Grateful Dead Downloads Likely To Be Restored at Archive.org
vwhitey
LP
Where ya been?
Great minds think alike (see last new post)
Drop a line man.
LP
vwhitey
it would take something like this to get me back on usenet ;)
of course ... i was hoping this would mean everyone would be forced to
come back to shnshare and other hubs ;)
-vw
Maranatha
"vwhitey" <vwh...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1133393146.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
says only Auds.... which stands to reason.
Ray
> http://www.relix.com/cgi-bin/content_list.cgi?type=news
>From the same link:
Help on the Way: Phil Lesh Weighs in on Archive.org Debate
After debate began over the removal of Grateful Dead material from
popular download portal Live Music Archive (a section of Archive.org),
Phil Lesh has issued a public statement on the controversy. "I was not
part of this decision-making process and was not notified that the
shows were to be pulled," says Lesh. "I do feel that the music is the
Grateful Dead's legacy and I hope that one way or another all of it is
available for those who want it." Lesh said he relied on the Live Music
Archive's extensive collection of Grateful Dead material as source
material for his recent autobiography, Searching for the Sound.
At its peak, the Live Music Archive hosted approximately 4,800 Grateful
Dead recordings, including both audience and soundboard-quality copies
of certain performances. While all soundboard have been pulled from the
archive, and preserved in a non-public portion of the site, fans can
still stream audience recordings. Before reuniting as the Other Ones
and the Dead in 2002, the surviving members of the Grateful Dead butted
heads over the digitization of the band's vault. In general, Lesh
seemed to be of the mindset that the group's music should remain free
and in the hands of its fans, while his bandmates believed the best way
to spread the group's music is through the internet's web of live
digital music providers. In the past, whenever the Grateful Dead
officially issued a live set, that performance was removed from the
Live Music Archive. Several other bands, including Phish, have also
blocked Arhcive.org from hosting their music on the Live Music Archive.
At press time, a Jack Johnson performance from 2002 ranks as the site's
most-viewed show.
"We are musicians not businessmen and have made good and bad decisions
on our journey," Lesh continues. "We do love and care about our
community as you helped us make the music. We could not have made this
kind of music without you as you allowed us to play 'without a net.'
Your love, trust and patience made it possible for us to try again the
next show when we couldn't get that magic carpet off the ground. Your
concerns have been heard and I am sure are being respectfully
addressed."
Olompali4
Balance.
volkfolk
"Maranatha" <uts...@REPENTadelphia.net> wrote in message
news:fKadnaufF9ZLqxPe...@adelphia.com...
Thiose bastards!!!!! No SBDS?!?!!!!! #######
Scot
JC Martin
> vwhitey wrote:
>
>>http://www.relix.com/cgi-bin/content_list.cgi?type=news
>
>
>>From the same link:
>
> Help on the Way: Phil Lesh Weighs in on Archive.org Debate
>
> After debate began over the removal of Grateful Dead material from
> popular download portal Live Music Archive (a section of Archive.org),
> Phil Lesh has issued a public statement on the controversy. "I was not
> part of this decision-making process and was not notified that the
> shows were to be pulled," says Lesh. "I do feel that the music is the
> Grateful Dead's legacy and I hope that one way or another all of it is
> available for those who want it."
<snip>
Note that Phil didn't take a firm stand here. Read in between the
lines. "GD's legacy...one way or another..."
Cha-ching!
-JC
Ray
True. However assuming that Phil is telling the truth here he was not
involved in this decision and was not even notified of it.
Reading his wording in total IMO he conveys the impression that he
doesn't agree with the decision. Indeed he brings up a rational you
have brought up -- and one that I think I agree with -- for why the
fans have a fair stake in the music:
"We do love and care about our
community as you helped us make the music. We could not have made this
kind of music without you as you allowed us to play 'without a net.'
Your love, trust and patience made it possible for us to try again the
next show when we couldn't get that magic carpet off the ground."
That he fell short of taking a 'firm stand' may just be a reflection
that he didn't want to put himself out on a limb re- the majority
consensus at GDP, whereby he would have to eat his words if the
majority continues on the restricting access path that they have
started.
Or not, dunno. Not enough information here.
Ray
JC Martin
> JC Martin wrote:
>
>>Ray wrote:
>>
>>>vwhitey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.relix.com/cgi-bin/content_list.cgi?type=news
>>>
>>>
>>>>From the same link:
>>>
>>>Help on the Way: Phil Lesh Weighs in on Archive.org Debate
>>>
>>>After debate began over the removal of Grateful Dead material from
>>>popular download portal Live Music Archive (a section of Archive.org),
>>>Phil Lesh has issued a public statement on the controversy. "I was not
>>>part of this decision-making process and was not notified that the
>>>shows were to be pulled," says Lesh. "I do feel that the music is the
>>>Grateful Dead's legacy and I hope that one way or another all of it is
>>>available for those who want it."
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Note that Phil didn't take a firm stand here. Read in between the
>>lines. "GD's legacy...one way or another..."
>
>
> True. However assuming that Phil is telling the truth here he was not
> involved in this decision and was not even notified of it.
I think he knew it was going down myself, but I'm not going to split
hairs.
-JC
Shawn Lucas
Shit ... one thing that this Archive fiasco has done has caused a big
spike in posts in r.m.gd. Its kinda like old times, except with more
bitching (if that's possible). I'd bet this forum hasn't seen this
kind of activity since the waning days of 1995.
Welcome back y'all. Take off the coat and stay a while.
Shawn Lucas
>> which stands to reason.
>
>Balance.
>
I'd bet it was all orchestrated. Stick a toe in and test the
waters...see if the toe gets chomped off by the swirling
pirhana's...then play the "see we're resonable here's a compromise"
card.
Eh. Works for me. I guess.
Ray
JC Martin wrote:
> Ray wrote:
> > JC Martin wrote:
> >
> >>Ray wrote:
> >>>Phil Lesh has issued a public statement on the controversy. "I was not
> >>>part of this decision-making process and was not notified that the
> >>>shows were to be pulled," says Lesh.
> > assuming that Phil is telling the truth here he was not
> > involved in this decision and was not even notified of it.
>
> I think he knew it was going down myself, but I'm not going to split
> hairs.
