that what
you are talking about is ANALAGOUS to it.
<snip to the point, including my misspelling of "principle" in the snipped
passage. Yikes!>
> >Laws described observed facts. Theories propose explanations for these
facts.
>
> ==================
>
> I'm describing observed facts.
>
> Fact: Musical styles that do not please a certain number of people
> over a certain period of time (enough to pay for the practitioners'
> livelihood) tend to eventually disappear and not be widely copied.
> (See Paul Whiteman and that particular style of playing.)
On the other hand you are still dealing with an analogy, not natural
selection itself.
> Fact: Musical styles that DO please a certain number of people over
> a certain period of time (enough to pay for the practitioners'
> livelihood) tend to sustain, be more widely copied, and (here's that
> dreaded word again...) EVOLVE. (See Charlie Parker and the bebop
> movement, upon which easily 90% of the "jazz" being played today is
> more or less based.)
Still an analogy, not natural selection or evolution by natural selection.
> Certainly Whiteman was in fashion and made lots of money for a
> period of time, and certainly the beboppers scuffled their asses off
> for decades, but eventually Whiteman's style of playing all but
> disappeared and Bird's style of playing became the basis for a
> thriving idiom.
>
> Why???
>
> Because alternatives to Whiteman appeared that pleased more
> people...the swing era big bands...but the alternatives to bebop (I
> use the term VERY generally, to include most Miles + 'Trane,
> Brookmeyer and Lovano and Wynton, even Machito and Andy
> Gonzalez...basically tonal music played around changes w/a rhythm
> section and "swing" 8th notes) have NEVER attracted much more than the
> bare minimum of paying customers. Enough to survive, but not much more
> than that.
I think we're getting closer to an analogy with sexual selection here.
Those individuals that reproduce will be those that have certain
characteristics that are pleasing to those of potential mates. Those not
possessing these traits, unless they find mates who respond to whatever
traits they have, will not reproduce. It's a bad analogy, but certainly
better than natural selection.
<snip to next point>
> I'm just trying to communicate an idea using idiomatic late 20th
> century English, and I maintain that the term "natural selection" does
> NOT imply social Darwinism, nor is it the sole property of biologists.
The term natural selection IS the property of biologists since it is a term
that comes from biology, just as the term proton acid is a term belonging
to chemists since they are the group that defines what an acid is. Darwin
defined natural selection. It is not an idiomatic term. It is a term
having a definite, biological meaning.
Just as I cannot say that bebop is another term used to describe Dixieland,
you can't say that natural selection is just another way of describing
social changes.
> If I were talking to a footbal fan and said that such and such a
> team had dropped out of contention due to "natural selection" he would
> doubtless understand JUST what I was saying, REGARDLESS of whether he
> was a beer swilling grammar school dropout or a Harvard professor.
On the other hand, it would be an untrue statement.
> In fact, ANY common sense workingman's bar would be a better place
> to have this discussion...maybe not about "jazz" per se, but certainly
> about idioms and styles...than this particular forum, because plumbers
> and cops generally don't bring such a load of academic bullshit to the
> table.
Okay, bebop IS just another word for Dixieland. I don't want to put up
with that academic bullshit about music, either.
<snip>
> I DO wish to say what I see, I DO see styles as competing in the
> marketplace for audiences, and I DO see it as a form of "natural
> selection" . People listen to the various offerings, and they SELECT
> that which is most NATURAL for themTO select.
Still not what natural selection means. At best an analogy.
> I draw ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS from it than the so called
> "social Darwinists" did, however.
I had a feeling that was true.
> I want EVERYONE to get their chance to compete. I don't
> care...bebop, free, latin, shakuhachi, bring 'em on. Let's see what
> shakes out the other side.
And again, I can't disagree with this.
> As far as cultures or styles (OR races) in society, ditto.
Nor this. It is a world view to which each of us may or may not subscribe.
> I'm a working jazz and latin musician, and the NYC culture in which
> I live would have so horrified Hitler (or the "social Darwinists",
> I'll bet) he would have had us all murdered well BEFORE he got to the
> Jews.
Of that I have little doubt. See the movie Swing Kids.
> ============================
> >
> >That's precisely why I pointed out that you had misused the term "natural
> >selection." That's what introduced this whole thread, and it could have
> >been avoided if you had only said, you misused the term unthinkingly or
> >unknowingly.
> >
> >> =============================
>
> But I won't say that.
>
> Sorry.
>
> ================
Or in fact simply said that you saw a good analogy. Hell, I use analogies
all the time in my teaching, like the electron cloud being similar to the
blades of a moving fan. But I do take care to point out the differences.
> >> >I don't think you meant this, but to anyone with an education in the realm
> >> >of science, you have accidentally done so.
> >> >
> >> >> ============================
> >>
> >> Depends on how GOOD an education.
> >
> >My degree is in chemistry. I've taught biology, chemistry, and physics. I
> >think my education in science was quite good.
>
> ======================
>
> If you can't see past the limitations of your education, then no,
> it appears it wasn't that good after all.
And vice versa.
> I don't care WHAT degrees you hold, or from where you hold them...
>
> If I, a musician, were to write in and take someone to task for
> using the word "harmony" in a social context , it would be much the
> same as what you're doing.
Nope. Look up harmony in the dictionary. There is a definition in that
context: "agreement in feeling, action, ideas, interests, etc.; peaceable
or friendly relations." You quoted no similar definition for "natural
selection" in a social context.
So if you did stat that someone was misusing "harmony" in that context, you
would wrong. You have quoted no similar definition to natural selection
other than your own made up personal definition. Therefore, unless you can
find that other definition, I am not doing the same thing you state above.
> =====================
>
> I'll not involve myself in this much more, if at all...I've made my
> point, you've made yours.
>
> I disagree w.much of what you have to say, and you the same.
>
> So be it.
>
> Enjoy yopur vacation...
I tend to agree that this has played itself out, and probably did a couple
of posts back, but nobody is forcing anyone to read this.
At any rate, it was fun, and I enjoyed the discussion.
nsmf
Krishna Rayaprolu
John Monroe wrote:
> In the posts that started this whole farrago, I think Sabutin raised
> some valid questions. Why do people enjoy sub-standard art (that is, art
> perceived as "sub-standard" by an appropriately educated observer), in
> whatever genre? To what extent are people's listening preferences shaped
> by purely social considerations -- the desire to project a certain
> "image," say, or to identify with a particular subculture? Are those
> whose listening preferences *are* shaped by social considerations less
> sincere in their enjoyment of the music? Is it even possible to separate
> listening from social considerations in the first place? (Even Sabutin,
> after all, is defining himself socially through musical preferences --
> he's a professional musician, and identifies himself as part of that group
> by judging music according to particular standards.) None of these
> questions have simple answers, but they're all worth asking.