That's not splitting hairs - that's accusing Phil of lying about
something rather more important than, say, being diplomatic (if
clumsily so) about why he didn't take part in a concert.
Got any proof to back up your position, or is this another of your
shadowy "sources"?
(And FWIW: *my* shadowy "sources" tell me otherwise. =-p )
Ray
JC Martin
I haven't talked in depth with my Phil connection yet. ;-) Next week
maybe.
BTW, I'm not saying Phil doesn't side more with my viewpoint than some
other band members. But to say that he supports complete and free
access to the vault or the archive would be misguided based on what I've
heard around town. Those who think the vault issue alone has put band
members at odds against each other are foolish. Money changes
everything, and Phil's not above that to be sure. In defense of Weir,
the guy shares equal cut with his band members. Phil gets bigger stars
and doesn't even do that. So let's not assume Phil is so pure in all this.
And does Phil stretch the truth or play with words in his 'press
releases'? Absolutely.
-JC
Richard Morris
"Ray" <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133399023....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
And I would like to go on record as saying:
1. I HAVE NO SHADOWY SOURCES.
2. No one at GDP knows I am alive, and none of them would care if they did
know.
3. I like it that way.
R.
tim_ratdog
volkfolk wrote:
> Thiose bastards!!!!! No SBDS?!?!!!!! #######
>
> Scot
Heh. Now that is funny.
-tim
Ray
"Heard around town" = rumors.
> Those who think the vault issue alone has put band
> members at odds against each other are foolish.
Does anybody think that?
> Money changes
> everything, and Phil's not above that to be sure.
I'm not sure if anyone's above that. That said, if Phil did indeed buy
Rosebud and then give it to Irwin (another rumor) that's a mighty
generous act.
> In defense of Weir,
> the guy shares equal cut with his band members. Phil gets bigger stars
> and doesn't even do that.
I"m impressed with Bobby's generosity there, but I don't think it's in
any way immoral, wrong, or even selfish for Phil to do otherwise.
> So let's not assume Phil is so pure in all this.
I'm assuming nothing other than, unless there is compelling evidence to
the contrary, the band members are making honest statements in all of
this.
> And does Phil stretch the truth or play with words in his 'press
> releases'? Absolutely.
But does Phil *lie* about significant issues such as this one? Because
that's what you are accusing him of doing here.
Ray
JC Martin
Like?
>>And does Phil stretch the truth or play with words in his 'press
>>releases'? Absolutely.
>
>
> But does Phil *lie* about significant issues such as this one? Because
> that's what you are accusing him of doing here.
Am I? Guess I don't see it that way. Seriously, Phil's okay by me. I
think he's proved that he has a better vision of the GD legacy than any
other band member. Musically, he's shown his superiority even though
he's not a legitimate songwriter or a multi-dimensional bassist. Phil
is superior because his ego is immense and he cares immensely about his
product. The guy is working on his legacy as the Dead's second most
important member and I think that drives him and his music. Playing
with Scofield is brilliant for instance.
Phil's not lying. He's positioning himself in a great debate that has
NOT been settled yet.
-JC
wyeknot
> And does Phil stretch the truth or play with words in his 'press
> releases'? Absolutely.
Don't we all??? :-)
Matt
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > JC Martin wrote:
> >>So let's not assume Phil is so pure in all this.
> >
> > I'm assuming nothing other than, unless there is compelling evidence to
> > the contrary, the band members are making honest statements in all of
> > this.
>
> Like?
Like this from Phil: "I was not part of this decision-making process
and was not notified that the shows were to be pulled."
> > does Phil *lie* about significant issues such as this one? Because
> > that's what you are accusing him of doing here.
>
> Am I? Guess I don't see it that way.
By declaring "I think he [Phil] knew it [the shows were being pulled]
was going down myself" in response to Phil explicitly declaring
otherwise, yes, you are.
> Seriously, Phil's okay by me. I
> think he's proved that he has a better vision of the GD legacy than any
> other band member. Musically, he's shown his superiority even though
> he's not a legitimate songwriter or a multi-dimensional bassist. Phil
> is superior because his ego is immense and he cares immensely about his
> product.
I agree on all points except the ego part - I do not have enough
information to make that conclusion.
> The guy is working on his legacy as the Dead's second most
> important member and I think that drives him and his music.
You think that his concern over his legacy drives him more than his
concern over, and love of, his art? Not to mention the money? FWIW I
don't, though again I don't have enough information to say for sure.
> Playing with Scofield is brilliant for instance.
Agreed. And I think he got Sco more because he wanted to play with Sco
than any other reason.
> Phil's not lying.
In which case, he was not part of the decision-making process to remove
the shows from the Archive, and he was not notified that the shows were
to be pulled.
Ray
JC Martin
Maybe he knew it was going down, but not the exact time. ;-)
-JC
leftie
> Agreed. And I think he got Sco more because he wanted to play with Sco
> than any other reason.
#####
Oh, horsepucky. He got Sco because he knows Sco is a noodling panderer
who would sell out his soul and his art -- while compeletely dumbing
down his chops -- for a chance to play for the large, unwashed and
well-paying jamband crowd. You know it and I know it. End of discussion.
#####
JC Martin
Leftie, it's funny only when you lose the anger bro. Let go my friend.
You can be right...in your own mind at least. ;-)
-JC
kpn...@yahoo.com
Actually, I think there is a bit of truth there. I saw Sco on the
Uberjam tour,
and while the music was jazzy, he encouraged the crowd to dance and
move into the reserved section. He was pandering to the "unwashed" no
doubt about it. That being said, I saw him again when he did the Larry
Young tribute at the Chicago Jazz Fest. Different audience, different
approach. I don't think I would say he is disingenuous or dumbing down,
but the man knows how to play to his audience. He is a professional
after
all; he didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I would imagine exposure
is more
the reason for playing with Phil than musical exploration, especially
when
you consider who he can play with.
Kurt
JC Martin
Agreed.
-JC
Brad Greer
wrote:
>Am I? Guess I don't see it that way. Seriously, Phil's okay by me. I
>think he's proved that he has a better vision of the GD legacy than any
>other band member. Musically, he's shown his superiority even though
>he's not a legitimate songwriter or a multi-dimensional bassist. Phil
>is superior because his ego is immense and he cares immensely about his
>product. The guy is working on his legacy as the Dead's second most
>important member and I think that drives him and his music. Playing
>with Scofield is brilliant for instance.
I agree that Phil has shown a greater vision of the Dead's legacy than
the others, I think he really, truly loves the music the Grateful Dead
created. I don't think it's his ego that makes him care so much about
the legacy (although I agree he has a big ego), I think it's his love
of what was created by the band - not just the music, but the whole
"spirit" of the thing, the acid test legacy, all of that stuff.
>Phil's not lying. He's positioning himself in a great debate that has
>NOT been settled yet.
>
Agreed as well.
Ray
> JC Martin wrote:
> > leftie wrote:
> > > Ray wrote:
> > >
> > >> Agreed. And I think he got Sco more because he wanted to play with Sco
> > >> than any other reason.
> > >
> > >
> > > #####
> > > Oh, horsepucky. He got Sco because he knows Sco is a noodling panderer
> > > who would sell out his soul and his art -- while compeletely dumbing
> > > down his chops -- for a chance to play for the large, unwashed and
> > > well-paying jamband crowd. You know it and I know it. End of discussion.
> > > #####
> >
> >
> > Leftie, it's funny only when you lose the anger bro. Let go my friend.
> > You can be right...in your own mind at least. ;-)
Leftie's right in my mind too. And that's also what my shadowy sources
tell me.
> Actually, I think there is a bit of truth there. I saw Sco on the
> Uberjam tour,
> and while the music was jazzy, he encouraged the crowd to dance and
> move into the reserved section. He was pandering to the "unwashed" no
> doubt about it. That being said, I saw him again when he did the Larry
> Young tribute at the Chicago Jazz Fest. Different audience, different
> approach. I don't think I would say he is disingenuous or dumbing down,
> but the man knows how to play to his audience. He is a professional
> after
> all; he didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I would imagine exposure
> is more
> the reason for playing with Phil than musical exploration, especially
> when
> you consider who he can play with.
Exposure can be the primary reason for Sco playing with Phil, but that
doesn't mean that Sco is "pandering" - it just means exposure is his
primary reason for playing with Phil.
Did Branford, or FTM every other artist who sat in with them, "pander"
when playing with the Dead? Some, perhaps, but who knows. In any
event until I get compelling information that strongly indicates as
much, I will not assume the worst in these people.
And besides, my shadowy sources tell me that Sco is a huge fan of Phil
and has wanted to play with him for ages.
Ray
JC Martin
Actually, I know Branford from back when he was on the Tonight Show and
that's where I first met Scofield...on the Tonight Show set.
You and leftie don't have a clue about the mindset of most jazz
musicians. Really.
Here comes Ray.... ;-)
Peas,
JC
Ray
JC Martin wrote:
> Ray wrote:
> > doesn't mean that Sco is "pandering" - it just means exposure is his
> > primary reason for playing with Phil.
> >
> > Did Branford, or FTM every other artist who sat in with them, "pander"
> > when playing with the Dead? Some, perhaps, but who knows. In any
> > event until I get compelling information that strongly indicates as
> > much, I will not assume the worst in these people.
>
> Actually, I know Branford from back when he was on the Tonight Show and
> that's where I first met Scofield...on the Tonight Show set.
Actually, I know Branford from back when I first met him at Yoshi's.
> You and leftie don't have a clue about the mindset of most jazz
> musicians. Really.
Until I get compelling information that strongly indicates as much, I
will not assume the worst in these people.
Ray
JC Martin
That's where you totally read me wrong Ray. I don't consider pandering
to rock audience bad behavior, certainly not the "worst" in behavior.
The mindset of a jazz musician in general is far different than your
average rock fan. These are people that generally practice 5-10 hours
on their instrument EVERY day. Rock music and funk music is stuff they
play in their sleep. It's not challenging music for them to play. But
it does pay the bills and give them MORE time to practice.
-JC
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > Until I get compelling information that strongly indicates as much, I
> > will not assume the worst in these people.
>
> That's where you totally read me wrong Ray. I don't consider pandering
> to rock audience bad behavior, certainly not the "worst" in behavior.
Pandering is the worst behavior in this context.
> The mindset of a jazz musician in general is far different than your
> average rock fan. These are people that generally practice 5-10 hours
> on their instrument EVERY day. Rock music and funk music is stuff they
> play in their sleep. It's not challenging music for them to play. But
> it does pay the bills and give them MORE time to practice.
Yes, I am aware of that. It doesn't mean that Branford, Sco, or
whomever is pandering when they play with the Dead or Phil however.
And until I get compelling information that strongly indicates as much,
I will not assume the worst in these people.
Ray
JC Martin
You have a strange perspective. "Worst" is your label, not mine. Just
like "lying" is your label, again, not mine. I'm a realist about the
music business, and I think I have a lot more experience with it than
you. Making money, pandering...every musician should do it if necessary
to survive. Some even make good pop music is the process. Sco has had
more misses than hits in that regard IMO. His best was with MMW. And
also Ray, I wouldn't even bother to try to compel you to change your
mind on this. I already know where you stand based on our U2 and Green
Day conversations...the wrong side of the fence. But I fogive ya for
your ignorance. Blissful, ain't it? :-)
-JC
Olompali4
> on their instrument EVERY day. Rock music and funk music is stuff they
> play in their sleep. It's not challenging music for them to play. But
> it does pay the bills and give them MORE time to practice.
>
> -JC
Practice to play ridiculous time changes and dissonant noise that only
impresses a few critics and an ever dwindling audience.
Challenging? More like a nuisance.
Jazz needs to get jazzy.
Now it's just.. <koff>.. "modern music"
LOL!
JC Martin
There's a lot of jazz out there, so I'm sure not sure what you're
specifically referring do. Most modern post-bop is rich in harmony and
melodically complex. If you're talking about free jazz, well, I
disagree with you, even if I can see where you're coming from.
Certainly, it's not for everyone. But there' a lot of stuff that fits
in between that's stellar IMO. Best not to pass judgment on any
particular perceived form, cause there's so many goodies in between the
cracks. That goes for all forms of music.
-JC
Olompali4
> particular perceived form, cause there's so many goodies in between the
> cracks. That goes for all forms of music.