I have a hard time understanding "socio-cultural" influences on listening as
it relates to Jazz. I can understand that for other genres of music but not
jazz or a.g.-jazz which have such a low audience. For myself, my culture
(Indian) has little to do with Jazz. My society (colleagues, friends etc in
US) has just one guy who listens to similar music, and he was the one who
introduced me to jazz.
One interesting question that came up in this thread was why it took such a
long time for people to appreciate some artists (the example given was Van
Gogh but there are tons of examples in Jazz). There seem to be atleast three
beliefs in this thread for answering that question. Some seem to believe that
tastes differ from people to people, vary with time and societies. You
probably might say that people couldn't relate those artists to any standards
they were familiar with, and it took a while for new standards to evolve. I
believe that a given piece of music needs a certain training for ears and mind
as a prerequisite to get the most out of it. The training could be to
perceive more components in music, or to break certain biases, or to expand
our definition of music, etc. The people of those times simply didn't have
the opportunity to get that training. The same can be said to explain why
Indian musicians could't appreciate jazz beyond KennyG or why a.g. jazz has
such a poor audience.
I am sure every one of us have a list of musical pieces that led us to
appreciate a given "difficult" music. The list and the duration of training
is different for different people based on their abilities, strength of
biases, background, etc. The artists who created radically new styles were
hard to understand because people didn't have enough examples of music of that
kind to train their ears. The only examples they had were the artists' own
music.
I believe that the examples to train our ears do not have to come from the
same genre of music. For instance, I came from Indian classical music
background and when I first started listening to jazz, I had several
difficulties. I couldn't understand the harmonies, had a hard time
appreciating the subtleties of tone, couldn't listen to the piano at the same
time as listening to the horns and so on. Some people from a similar
background have biases against dissonance and loud music. But it was
relatively easier for me to appreciate jazz rhythms. Similarly someone from
rock background might have less biases against dissonance and should be able
to enjoy the energy in some of the jazz without much training. Taking it
further, I find that the experience I have with jazz is helping me in
appreciating fields as distant as some "difficult movies"!
Krishna
JC Martin
<7dmg1h$t4k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <7degqk$cua$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>
>> >I don't think it is fair to include Pullen among the whackos of
free/a.g.
>> >jazz. With a few exceptions in his recordings, Pullen was always
capable
>> >of reining in excesses, and with the Afro-Brazilian Connection,
>>
>> ...which is probably the only recording Amos has ever heard of Don's.
>
>Listen, go with whatever fantasy suits you, but if you are goin to
>look smart, at least know that there are at least 4 CDs by that
>group -- not just the one your friend told you about.
Oooh...that All-Music guide comes in handy, eh Amos? *LOL*
-JC
JC Martin
>
>
>If all you people actually stopped to listen to what Crouch is saying
>or read what he writes, you'd learn a lot about jazz. These knee-jerk
>reactions are really not conducive to your general >education.
Does that include all the pro-avant garde articles he wrote?
-JC
JC Martin
>The a.g/free con simply went on too far without being questioned. The
>public was continually being taken in by being told that every random noise
>by some talented hack was actually a piece of musical genius. What then
>happened is that a few people came along with enough knowledge, chops, etc.
>that they simply couldn't be dismissed as ignorant and said "that emporer
cat
>..." and a.g/free con has been on the run ever since.
>
>Attacks on Crouch are simply attacks on sensible people who like music
>played in a musical fashion. These are misguided missiles that will
>never really explode on anything. My advice to a.g./free cons is that
>they simply must go back to the woodshed and learn the needful. There
>is no other way out. The game is up, friends!
Amos, you truly live a sad existence. I feel very sorry for you.
Hope your life picks up soon.
Cheers,
JC
Calliotte/Horn
future, perhaps -- ultimately occur is touching, but you are still confusing
two concepts. Whether or not horrific things come to pass and stay with us
forever, they remain horrific. If people come not to think they are
horrific, these people, by definition, are just wrong. Darwinism is one
thing, relativism another. If you ask, who the hell am I to tell which
things are right, the answer, of course, is "nobody special." But this
admitted epistemic problem doesn't alter the fact that "being of high
quality" and "being liked by lots of people" don't mean the same thing (as
you actually seem to admit in your last posting).
Thus, nothing really follows from the assertion that some kind of music or
other will win the battle for market supremacy. If we agree that this fact
alone won't make the winning music GOOD, then...well, so what?
The people here who don't like Crouch are apparently of the opinion that he
is mistaken in his aesthetic judgments. I grant that ONE way of confirming
such judgments is to have a vote taken 50 or 200 years from now, but, Darwin
notwithstanding, it wouldn't be dispositive. What would be? Really,
nothing. That's why ethics and aesthetics are so hard. (Otherwise we could
just hire a polling firm.)
Walter Horn
PS: Wrong?? Moi???
PPS: I apologize if this turns out to be a rendundat posting. I tried to
send a similar thing this morning and it never showed. W
--
Please check out "Screwdriver!" at http://music.acmecity.com/acidrock/93/
sab...@mindspring.com wrote in message
<36fd0a82...@news.mindspring.com>...
>"Calliotte/Horn" <cal...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>>Look, suppose you're right about all the following points:
>>
>>(i) There's a war going on for cultural ascendancy in music (ie gigs,
>>recordings, etc.).
>>
>>(ii) We are all to some extent or other soldiers in this war.
>>
>>(iii) Whoever wins will be considered by these victors to have captured
the
>>market on aesthetic value.
>>
>>It's hard to dispute any of those things. As you correctly point out,
it's
>>not much different from squirrels scratching around for that last acorn.
>>
>>The problem is, as Hume pointed out, to derive "ought" from "is" is just a
>>simple fallacy. That is, it can never follow from a statement of the form
>>"Everyone thinks so-and-so is good" (which is a factual statement) that
>>"So-and-so actually IS good" which is not a factual statement at all, but
an
>>aesthetic or moral judgement.
>
>================
>
> Well...I'm not USING the word "good" in a aesthetic sense, I'm
>simply stating that what music "survives" is what is liked by a
>certain number of people, and that what doesn't survive is what is NOT
>liked by a certain number of people.
>
> I PERSONALLY think that any NUMBER of players that are
>"good"...that is, make fine music to which I personally enjoy
>listening...have been totally ignored by the marketplace, and further
>that there are any number of players who HAVE been blessed w/large
>sales who have absolutely NO redeeming musical characteristics.