>
> -JC
Agreed and that's why I can't understand the constant debate among
jazzbos as to what constitutes "real" jazz.
Grover Washington..anyone?
Just like the anal clowns who debate "real" punk, "real" country and
"real" blues.
As Jimi sez..
"Blah, blah..woof woof."
leftie
> Leftie, it's funny only when you lose the anger bro. Let go my friend.
Ain't no anger here, JC, you're projecting.
> You can be right...in your own mind at least. ;-)
Hey, speaking of "right in your own mind, at least," tell me the one
about how "drummers" doesn't really mean "drummers" again. That's some
funny shit!
JC Martin
>>Best not to pass judgment on any
>>particular perceived form, cause there's so many goodies in between the
>>cracks. That goes for all forms of music.
>>
>>-JC
>
>
> Agreed and that's why I can't understand the constant debate among
> jazzbos as to what constitutes "real" jazz.
> Grover Washington..anyone?
Grover is a real jazz musician, yes. I have a few sessions in my
collection where he plays a sideman role, one of them being a session he
did with Gerry Mulligan and yes, Scofield (on acoustic). He also makes
instrumental R&B music from a jazz musician's perspective.
> Just like the anal clowns who debate "real" punk, "real" country and
> "real" blues.
I don't care about all that. I just find it silly people's ignorance on
the skill it takes to be a jazz musician vs. a rock musician. Big
difference. As far it skill alone determining what is good music or
not, I don't make that argument. For instance, I think Scofield's last
few groove oriented records are poor. And I'd rather listen to Lefty
Frizell over most post-bop records being made today. So you can't fully
box me in with the anal jazz crowd.
-JC
JC Martin
The hate! Passive-aggressive style. Why brother? Let it go muh man.
-JC
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> >>The mindset of a jazz musician in general is far different than your
> >>average rock fan. These are people that generally practice 5-10 hours
> >>on their instrument EVERY day. Rock music and funk music is stuff they
> >>play in their sleep. It's not challenging music for them to play. But
> >>it does pay the bills and give them MORE time to practice.
> >
> > Yes, I am aware of that. It doesn't mean that Branford, Sco, or
> > whomever is pandering when they play with the Dead or Phil however.
> >
> > And until I get compelling information that strongly indicates as much,
> > I will not assume the worst in these people.
>
> You have a strange perspective. "Worst" is your label, not mine.
True enough.
> Just
> like "lying" is your label, again, not mine.
You can label it whatever you want to, but you have accused Phil of
lying.
> I'm a realist about the
> music business, and I think I have a lot more experience with it than
> you. Making money, pandering...every musician should do it if necessary
> to survive.
Sure.
> Some even make good pop music is the process.
Yup.
> Sco has had
> more misses than hits in that regard IMO. His best was with MMW.
This is where we part ways on your 'pandering' claims. Whether Sco was
pandering or not re- his work with MMW (or Phil, FTM) is, from where I
stand, an unknown. And I'm not going to assume -- let alone publicly
insist -- that he was pandering in that instance (or any other) until
and unless I have compelling information to indicate as much.
The mere fact that a jazz musician sometimes opts to play rock or funk
or whatever is not for me compelling information that s/he is
pandering. Indeed to assume otherwise is IMO misguidedly elitist -
jazz musicians, many of them at least, sometimes enjoy playing other
types of music as well.
Ray
JC Martin
The compelling information is in the notes Ray. Maybe you can't hear
music. But it's clearly evident that Scofield simplified his playing on
the MMW album and beyond for his groove-oriented sessions. I know Sco
loves groove. He told me his favorite stuff were those late 60's groove
sessions on Blue Note with Leo Morris aka Idris Muhammad on the skins.
But it's a fact he's simplified his solos, removing the bop runs,
exploration of jazz harmony within a static chord or scale, and Monk
phrasings normal to his playing and replaced it with cliche' classic
rock licks. If you listen to Hand Jive or Groove Elation, he kept more
of this playing personality and style intact.
Make no mistake, I think the jam band audience would actually accept all
that Sco has to offer if he was willing. If you can't hear the change,
I can't prove it to you. You'll just have to educate yourself more. I
just hope to God Sco brings it with P&F's. If he sticks to rock
cliches, then it won't be so spectacular.
-JC
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > JC Martin wrote:
> > This is where we part ways on your 'pandering' claims. Whether Sco was
> > pandering or not re- his work with MMW (or Phil, FTM) is, from where I
> > stand, an unknown. And I'm not going to assume -- let alone publicly
> > insist -- that he was pandering in that instance (or any other) until
> > and unless I have compelling information to indicate as much.
> >
> > The mere fact that a jazz musician sometimes opts to play rock or funk
> > or whatever is not for me compelling information that s/he is
> > pandering.
>
> The compelling information is in the notes Ray. Maybe you can't hear
> music.
LOL. Yeah, maybe that's it. ###
> But it's clearly evident that Scofield simplified his playing on
> the MMW album and beyond for his groove-oriented sessions.
I'm with you that far. However just because a musician who is capable
of and generally more inclined to playing more complicated music
sometimes plays simpler music means that s/he is pandering when doing
so. Again IMO assume otherwise is misguidedly elitist.
> I know Sco
> loves groove. He told me his favorite stuff were those late 60's groove
> sessions on Blue Note with Leo Morris aka Idris Muhammad on the skins.
> But it's a fact he's simplified his solos, removing the bop runs,
> exploration of jazz harmony within a static chord or scale, and Monk
> phrasings normal to his playing and replaced it with cliche' classic
> rock licks. If you listen to Hand Jive or Groove Elation, he kept more
> of this playing personality and style intact.
All true (except I wouldn't characterize it all as "cliche' classic
rock licks"). His simpler playing however does not establish that he
was pandering in those situations.
Ray
leftie
> The compelling information is in the notes Ray. Maybe you can't hear
> music.
"Maybe you can't hear music."
See, it's not that I hate you JC. It's just that I think you are the
single most arrogant asshole rmgd.
I have held out hope that maybe one day you'd see that you use
incredibly strong language where it isn't called for, never admit a
mistake, that kind of thing.
I should give that up and just realize that you'll always be an arrogant
asshole who it really isn't worth trying to have a discussion with.
mike...@gmail.com
> JC Martin wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > Note that Phil didn't take a firm stand here. Read in between the
> > lines. "GD's legacy...one way or another..."
>
> True. However assuming that Phil is telling the truth here he was not
> involved in this decision and was not even notified of it.
>
Indeed -- but if you read what Archive is saying, they take
responsibility for going beyond what the dead wanted. Phil may have
known that they were banning downloads of the boards, and not known
that streaming of the boards and downloads of audience recordings was
also being taken away. So he could honestly express surprise and
opposition to what actually happened, when what most people are
complaining about -- eliminating downloads of the boards -- was
something he actually did know about.
JC Martin
Oh, I would. And if you sat down with me, I could easily point it out
to you.
>His simpler playing however does not establish that he
> was pandering in those situations.
This is where the experience of growing up around jazz musicians,
talking with them and hanging out fits in. You obviously don't
understand that perspective, and I'm cool with that. You're entitled to
your opinion, but I don't have to prove mine to you. If ya don't trust
this brotha, then that be okay by me. Dig baby?
-JC
JC Martin
> JC Martin wrote:
>
>> The compelling information is in the notes Ray. Maybe you can't hear
>> music.
>
>
> "Maybe you can't hear music."
>
> See, it's not that I hate you JC. It's just that I think you are the
> single most arrogant asshole rmgd.
Thank you. I love you too.
> I have held out hope that maybe one day you'd see that you use
> incredibly strong language where it isn't called for, never admit a
> mistake, that kind of thing.
Factually, you're incorrect. Not that I care about what motivates your
passive-aggressive hatred of me and your altered view of reality. Jammy
whammy maybe? ;-) You can dish it, but certainly can't take it.
Either way, different strokes for different folks bro. We just from
different worlds kid, and I'm okay by that. You should work on your
tolerance of people though. A lot to learn out there. So little time.
If this gets on your nerves, it's purposeful.
> I should give that up and just realize that you'll always be an arrogant
> asshole who it really isn't worth trying to have a discussion with.
If I lived in your box, I'd think much the same.
-JC
JC Martin
Ray knows that and I've already pointed it out. It's in the details.
Phil's statement was very carefully worded and didn't say anything in
respect to his knowledge of any given time frame of events or what his
exact feelings were on the issue of vault royalties. Of course Phil's
knows what's going on. He's stretching the truth. If that's Ray's
definition of an outright lie, so be it.
-JC
Ray
JC Martin wrote:
> mike...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ray wrote:
> >
> >>JC Martin wrote:
> >
> >
> >>><snip>
> >>>
> >>>Note that Phil didn't take a firm stand here. Read in between the
> >>>lines. "GD's legacy...one way or another..."
> >>
> >>True. However assuming that Phil is telling the truth here he was not
> >>involved in this decision and was not even notified of it.
> >>
> >
> > Indeed -- but if you read what Archive is saying, they take
> > responsibility for going beyond what the dead wanted. Phil may have
> > known that they were banning downloads of the boards, and not known
> > that streaming of the boards and downloads of audience recordings was
> > also being taken away. So he could honestly express surprise and
> > opposition to what actually happened, when what most people are
> > complaining about -- eliminating downloads of the boards -- was
> > something he actually did know about.
>
> Ray knows that
Yes, I do, and I agree. However when you and I had that exchange that
information was not yet public.
> and I've already pointed it out. It's in the details.
> Phil's statement was very carefully worded and didn't say anything in
> respect to his knowledge of any given time frame of events or what his
> exact feelings were on the issue of vault royalties. Of course Phil's
> knows what's going on. He's stretching the truth.
What Mike provided is a plausible scenario. We do not know, however,
if it's the truth or not. And for you to assert otherwise is to go
beyond the available facts.
> If that's Ray's
> definition of an outright lie, so be it.
It's you who accused Phil of lying, not me.
Ray
JC Martin
*LOL* Available facts??? We're talking about nothing BUT plausible
and/or implausible scenarios. This ain't a scientific experiment here
or a course in logic.
-JC
JC Martin
Is one "available fact" that whatever Phil writes is 100% truth? Of
course not. We know that's not true in *fact*. What other available
facts are out there? I know you have a good list somewhere.
-JC
Ray
You really think that all of what Sco did with, say, MMW is 'cliche'?
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
> >His simpler playing however does not establish that he
> > was pandering in those situations.
>
> This is where the experience of growing up around jazz musicians,
> talking with them and hanging out fits in.
Yes - that has informed my opinion as well.
> You obviously don't
> understand that perspective
LOL. Sorry, but "you obviously don't understand" without backing it up
with valid reasoning and facts means nothing to me.
JC as I've said here before you are obviously an intelligent and
informed guy, and IMO you bring a lot of value to this newsgroup. But
your determined certainty about what really goes on in the minds of
individual musicians -- what they are really thinking and why they do
what they do even though one would often have to be a supernatural
mindreader to really know -- baffles me. But hey, whatever works for
you.
Ray
leftie
> This is where the experience of growing up around jazz musicians,
> talking with them and hanging out fits in. You obviously don't
> understand that perspective, and I'm cool with that. You're entitled to
> your opinion, but I don't have to prove mine to you. If ya don't trust
> this brotha, then that be okay by me. Dig baby?
One day, just maybe, you'll develop the kind of language skills that
will allow you to share all the 'perspectives' you've developed hanging
out with musicians with regular folks. Til then you rely on "trust me, I
know musicians" which is worthless as a way of making whatever point you
are trying to make.
Ray
By 'available facts' meant the available information on the issue that
is factual instread of merely rumor or conjecture. As in: it is a fact
that Phil said "I was not part of this decision-making process and was
not notified that the shows were to be pulled."
You, however, have taken the available facts and reached a definitive
conclusion that cannot be definitely established from it -- your
definitive claim notwithstanding, we do not know that Phil was in fact
stretching the truth here. It's only a plausible scenario.
BTW, Re- your claim that "Phil's statement was very carefully worded
and didn't say anything in respect to his knowledge of any given time
frame of events": By any reasonable interpretation of Phil's
statement, Phil stated that he did not know that the shows were going
to be pulled before said event occurred. And to assert otherwise is to
assert that Phil was lying. [lie: 2 : to create a false or misleading
impression (Websters.com)]
HTH,
Ray
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > if it's the truth or not. And for you to assert otherwise is to go
> > beyond the available facts.