>
> The market doesn't really care what I think.
>
>==================
>
>
>>It's only these leaps into might-makes-right territory that give your
>>generally thoughtful posts a fascistic ring. When you say stuff to the
>>effect that "Hey, I wouldn't have liked it if Hitler had succeeded, but if
>>he had, I would have been proven wrong, and he would have been proven
right"
>
>=================
>
>
> NO NO NO !!!
>
> I DID NOT SAY THAT.
>
> I DID say that I had a certain faith in the eventual dominance of
>styles AND governments that were the most efficient, and further that
>in the progression of history up to the present time humanity had
>ALWAYS made the ultimate decision AWAY from what is generally called
>"fascism".
>
> Takes some time, takes some competition (wars in the international
>political arena), but the "bad guys" always lose eventually.
>
> WHY ? Because their stuff doesn't WORK as well as the "good guys".
>
> I also said that it seemed to me the very moral DEFINITIONS of
>"good" and "bad" were based on what really worked over the long term
>and what didn't, and I'll stand by that too.
>
>==============
>
>>you're just committing this fallacy. The statement "Jews are inferior and
>>ought to be destroyed" is not merely a prediction about the future: it's
an
>>incorrect and EVIL statement.
>
>===================
>
> And its EVIL lies in its INCORRECTNESS.
>
> If it WERE "correct" (and my belief is that it certainly is
>NOT...wars are STILL being fought to prove that point), then it
>wouldn't BE "evil".
>
> But it is, and Hitler's defeat proves it.
>
> Had Germany WON W.W. II, the battle would have continued until the
>idea WAS defeated. And I would have been one of the fighters.
>
> In fact, come to think of it that battleIS still being fought, and
>I AM one of the fighters.
>
>
>=========================
>
>
>>If your aesthetic/moral theory is doesn't
>>recognize this, then it is an incorrect and EVIL theory. Sorry, but
that's
>>the case. Hume was right. You are wrong.
>>
>>Walter Horn
>>
>
sab...@mindspring.com
>In article <36fd0a34...@news.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>>>Exactly why comparing stylistic "wars" to WWII makes no sense
>>>whatsoever. Human lives were at stake in the latter case only. There
>>>is nothing inevitable or healthy about wars between musical styles.
>>
>> What BETTER reason to move the competition from the battlefield to
>>the bandstand and marketplace?
>
>What better reason to stop competing? *Nothing* is at stake.
=================
I believe you're wrong there. Mankind is still evolving...as is
life itself...and this question concerns a small corner of that
evolution.
On a smaller, more personal scale...careers are at stake.
Someone...this thread has gotten long enough that I haven't the time
to run through it and find out WHO, but I believe it was you...said
something to the effect that Stanley Crouch's was impacting the lives
of some free players in a negative fashion.
His writing is ALSO impacting the lives of a number of more
traditionally oriented players in a POSITIVE manner.
=========================
>Why make
>other people's lives miserable when, by doing nothing, everyone
>can be happy? I can think of one reason and one reason only: sadism.
>
>--------------
>Marc Sabatella
==========================
Well, here's that old and endless question...whether to take
action or NOT to take action. In ANY given situation. Whether 'tis
better to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fate, etc....
Everyone decides for themselves.
Words like "sadism" and "cowardice" get thrown around.
Even NOT "taking action" is an action.
I don't condone (or even try to GUESS) the pyschological motives
behind ANYONE'S actions anymore.
Too complicated; WAY too imprecise.
Is Stanley a sadist?
Was Churchill a megalomaniac?
Was my next door neighbor mistreated as a child?
I don't know, and basicallty, I don't care.
Churchill rallied the British to resist Hitler...what his MOTIVES
were interests me not at all.
Whether my (hypothetical) next door neighbor is a good, cooperative
neighbor, a totally neutral presence, or a threat of some kind to me
and my family and friends will determine my actions toward him. He can
BE a sadist for all I know, just so long as he doesn't fuck w/me and
mine.
Stanley Crouch appears to be fucking w/you and yours, and you ARE
taking action (very limited action, if this newsgroup is your sole
field of effort) toward him.
You ARE competing.
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
>Your faith that that which you would like to happen will -- in the distant
>future, perhaps -- ultimately occur is touching, but you are still confusing
>two concepts.
==================
My "faith" is that what will happen will be that which survives
best.
I'm not particularly fond of killer bees, but I certainly
understand how they have dominated their field.
If their dominance is not in my (our) best interests, then it
behooves us to resist them.
If we were to FAIL to resist them sufficiently...and all my
experience w/the human tribe tends to suggest that we WILL...then they
COULD conceivably make human life on earth, or at least w/in the
climatic areas where they can prosper, impossible.
As I said, I predict this will not happen, and my prediction is
based on the observed fact that organisms...and by extension, I
contend styles and cultures...that are evolutionarily more advanced
tend to dominate those that are LESS advanced.
There's an OUTSIDE (see "Twilight Zone" or "Star Trek"...) chance
that those "killer bees" are in fact a HIGHLY developed entity that is
in fact a MORE developed form of life than we are, and if that is the
case...our asses are doomed to be honey fodder, an evolutionary
footnote in the history of the swarm.
My bet, my observation, is that this is not going to be so.
===================================
>Whether or not horrific things come to pass and stay with us
>forever, they remain horrific. If people come not to think they are
>horrific, these people, by definition, are just wrong.
=============================
Do not misunderstand me here.
Death itself is "horrific", in one sense...especially the
consideration of our own, for most of us.
And it is certainly here to stay.
But to come to NOT think, at least on SOME level. that it is
TOTALLY "horrific", to come to accept the necessity of death as part
of the price for the continuation and growth of life...THAT'S another
thing altogether.
=============================
>Darwinism is one
>thing, relativism another. If you ask, who the hell am I to tell which
>things are right, the answer, of course, is "nobody special." But this
>admitted epistemic problem doesn't alter the fact that "being of high
>quality" and "being liked by lots of people" don't mean the same thing (as
>you actually seem to admit in your last posting).
==================
Absolutely (and we all, every second, decide " which things are
right").
In the long view, however, our own PERSONAL choices of "right" or
"good" are thrown into the hopper of history and culture, and out
comes what's GONNA be, what IS.
A long time ago I knew a guy who made Paul Simon sound like a
child...I would have SWORN he was going to revolutionize that area of
the music business.