>
> Is one "available fact" that whatever Phil writes is 100% truth? Of
> course not.
Who said or implied that? I didn't.
I did say however that I'll assume that Phil is being honest here
unless compelling information is provided to the contrary.
Ray
JC Martin
No, not all. But that was the beginning. It's gotten worse over time.
The Ray Charles disc produced by Steve Jordan was surprisingly
excellent thought.
>>>His simpler playing however does not establish that he
>>>was pandering in those situations.
>>
>>This is where the experience of growing up around jazz musicians,
>>talking with them and hanging out fits in.
>
>
> Yes - that has informed my opinion as well.
Oh really?
>>You obviously don't
>>understand that perspective
>
>
> LOL. Sorry, but "you obviously don't understand" without backing it up
> with valid reasoning and facts means nothing to me.
I presented facts which you've even agreed that are facts (facts hard to
prove to someone that wasn't raised or educated in knowing a little jazz
harmony). You seemingly prefer however to take the view that pandering
or stretching of the truth in the music business world is an uncommon
occurance. I disagree obviously. See, what you've done here is insist
that my view is a "negative", therefore must be proved in the context of
your scientific-based paradigm. Since your view is a "positive" in your
paradigm, you have nothing to prove. Same thing on the Lesh topic.
You're not provided facts or even valid reasoning (though not devoid of
reasoning per se :-) ). You're just spinning to Phil's viewpoint, which
is fine by me I might add.
> JC as I've said here before you are obviously an intelligent and
> informed guy,
Informed in limited areas, not nearly as intelligent as you Ray. :-)
Seriously, you have an amazing intellect. I just don't always agree
with your conclusions or line of reasoning.
>and IMO you bring a lot of value to this newsgroup. But
> your determined certainty about what really goes on in the minds of
> individual musicians --
Some certainty, yes. Saying it's an outright fact? No. You should
know better by now in your conversations with me. We're having what I
would assume to be a friendly argument, not a pissing contest. Though I
know it goes there sometime.
what they are really thinking and why they do
> what they do even though one would often have to be a supernatural
> mindreader to really know -- baffles me. But hey, whatever works for
> you.
I've hung with Sco a little (and leftie thinks I'm arrogant) and I know
his music very well. Does that mean what I've shared is an outright
scientific fact? Of course not. Do I think he panders musically to
some extent? Absolutely. Do I think less of him for it? No...I just
don't buy his "jamband" related CD's anymore. Too predictable for me.
-JC
JC Martin
Funny how Ray and I can always carry a conversation in a civil manner,
yet then I have to deal with putzes like you who parse statements to
prove in your own obsessive-compulsive mind how fucked someone is,
because you can't express your anger in a healthy manner. You are way
projecting muh friend. Slow down on the weed, grab a mirror and get to
work on yourself instead of spending your Usenet time hiding behind
wise-ass cracks (heiny sex alert!) and finding fault in others. You'll
be better off for it. It's like you're frustrated cause you have
nothing to say on a given topic. Just smart-ass remarks to hide your
own pain or something. Whatever it is, spare me.
Thanks,
-JC
JC Martin
What facts or compelling information make you assume Phil was being 100%
honest?
-JC
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > You really think that all of what Sco did with, say, MMW is 'cliche'?
> > We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
>
> No, not all. But that was the beginning. It's gotten worse over time.
So in your mind was Sco's work with MMW 'pandering' then?
> The Ray Charles disc produced by Steve Jordan was surprisingly
> excellent thought.
I'm not familiar with that one.
> >>>His simpler playing however does not establish that he
> >>>was pandering in those situations.
> >>
> >>This is where the experience of growing up around jazz musicians,
> >>talking with them and hanging out fits in.
> >
> >
> > Yes - that has informed my opinion as well.
>
> Oh really?
Yes, really. Granted the majority of my experience growing up with and
hanging with musicians is with rock as opposed to jazz musicians, but
not exclusively. Music (professional and otherwise) is in my family
and friends, and deep.
> >>You obviously don't
> >>understand that perspective
> >
> >
> > LOL. Sorry, but "you obviously don't understand" without backing it up
> > with valid reasoning and facts means nothing to me.
>
>
> I presented facts which you've even agreed that are facts (facts hard to
> prove to someone that wasn't raised or educated in knowing a little jazz
> harmony). You seemingly prefer however to take the view that pandering
> or stretching of the truth in the music business world is an uncommon
> occurance.
No - I said and think no such thing.
> I disagree obviously. See, what you've done here is insist
> that my view is a "negative", therefore must be proved in the context of
> your scientific-based paradigm. Since your view is a "positive" in your
> paradigm, you have nothing to prove.
My view is only that I don't have enough information to know whether,
say, Sco is pandering when he plays with MMW and/or Phil. And for
someone to convince me otherwise I need compelling information -- which
you have not provided.
> Same thing on the Lesh topic.
> You're not provided facts or even valid reasoning (though not devoid of
> reasoning per se :-) ). You're just spinning to Phil's viewpoint, which
> is fine by me I might add.
No - I'm saying that I assume that Phil is being honest unless I am
provided with compelling information to the contrary. Which again you
have not provided.
> > JC as I've said here before you are obviously an intelligent and
> > informed guy,
>
>
> Informed in limited areas, not nearly as intelligent as you Ray. :-)
> Seriously, you have an amazing intellect.
Thanks - I find your intellect to be impressive as well. Which is part
of why I don't understand why or how you get into this supernatural
mindreading stuff and and moreover repeatedly present it it as fact.
> I just don't always agree
> with your conclusions or line of reasoning.
Get in line. :-p
> >and IMO you bring a lot of value to this newsgroup. But
> > your determined certainty about what really goes on in the minds of
> > individual musicians --
>
>
> Some certainty, yes. Saying it's an outright fact? No. You should
> know better by now in your conversations with me. We're having what I
> would assume to be a friendly argument, not a pissing contest. Though I
> know it goes there sometime.
You present things as outright facts all the time that can't be proven.
And I don't understand why.