I was wrong. He didn't have what it takes to do that...it's a whole
life of which we're speaking here, career decisions, personal
decisions, w/whom one chooses to ally oneself, whether or not to forgo
certain familial experiences for the sake of "art", etc.
I don't claim that the "best" (in my own necessarily limited view)
become "the most successful".
I claim that "the most successful" BECOME (in a broader view) "the
best"...by which I mean, THEY get to pass on their views and styles to
ANOTHER generation of artists.
That's the way it works...I don't care if we're speaking of James
Joyce, Dave Koz. the grunge rock movement, Beethoven or Attilla the
Hun. If they "win", they, at least for some amount of time, dominate.
========================
>
>Thus, nothing really follows from the assertion that some kind of music or
>other will win the battle for market supremacy. If we agree that this fact
>alone won't make the winning music GOOD, then...well, so what?
===================
Again, it has been my observation that eventually..,.takes greater
or lesser amounts of time, depending on the scale of endeavour...human
society REJECTS the inferior (less evolved, less "efficient", less
"effective") and EMBRACES the superior.
Joyce and Beethoven will be studied for centuries...Dave Koz is
outa here tomorrow, guaranteed.
==============================
>
>The people here who don't like Crouch are apparently of the opinion that he
>is mistaken in his aesthetic judgments. I grant that ONE way of confirming
>such judgments is to have a vote taken 50 or 200 years from now, but, Darwin
>notwithstanding, it wouldn't be dispositive. What would be? Really,
>nothing. That's why ethics and aesthetics are so hard. (Otherwise we could
>just hire a polling firm.)
>
>Walter Horn
>
>PS: Wrong?? Moi???
===================
I dunno about "dispositive", but I'm positive about DIS...y'pays
yer money and y'takes yer chances.
My bet's on more structured music, and those who play (and write
about) it. I'm no great fan of Wynton Marsalis's music, but neither am
I an ENEMY of him or it. I don't read Stanley Crouch much, but when I
DO read him...or see him speaking on TV...he generally makes great
sense to me.
To me, Wynton's just another VERY good working jazz musician, a
memeber of the same group of musicians to which I myself belong,
who's had the luck and sense to take his opportunites as he saw them,
and more power to him. If he were in a different career position, I'd
certainly ask him to play in MY band. He can play, and he can write.
I play w/people who are as "good" as Wynton every day. Probably
NONE of them will have the impact on jazz as he will have, say 50 or
100 years down the road.
Thus...if that's the way it works out...he's the man.
Is he "better"?
Dunno how to judge that.
Will he produce more stylistic offspring than, say Ryan Kisor, Tom
Williams, Greg Gisbert or Thad Jones?
More than likely.
More than Ornette, too.
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
>In article <36fcd3db...@news.mindspring.com>,
> sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> I truly believe that society inevitably eventually chooses that
>> which works best
>>
>
>Pangloss! THERE you are!
>
>Seriously, though, if you think about this, you'll realize that there is
>simply no way to know if things would have worked out better if history had
>been different. I think there is circular reasoning at work here:
>
>Society chooses that which works best.
>
> How do you know it's best?
>
>Because that's what society chooses.
>
>- Tom Storer
>
==================
To quote someone who sees things his own way:
"So it goes."
S,
sab...@mindspring.com
>On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>> natural selection:
>> The process in nature by which, according to Sabutin's theory of
>> evolution, only the styles most pleasing to their audience tend to
>> survive and transmit their stylistic characteristics in increasing
>> numbers to succeeding generations while those less well adapted tend
>> to be eliminated.
>
>This thread has already evolved from a simple planarian into a whole
>damned *can* of worms (when the Nazis start getting discussed at length,
>duck!), but I've been following it with interest all the same, and can't
>resist throwing in a comment about the above point.
>
>In the posts that started this whole farrago, I think Sabutin raised
>some valid questions. Why do people enjoy sub-standard art (that is, art
>perceived as "sub-standard" by an appropriately educated observer), in
>whatever genre? To what extent are people's listening preferences shaped
>by purely social considerations -- the desire to project a certain
>"image," say, or to identify with a particular subculture? Are those
>whose listening preferences *are* shaped by social considerations less
>sincere in their enjoyment of the music? Is it even possible to separate
>listening from social considerations in the first place? (Even Sabutin,
>after all, is defining himself socially through musical preferences --
>he's a professional musician, and identifies himself as part of that group
>by judging music according to particular standards.) None of these
>questions have simple answers, but they're all worth asking.
>
===========================
You hear MUCH more "jazz" on the radio than ever before, and not
just in the major cities.
Much more of EVERY kind of good music.
It's everywhere.
At the mega record stores, on the "alternative" radio stations, on
Public Television.
Is "jazz"' or any OTHER "serious" music a popular phenomenon?
No. Ditto "serious" art or writing.
I contend, however, that w/in the space allotted by EVERY society
for "serious" art...and if it seems a relatively small space to you, I
can only say that it's been consistently so throughout recorded
hiastory, and probably remains so because THAT'S what
"works"...survival of the fittest operates as it does in every OTHER
arena of life.
===================
> As the ratings-wonk at the radio station
>where I used to volunteer said over and over again (to justify his
>enforced "smoothing" of our straight-ahead Jazz format), if you play
>"traditional Jazz" to a focus group, they almost invariably *hate it.*
>It's boring, corny, you name it.
==================
WHICH "focus group"? Certainly not the people who buy and listen to
jazz records and go to jazz performances...and they're the ones of
whom we're speaking.
They're the ones who will ultimately decide who will and who won't
continue to work, who will or won't have the most influence on music
to come.
==============.
>
>If you believe that only the "best adapted" styles should continue to
>survive, we might as well say goodbye to Jazz in all its forms -- from
>Wynton Marsalis to Evan Parker.
>
>John Monroe.
=======================
Could say the same for Ali Akbar Khan, Beethoven, and Stravinsky,
given your parameters of "success".
Asd I said, it's a small filed. So are nuclear physics and the
study of geo-political strategy, but discoveries either of THOSE
fileds could conceivably blow you up REAL good in the next couple of
milliseconds.
It's not the millions who watch"Days Of Our Lives" who really
affect the fabric of the future in any meaningful way, nor is it the
pop music audience.
Call me an elitist if you will, but that's how I see it.
S.
thel...@my-dejanews.com
> >I don't think it is fair to include Pullen among the whackos of free/a.g.
> >jazz. With a few exceptions in his recordings, Pullen was always capable
> >of reining in excesses, and with the Afro-Brazilian Connection,
>
> ...which is probably the only recording Amos has ever heard of Don's.
Listen, go with whatever fantasy suits you, but if you are goin to
look smart, at least know that there are at least 4 CDs by that
group -- not just the one your friend told you about.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
mrja...@hotmail.com
If all you people actually stopped to listen to what Crouch is saying
or read what he writes, you'd learn a lot about jazz. These knee-jerk
reactions are really not conducive to your general education.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
mrja...@hotmail.com
public was continually being taken in by being told that every random noise
by some talented hack was actually a piece of musical genius. What then
happened is that a few people came along with enough knowledge, chops, etc.
that they simply couldn't be dismissed as ignorant and said "that emporer cat
..." and a.g/free con has been on the run ever since.
Attacks on Crouch are simply attacks on sensible people who like music
played in a musical fashion. These are misguided missiles that will
never really explode on anything. My advice to a.g./free cons is that
they simply must go back to the woodshed and learn the needful. There
is no other way out. The game is up, friends!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Loren Schoenberg
sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>
> Y'mean Stanley liked SOME "free" jazz players and not OTHERS?
>
> OUTRAGEOUS !!!
>
> This is the "free" jazz scene in a nutshell.
>
> If Stanley Crouch (or anyone else) has the temerity to suggest that
>certain members of the avant-garde are good and certain others NOT so
>good, or even that some of them are rather uneven in their production,
>the monolithic "free jazz" cadre immediately labels him as "anti"
>free jazz.
>
>==============================
>
>>Although even then, it often came with an underhanded twist: Don Pullen
>>was great because he used the same devices that certain unnamed other
>>pianists used, but he did them in a valid way, where the other guys did
>>it in an invalid way.
>
>========================
>
> Yah ???
>
> Y'mean Mr. Crouch could hear the roots and talent in Don Pullen's
>playing (They certainly were there...) and disliked some other
>pianists who in his view were lacking in them?
>
> Y'mean he had to name all the OTHER "free" pianists that DIDN'T
>please him ?
>
> More bullshit.
>
> I generally don't follow the jazz criticism wars...I find them
>boring, by and large...so I don't really have much more than a casual
>and cursory view of what it is that Stanley has or hasn't said over
>the years regarding "free" players. I DO know, however, that he tends
>to reject blanket statements on ANY and ALL labels, preferring to use
>his ears and mind to decide for himself who's making it and who isn't.
>
> I devoutly wish that were the case w/more of the people who listen
>to music.
>
> S.
Marc Sabatella
>>Exactly why comparing stylistic "wars" to WWII makes no sense
>>whatsoever. Human lives were at stake in the latter case only. There
>>is nothing inevitable or healthy about wars between musical styles.
>
> What BETTER reason to move the competition from the battlefield to
>the bandstand and marketplace?
What better reason to stop competing? *Nothing* is at stake. Why make
other people's lives miserable when, by doing nothing, everyone
can be happy? I can think of one reason and one reason only: sadism.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
Simon Weil
>I believe that the examples to train our ears do not have to come from the
>same genre of music. For instance, I came from Indian classical music
>background and when I first started listening to jazz, I had several
>difficulties. I couldn't understand the harmonies, had a hard time
>appreciating the subtleties of tone, couldn't listen to the piano at the same
>time as listening to the horns and so on.
That is interesting. I know, coming from a rock background, that the stuff I
always enjoyed was when the players would do something new, live. In
particular, I loved it when I heard group improvisation like to get in some
areas of the Grateful Dead, Can etc..
I just wonder how typical that is.
Simon Weil
tst...@businessobjects.com
ma...@outsideshore.com (Marc Sabatella) wrote:
> [Crouch] says things like "In order to
> address how muc sophisticated learning has been largely forgotten - when
> not arrogantly dismissed", and "those trend-victims and theorists who
> use every possible argument to sidestep the weights and achievements of
> history" and "Marsalis demotes the avant-garde trumpet players one and
> all" and "the contemporary jazz world, where pop forms, ineptitutde, and
> trivial trends are discussed with a sociological seriousness that avoids
> the issue of artistry" and "frauds are showered with explanatory ink"
> and "fumbling or pretentious eccentricities are misconstrued as
> innovative" and "this music has a tension and release that
> moment-to-moment avant-garde playing never does" and "the reaction
> against the arrogant sloth and snarling decadence that face us all,
> threatening to devour all craft and purity" and "a declaration of war
> against the contrived and the worthless" and so on and so on and so on.
Wow. You read 'em all in a row like that - especially the one about "arrogant
sloth and snarling decadence" - and you realize that the Livingston Squat site
(http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Bayou/6263/main.htm)is only a very
slight exaggeration. ;-)
- Tom Storer
"When you're swinging, swing some more." - Thelonious Monk
tst...@businessobjects.com
sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> I truly believe that society inevitably eventually chooses that
> which works best
>
Pangloss! THERE you are!
Seriously, though, if you think about this, you'll realize that there is
simply no way to know if things would have worked out better if history had
been different. I think there is circular reasoning at work here:
Society chooses that which works best.
How do you know it's best?
Because that's what society chooses.
- Tom Storer
tst...@businessobjects.com
sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
> [...]
> in the progression of history up to the present time humanity had
> ALWAYS made the ultimate decision AWAY from what is generally called
> "fascism".
>
from the face of the earth? That attempts at genocide have ceased? With each
such case we see that "humanity" always ALSO chooses what is generally called
"fascism." Your sunny optimism isn't really ironclad.
jb...@brackets.iit.edu
tst...@businessobjects.com wrote:
> In article <36fcd3db...@news.mindspring.com>,
> sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > I truly believe that society inevitably eventually chooses that
> > which works best
> >
>
> Pangloss! THERE you are!
>
> Seriously, though, if you think about this, you'll realize that there is
> simply no way to know if things would have worked out better if history had
> been different. I think there is circular reasoning at work here:
>
> Society chooses that which works best.
>
> How do you know it's best?
>
> Because that's what society chooses.
>
> - Tom Storer
Thanks Tom for pointing that out. I had a slightly different
interpration, but not that far away:
Sam's theory is a self-fullfilling prophecy. "I like the good
guys. I know they are good guys, because society has chosen them.
Good guys always win. If the bad guys win, it is only temporarily,
the good guys will eventually win after society has evolved some more."
Jeff
JC Martin
> Well...I'm not USING the word "good" in a aesthetic sense, I'm
>simply stating that what music "survives" is what is liked by a
>certain number of people, and that what doesn't survive is what is NOT
>liked by a certain number of people.
That's an incorrect statement. Often, music that "survives" is the music
that wasn't popular in its formative years. That goes for art as well.