> > what they are really thinking and why they do
> > what they do even though one would often have to be a supernatural
> > mindreader to really know -- baffles me. But hey, whatever works for
> > you.
>
>
> I've hung with Sco a little (and leftie thinks I'm arrogant)
FWIW, your "Maybe you can't hear music" declaration struck me as
arrogant as well.
I don't have near your jazz training or knowledge, but I would think
that after all the discussions we've had on the topid it should be
clear to you as this point that I have more than a passing knowledge
and understanding of music, including jazz. As such, I read your
comment there as arrogant, and/or a juvenille attempt to yank my chain.
But hey, whatever.
> and I know
> his music very well. Does that mean what I've shared is an outright
> scientific fact? Of course not. Do I think he panders musically to
> some extent? Absolutely. Do I think less of him for it? No...I just
> don't buy his "jamband" related CD's anymore. Too predictable for me.
What you just wrote here is totally reasonable and valid - wrote that
you *think* he panders musically to some extent. And FWIW, I tend to
agree.
Very often, however, you make definitive declarations about which
musicians are pandering and when, instead of "I think", even when the
only way you could definitely know is that to be in the artist's head
or have a *very* close connection. And when people call you on it,
rather than either provide your source or say something to the effect
of "based on my background and familiarity with the artist that's my
opinion," you often instead dig your heels in further with something to
the effect of "Of course it's true. And I know because I'm a cool
hep-cat who's in the know about these things. And you aren't."
In my book that just doesn't wash.
Ray
Ray
>From what I know of Phil, he doesn't have a history of lying about
anything that I consider to be of significant importance. (Yes, I
think he's stretched the truth in some instances in an attempt to be
diplomatic and/or not air dirty laundry, but I cut all celebrities
slack in that regard.) As such, I give him the benefit of the doubt
here and assume that he's not lying unless unless compelling
information is provided to the contrary.
Why do you assume that he's not being 100% honest?
Ray
JC Martin
Because the facts as I know them say otherwise. That's it. I don't
think he's being 100% truthful. Phil is the very definition of a image
conscious rock star IMO and the facts as I know them lead me to that
conclusion. As far as "significant importance"? Gimme an example.
Cause I don't know what that means. Significance would be subjective in
this case, no?
-JC
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > JC Martin wrote:
> >
> >>Ray wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'll assume that Phil is being honest here
> >>>unless compelling information is provided to the contrary.
> >>
> >>
> >>What facts or compelling information make you assume Phil was being 100%
> >>honest?
> >
> >
> >>From what I know of Phil, he doesn't have a history of lying about
> > anything that I consider to be of significant importance. (Yes, I
> > think he's stretched the truth in some instances in an attempt to be
> > diplomatic and/or not air dirty laundry, but I cut all celebrities
> > slack in that regard.) As such, I give him the benefit of the doubt
> > here and assume that he's not lying unless unless compelling
> > information is provided to the contrary.
> >
> > Why do you assume that he's not being 100% honest?
>
>
> Because the facts as I know them say otherwise. That's it. I don't
> think he's being 100% truthful. Phil is the very definition of a image
> conscious rock star IMO and the facts as I know them lead me to that
> conclusion.
Unless you present the facts as you know them that brings you to that
conclusion that means nothing to me, since the facts as I know them do
not support such a conclusion.
> As far as "significant importance"? Gimme an example.
> Cause I don't know what that means.
I already gave a specific example of something that I did not consider
to be of significant importance - his stated reason for not attending
the Comes A Time show. Again that strikes me as a poor attempt to keep
the dirty laundry in house. (Though maybe Phil really did want to move
his kid into Stanfurd that day, dunno - that it was instead a
dirty-laundry cover is just my impression.) Again I cut all
celebrities some slack in the dirty launry dept.
As for a specific example of something that I do consider to be of
significant importance, lying about one's role in this Archive issue
for any reason other than to hide the dirty laundry would qualify.
More generally, lying anything that does not have to do with hinding
the dirty laundry would probably qualify, though there might be other
exceptions that are not coming to mind at the moment, dunno.
> Significance would be subjective in
> this case, no?
Most definitely.
So do you still stand by your claim that "Phil's statement was very
carefully worded and didn't say anything in respect to his knowledge of
any given time frame of events"? Because if so you are still accusing
Phil of lying.
Ray
JC Martin
Why would I *have* to provide you compelling formation? And what would
be compelling for instance?
>
>> Same thing on the Lesh topic.
>>You're not provided facts or even valid reasoning (though not devoid of
>>reasoning per se :-) ). You're just spinning to Phil's viewpoint, which
>>is fine by me I might add.
>
>
> No - I'm saying that I assume that Phil is being honest unless I am
> provided with compelling information to the contrary. Which again you
> have not provided.
I guess I just don't get why you would assume him to be 100% honest via
a press release on his Web page. The facts tell me that's not likely.
Seem to me you're starting from a biased point of view.
>>>JC as I've said here before you are obviously an intelligent and
>>>informed guy,
>>
>>
>>Informed in limited areas, not nearly as intelligent as you Ray. :-)
>>Seriously, you have an amazing intellect.
>
>
> Thanks - I find your intellect to be impressive as well.
It's really not that impressive, though I appreciate the compliment.
I'm of average intelligence. Only smart enough to know where I stand
and have an opinion.
>Which is part
> of why I don't understand why or how you get into this supernatural
> mindreading stuff and and moreover repeatedly present it it as fact.
LOL. I don't believe I do. Maybe you shouldn't assume that a hard
opinion is presented as 100% fact.
>>I just don't always agree
>>with your conclusions or line of reasoning.
>
>
> Get in line. :-p
>
>
>>>and IMO you bring a lot of value to this newsgroup. But
>>>your determined certainty about what really goes on in the minds of
>>>individual musicians --
>>
>>
>>Some certainty, yes. Saying it's an outright fact? No. You should
>>know better by now in your conversations with me. We're having what I
>>would assume to be a friendly argument, not a pissing contest. Though I
>>know it goes there sometime.
>
>
> You present things as outright facts all the time that can't be proven.
> And I don't understand why.
No I don't Ray. I think that a huge stretching of the truth and you
should know better.
>>>what they are really thinking and why they do
>>>what they do even though one would often have to be a supernatural
>>>mindreader to really know -- baffles me. But hey, whatever works for
>>>you.