-JC
JC Martin
-JC
sab...@mindspring.com wrote in message
<36fe3974...@news.mindspring.com>...
>ma...@outsideshore.com (Marc Sabatella) wrote:
>
>>In article <36fd0a34...@news.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>>
>>>>Exactly why comparing stylistic "wars" to WWII makes no sense
>>>>whatsoever. Human lives were at stake in the latter case only. There
>>>>is nothing inevitable or healthy about wars between musical styles.
>>>
>>> What BETTER reason to move the competition from the battlefield to
>>>the bandstand and marketplace?
>>
>>What better reason to stop competing? *Nothing* is at stake.
>
>=================
>
> I believe you're wrong there. Mankind is still evolving...as is
>life itself...and this question concerns a small corner of that
>evolution.
>
> On a smaller, more personal scale...careers are at stake.
>Someone...this thread has gotten long enough that I haven't the time
>to run through it and find out WHO, but I believe it was you...said
>something to the effect that Stanley Crouch's was impacting the lives
>of some free players in a negative fashion.
>
> His writing is ALSO impacting the lives of a number of more
>traditionally oriented players in a POSITIVE manner.
>
>=========================
>>Why make
>>other people's lives miserable when, by doing nothing, everyone
>>can be happy? I can think of one reason and one reason only: sadism.
>>
>>--------------
>>Marc Sabatella
>
jb...@brackets.iit.edu
sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
> As I said, I predict this will not happen, and my prediction is
> based on the observed fact that organisms...and by extension, I
> contend styles and cultures...that are evolutionarily more advanced
> tend to dominate those that are LESS advanced.
I did a search at www.riaa.com of their database which
holds the records that have achieved Gold and Platinum status.
CHERRY POPPIN' DADDIES: Zoot Suite Riot: 8/25/98 Platinum
DUKE ELLINGTON: No Matches Were Found
By your argument, it appears that Duke Ellington is less culturally
advanced than Cherry Poppin' Daddies because in the 70 years of
Duke Ellington recordings, he has yet to achieve an audience large
enough to make a Gold or Platinum record. So where is Duke's cultural
dominence? Is it because he is more studied? Apparently only a
small group of people.
It is hard to believe Duke never had one gold record, not even a
single on something like Satin Doll. Nat King Cole, however, had
10, and a few in the era before the baby boomers started
buying records.
Will Duke Ellington be more important in 200 years?
I hope so, but the fact is, that answer has yet to be
determined. I would suggest that nothing is inevitable,
and that none of us of will be around to know or care.
So ultimately, your predictions are no more assured
than those of a sports homer calling into talk radio.
Tom Walls
> Will he produce more stylistic offspring than, say Ryan Kisor, Tom
>Williams, Greg Gisbert or Thad Jones?
>
> More than likely.
>
> More than Ornette, too.
>
> S.
Judging solely by the music -- how would one recognize the stylstic offspring
of Wynton Marsalis?
Marc Sabatella
>>What better reason to stop competing? *Nothing* is at stake.
>
> I believe you're wrong there. Mankind is still evolving...as is
>life itself...and this question concerns a small corner of that
>evolution.
Evolution does not require the destruction of all forms of music except
the "winning" style. There is simply no basis for believing competition
need exist.
> On a smaller, more personal scale...careers are at stake.
Well, yes, now that some people are making it a personal crusade to
discredit the styles of music they do not like.
> Stanley Crouch appears to be fucking w/you and yours, and you ARE
>taking action (very limited action, if this newsgroup is your sole
>field of effort) toward him.
>
> You ARE competing.
Yes, but only because someone else created this war. I wouldn't have
ever said a word if I hadn't indirectly been attacked first. Like I
said, this "war" need not exist. No harm would have come to anyone had
the war not been started. You are right, motives are irrelevant. It
doesn't matter *why* Hitler did what he did, but we can still accept
that the results were evil.
Hal Vickery
> As I said, I predict this will not happen, and my prediction is
> based on the observed fact that organisms...and by extension, I
> contend styles and cultures...that are evolutionarily more advanced
> tend to dominate those that are LESS advanced.
There's another problem. You seem to be looking at evolution, including
biological evolution, as a ladder, leading to progressively more advanced
forms. This is not the case, and no biologist looks at biological
evolution that way. Instead they look at all organisms as being on a kind
of bush rather than a ladder. Are you more advanced than the spider in
your basement? Both of you are products of something like 4 billion years
of evolution.
> There's an OUTSIDE (see "Twilight Zone" or "Star Trek"...) chance
> that those "killer bees" are in fact a HIGHLY developed entity that is
> in fact a MORE developed form of life than we are, and if that is the
> case...our asses are doomed to be honey fodder, an evolutionary
> footnote in the history of the swarm.
Another misinterpretation of evolution. It's not the most advanced that
survive. Just ask you friendly neighborhood dinosaur who was top dog at
the end of the Cretaceous Period. The ones that survive are the ones who
are best adapted to whatever conditions prevail.
> My bet, my observation, is that this is not going to be so.
But since you have no way to predict future conditions, you have no way of
knowing. It's a crapshoot.
<snip>
nsmf
Marc Sabatella
>Wow. You read 'em all in a row like that - especially the one about "arrogant
>sloth and snarling decadence" - and you realize that the Livingston Squat site
>(http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Bayou/6263/main.htm)is only a very
>slight exaggeration. ;-)
Yeah, that's what makes it so funny. Especially realizing how easy it
is to catpure that supercillious air. I don't know, some people cut
Crouch slack for allegedly being a great writer, but I think he's one of
the worst I've ever read published in any serious forum - and I don't
say that just because I often disagree with him (not that I expect
anyone to believe that). To me, he overuses some pretty idiosyncratic
words (how often do I really need to read the words "gutbucket" or
"clarion"?) and constructs sentences whose overwrought complexity rarely
if ever lends them additional weight. It is not uncommon to
find entire paragraphs that say almost nothing. Furthermore, his
consistent use of superlatives reduces the words to meaninglessness -
everything is either great or terrible in his eyes.
JackleeT
might i suggest that you listen to music with your own ears and make your own
decision as to what is esthetically pleasing to you?
it seems to me that the chief function of critics and writers is to point out
islands of interest; it's up to you to visit them and decide what you want to
hear more of.
to do otherwise doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
jack tracy
SwingDoug
>>Williams, Greg Gisbert or Thad Jones?
Who the hell Williams and Gisbert are I sure as hell don't know.
I also don't think Thad had an influence on trumpet history when compared to
Diz, Pops, Miles or Clifford.
As far as Wynton's influence, one need only listen to Marcus Printup, Ryan
Kisor, Terrance Blanchard, Marlon Jordan, or Roy Hargrove. They all have their
own sound, but I think they are influenced by Wynton.
First off, there's his 80's music. A lot of cats emulated the licks where he
played a third above the time, and also when he played 5/8 patterns over 4/4
swing.
Terrance in particular has a very similar sound to Wynton's, although his is
distinctive. The breathy round tone and the precise mastery of blues inflection
is there in both of them as well.
Wynton's influence goes beyond trumpet, too. I spent a lot of time trying to
play his stuff on guitar. He plays with the time very inventively. He can
stretch and condense phrases much like Keith Jarrett, although with a more
country-ish sound and feel.
sab...@mindspring.com
>It's hard to believe that you've played with Carla Bley.
>
>-JC
====================
Why ???
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
>In article <36fe3974...@news.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>>>What better reason to stop competing? *Nothing* is at stake.
>>
>> I believe you're wrong there. Mankind is still evolving...as is
>>life itself...and this question concerns a small corner of that
>>evolution.
>
>Evolution does not require the destruction of all forms of music except
>the "winning" style. There is simply no basis for believing competition
>need exist.
>
>> On a smaller, more personal scale...careers are at stake.
>
>Well, yes, now that some people are making it a personal crusade to
>discredit the styles of music they do not like.
>
>> Stanley Crouch appears to be fucking w/you and yours, and you ARE
>>taking action (very limited action, if this newsgroup is your sole
>>field of effort) toward him.
>>
>> You ARE competing.
>
>Yes, but only because someone else created this war. I wouldn't have
>ever said a word if I hadn't indirectly been attacked first. Like I
>said, this "war" need not exist. No harm would have come to anyone had
>the war not been started. You are right, motives are irrelevant. It
>doesn't matter *why* Hitler did what he did, but we can still accept
>that the results were evil.
>
>--------------
>Marc Sabatella
=====================
And he got his ass thoroughly kicked as a result.
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
>In article <36fe3f9b...@news.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com
>says...
>
>> Will he produce more stylistic offspring than, say Ryan Kisor, Tom
>>Williams, Greg Gisbert or Thad Jones?
>>
>> More than likely.
>>
>> More than Ornette, too.
>>
>> S.
>
>Judging solely by the music -- how would one recognize the stylstic offspring
>of Wynton Marsalis?
>
=================
Lemme see...he's been publicly noticed for about 15 years...much
MORE "popular" the last 6 or 7...so the first large group of musicians
who were influenced by him at an early age would be just coming out of
school and into some beginning of prominence...
Give it another 5 years, maybe 10 or even 15, and ask the jazz poll
winners of that time who influenced their musical thinking at an early
age.
Betcha he's right up there.
How would one recognize them MUSICALLY??? An adherence to (and at
least some DEGREE of mastery of) the "traditional" basics of
music...Western European/American jazz diatonic harmony, a high degree
of general proficiency on their instruments, a strong rhythmic
foundation, an understanding (on a fairly high performance level) of
jazz history from Louis Armstrong through to that particular present
(INCLUDING the "free" movement)...
That oughta about cover it.
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
>>> Will he produce more stylistic offspring than, say Ryan Kisor, Tom
>>>Williams, Greg Gisbert or Thad Jones?
>
>Who the hell Williams and Gisbert are I sure as hell don't know.
===========================
Amazing jazz trumpet players. Greg live in NYC, plays w/ Maria
Schneider among others, Tom lives in Washington DC, plays w/the
Carnegie Hall Band.
=========================
>
>I also don't think Thad had an influence on trumpet history when compared to
>Diz, Pops, Miles or Clifford.
========
Precisely my point.
===========
>
>As far as Wynton's influence, one need only listen to Marcus Printup, Ryan
>Kisor, Terrance Blanchard, Marlon Jordan, or Roy Hargrove. They all have their
>own sound, but I think they are influenced by Wynton.
=====================
Reread the post.
That's what I was saying.
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
==============
I said a "certain" number of people...an audience large enough to
enable the idiom to survive, not necessarily to be wildly "popular".
Free idioms HAVE had this certain number of people...but just
barely.
S.
JC Martin
<36fed075...@news.mindspring.com>...
Because it seems to me that she might have a problem with some of your
musical viewpoints. I mean look, some avant garde is pure crap. But the
same applies to straight-ahead music.
What about someone like Wolfgang Puschnig? Surely you must know of him,
given that he has recorded with Carla. Wolfgang is involved in many avant
garde projects. Do you believe that he can't play? I personally find that
good avant garde takes just as much practice as anything else. The more
time you put in it, the better you are.
Do you feel that it's not possible to form *new* musical rules?
-JC
Hal Vickery
wrote:
Due to his own blunders:
(1) Switching luftwaffe attacks from RAF air bases to the city of London,
giving the RAF time to regroup.
(2) Fighting a two-front war and delaying the attack so that it was
inevitable that the German army would become bogged down by the Russian
winter.
(3) Declaring war on the United States immediately after Pearl Harbor,
giving the Americans an excuse to sent the vast majority of its men and
materiel to Europe while making the war against Japan secondary.
It was not inevitable that Hitler would get his ass kicked. I think this
also goes counter to your thesis.
nsmf
sab...@mindspring.com
=========================
Sure do...in fact, I'm immersed in formulating a number of them
right now.
Really.
I assume you say it's hard to believe that I've played with Carla
Bley because she and Mike Mantler are generally considered
"avant-garde".
Let me see if I can remember the trombonists on "Escalator Over the
Hill"...both the record and the various other concerts and rehearsals
the JCOA had during that period of time.
Roswell Rudd...a trombonist DEEPLY rooted in pre-bebop, even
pre-'30s, music.
Jimmy Knepper...a LARGE part of his musical life, besides being a
great trombonist and composer, has been impeccably transcribing every
Bird solo on record.
Jack Jeffers...I first met him playing on Clark Terry's band. Last
week he played a week or so w/Frank Foster. Nuf said.
Wayne Andre...one of the busiest studio trombonists in NY for 30
years...and believe me, that takes a working knowledge of every style
ever played by a trombone, 1600 to the present.
Urbie Green...one of the greatest "inside" jazz players I have
ever heard, in his prime.
Myself...I've made my position abundantly clear these last couple
of weeks, although a number of blockheads on this list seem determined
to ignore what I've been trying to say. ALL styles are good; EVERYONE
has the right to play and listen to WHATEVER they want; I LOVE well
played "out" music" as much as I do well played "in" music, or for
that matter music that doesn't fit EITHER of those ridiculously broad
categories; SOME "out" music is indeed played by fakers; some by great
musicians; ditto any OTHER form of music; "out" music, having fewer
rules or boundaries, is a particularly good place for the untalented
to reside, because it is not as immediately apparent (especially to
listeners w/undeveloped ears and/or little experience in the idiom)
that they really can't play as it would be if the band were playing a
C13 chord and they were laying on a B natural, trying to look hip, or
playing a quarter tone flat in a fairly diatonic situation; and
finally :
IT AIN'T THE CUP YOU'RE DINKING, IT'S THE GODDAMNED WATER.
(It's not the style that's so important, it's the PLAYERS who are
playing WITHIN that style.)
The people who played in the JCOA ALL had "roots"...different
roots, different paths to that particular place, but roots
nonetheless.
They hadn't hostilely DISCARDED those roots, nor were they totally
LACKING in roots (or talent...same thing really)...two of the most
common faults I find in the avant-garde...they were one and all
GROWING IN OTHER DIRECTIONS.
That's all I've been trying to say here.
Carla knows what she's about.
Peace...I'm going to Alaska...
(Really...)
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
>In article <36fed09f...@news.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com
>wrote:
>
>> ma...@outsideshore.com (Marc Sabatella) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <36fe3974...@news.mindspring.com>,
>sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> It
>> >doesn't matter *why* Hitler did what he did, but we can still accept
>> >that the results were evil.
>> >
>> >--------------
>> >Marc Sabatella
>>
>> =====================
>>
>> And he got his ass thoroughly kicked as a result.
>
>Due to his own blunders:
=======================
"His own blunders" stand as PROOF of my point.
What he did was stupid. Insane. Ineffective. Strong but wrong . In
the long run, evolutionarily counter-productive. EVERYTHING he did.
He was a crude, stupid, bigoted, insane man of great power, and he
brought his act a looonnnng way before the essential flaws in that act
doomed it to failure, but the flaws were there in EVERYTHING he did.
Life will try ANYTHING...if it "works", life keeps it.
If it doesn't, it is rejected.
That's the WAY it works.
S.
---snip---
Walter Davis
multi-plat=2+ million; the new diamond=10+million. It's not just
Ellington without a gold record. The following have never had an album
make gold (500,000 sold): Coltrane, Bill Evans (none of them), Mingus,
Monk, Ornette, Sun Ra, Basie, Parker, Gillespie, Corea, Joe Henderson,
Lee Morgan, Chet Baker, Woody Herman, Jimmy or Tommy Dorsey, Cab
Calloway, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughn, or even Peggy Lee (I'd have
thought "Fever").
Now, who does?
Armstrong has 2 golds, Hello Dolly (certified 1964) and What a Wonderful
World (1991). To my knowledge, not widely considered his most important
or artistically rewarding work.
Brubeck has 1 platinum (time out of course; gold in 63, platinum in 97)
Benny Goodman has 1 (Live at Carnegie Hall; gold 97)
Miles has 3. Kind of Blue (gold 93, platinum 97); Sketches of Spain
(gold 93); Bitches Brew (gold 76).
Wynton has 2. Hothouse Flowers (gold 94) and Standard Time (gold 94).
Weather Report has 1, Heavy Weather (gold 91, platinum 91)
Hancock has 3: Headhunters (gold 74, plat 86), Rockit (gold 90
single??), Future Shock (gold 84, plat 94).
Mahavishnu has 2: Birds of Fire (gold 91), Love/Devotion/Surrender (gold
91).
That's all I found. About the only "bright spot" is it taking only 4
years between gold & platinum for Kind of Blue -- must be all those rmb
recommendations.
This points out the absurdity of the "straight jazz is more popular,
therefore it's better". Straight jazz isn't popular, it's a bump on a
log. Judging from the time between gold and platinum, Time Out is only
selling about 17k a year. I think I know of at least 5 or 6 bands in
the Triangle which sell more than that.
Jazz supposedly makes up 2.5% of record purchases. There were 753
million units shipped in 1997 (last full year the RIAA site reports),
meaning about 19 million of those would be "jazz." Now jazz here
includes Kenny G. Curious as to how much of that is Kenny G? Can't say
for sure on an annual basis, but here are his gold and platinum. The
first year cited is the year it went gold, the second the last year
reported:
Breathless, 12 M (93, 98)
Duotones, 5M (87, 95)
G-Force, 1M (91, 94)
Gravity, 1M (91, 96)
Kenny G, .5 M (92)
Kenny G Live, 4M (90, 96)
Miracles, 8M (95, 99)
Silhouette, 4M (88, 95)
Kenny G Live in Concert, 1M (90)
The Moment, 4M (96, 98)
Greatest Hits, 2M (97, 99)
For those not scoring at home, that's 42.5 million albums (at least)
sold in the last 12 years or so. That number would account for over 2
years worth of jazz album sales alone. And if you take a look at the
trend, I think you'll see that his sales appear to be highest at the
same time as the "new _real_ jazz renaissance" was supposedly taking
place.
I want everyone to think about that for a moment. 1% of 42.5 million is
425,000 and almost no jazz musician has sold that many records, even
over 40-50 years. Breathless sold 12 million. There is no Duke
Ellington record which has sold even 4% of that.
So sure, Joe Henderson sells more than Joe McPhee. So what, they're
both meaningless in the world of record sales. Judging by those
standards, jazz simply doesn't matter. Will Ellington be remembered 200
years from now. Sure, just like Beethoven is remembered. Will anyone
be buying his records. Hell no, or at least not enough people for
anyone to really care. "Evolutionarily speaking," jazz is just a
meaningless musical bump in the road -- for a short period of time, it
affected a great many people, then quickly became meaningless.
It's ludicrous to propose an argument that "society chooses what's best"
and think that it's an argument in favor of jazz. 97.5% of the
record-buying public (and 100% of the non-record-buying public) ignores
jazz. A sizeable chunk of that 2.5% is buying Kenny G. Again, you have
a simple choice: either give up your silly functionalist notions of how
societies operate and "advance" or conclude that jazz ain't very good.
Or of course, go exactly where I expect you want to go and argue that of
course there's a certain evolutionarily advanced elite, of which you
happen to be fortunate enough to be a member. Lucky you. But since I
like an even less popular music than you do, are you 100% positive that
doesn't mean I'm even more elite??
-walt
Walter Davis walter...@unc.edu
Health Data Analyst at the ph: (919) 962-1019
Institute for Research in Social Science fax: (919) 962-8980
UNC - Chapel Hill