>>
>>
>>I've hung with Sco a little (and leftie thinks I'm arrogant)
>
>
> FWIW, your "Maybe you can't hear music" declaration struck me as
> arrogant as well.
It was intended as such.
> I don't have near your jazz training or knowledge,
I don't have much jazz training...a little theory. I'm too scattered to
be a jazz musician. Technique and detail are things I'm very poor at.
I'm more of a big concept guy. Musically, I compose in vertical
stacks..very slowly and without direction...just a basic conceptual
framework. And I'm too lazy to read or write notation. Improvising for
me is within the compositional process. That's why I have a lot of
respect for jazz musicians, the ones who work really hard at their
craft. I'm envious and in awe actually.
>but I would think
> that after all the discussions we've had on the topid it should be
> clear to you as this point that I have more than a passing knowledge
> and understanding of music, including jazz.
Sure, but there are times when you act as if what I'm saying is a
completely foreign concept, then you later agree with some finer points.
>As such, I read your
> comment there as arrogant, and/or a juvenille attempt to yank my chain.
So you haven't been yanking my chain on this thread Ray? Really. How
many times did you need to parse my ideas and reduce it to 'Phil is
lying'? Come on man.
> But hey, whatever.
...dooood
>>and I know
>>his music very well. Does that mean what I've shared is an outright
>>scientific fact? Of course not. Do I think he panders musically to
>>some extent? Absolutely. Do I think less of him for it? No...I just
>>don't buy his "jamband" related CD's anymore. Too predictable for me.
>
>
> What you just wrote here is totally reasonable and valid - wrote that
> you *think* he panders musically to some extent. And FWIW, I tend to
> agree.
*LOL* Okay.
> Very often, however, you make definitive declarations about which
> musicians are pandering and when, instead of "I think",
It's always what I think.
>even when the
> only way you could definitely know is that to be in the artist's head
> or have a *very* close connection.
Don't totally agree with that, but is most cases, yes.
>And when people call you on it,
> rather than either provide your source or say something to the effect
> of "based on my background and familiarity with the artist that's my
> opinion," you often instead dig your heels in further with something to
> the effect of "Of course it's true.
People? Like leftie? Sorry Ray, you may dig the guy. I don't take him
too seriously myself. Do I sometimes make strong statements? Sure. I
enjoy the devil's advocate role. I not interested however in applying
your scientific paradigm to what makes good music or bad, sell-out or
not. When I say Green Day sucks, I MEAN, they SUCK. When I say U2 is a
sell-out band and also relate that I know someone who's worked with
Bono, I mean only that. You think I care about appearing cool here? If
that were my agenda, I'm doin' a pretty shitty job.
>And I know because I'm a cool
> hep-cat who's in the know about these things. And you aren't."
If someone says Billy K. is technically a superior drummer to Tony
Williams, I'm gonna say it's bullshit. That's all. How am I going to
convince someone who obviously can't hear differently? Do I have to
give a music course here online to prove it? Your standards are way to
high for me Ray when it comes to casual conversation.
> In my book that just doesn't wash.
I don't think all of your characterizations wash frankly. Opinions are
just that...and I have some strong ones. It's not necessary for
everyone to agree.
-JC
JC Martin
> JC Martin wrote:
>
>>Ray wrote:
>>
>>>JC Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'll assume that Phil is being honest here
>>>>>unless compelling information is provided to the contrary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What facts or compelling information make you assume Phil was being 100%
>>>>honest?
>>>
>>>
>>>>From what I know of Phil, he doesn't have a history of lying about
>>>anything that I consider to be of significant importance. (Yes, I
>>>think he's stretched the truth in some instances in an attempt to be
>>>diplomatic and/or not air dirty laundry, but I cut all celebrities
>>>slack in that regard.) As such, I give him the benefit of the doubt
>>>here and assume that he's not lying unless unless compelling
>>>information is provided to the contrary.
>>>
>>>Why do you assume that he's not being 100% honest?
>>
>>
>>Because the facts as I know them say otherwise. That's it. I don't
>>think he's being 100% truthful. Phil is the very definition of a image
>>conscious rock star IMO and the facts as I know them lead me to that
>>conclusion.
>
>
> Unless you present the facts as you know them that brings you to that
> conclusion that means nothing to me, since the facts as I know them do
> not support such a conclusion.
All the facts are out in the open. We've come to different conclusions
obviously.
>>As far as "significant importance"? Gimme an example.
>>Cause I don't know what that means.
>
>
> I already gave a specific example of something that I did not consider
> to be of significant importance - his stated reason for not attending
> the Comes A Time show. Again that strikes me as a poor attempt to keep
> the dirty laundry in house. (Though maybe Phil really did want to move
> his kid into Stanfurd that day, dunno - that it was instead a
> dirty-laundry cover is just my impression.) Again I cut all
> celebrities some slack in the dirty launry dept.
>
> As for a specific example of something that I do consider to be of
> significant importance, lying about one's role in this Archive issue
> for any reason other than to hide the dirty laundry would qualify.
Not sure I agree that this spin is any more significant than anything
else Phil says. Nor would it bug me as much of you if he told an
outright lie on the vault issue. It's all a part of the same game to
me. One of the ways Phil controls his image is through his Web site.
Would you not agree? And we know Phil didn't come fully clean on other
issues, such as forcing Kimock onto TOO tour and others that don't
spring readily to mind.
> More generally, lying anything that does not have to do with hinding
> the dirty laundry would probably qualify, though there might be other
> exceptions that are not coming to mind at the moment, dunno.
>
>
>>Significance would be subjective in
>>this case, no?
>
>
> Most definitely.
And this is where we differ. The facts have nothing to do with it. In
my view, I'm starting from the center position and Phil has convinced me
through his many actions that he can be extremely controlling, pouty and
is capable of stretching the truth. Introducing random significances is
irrelevant to me.
> So do you still stand by your claim that "Phil's statement was very
> carefully worded and didn't say anything in respect to his knowledge of
> any given time frame of events"?
Absolutely.
>Because if so you are still accusing
> Phil of lying.
I like to say "stretching the truth", but if you say lying (certainly a
loaded word), fine by me. Haven't we addressed this already though?
How many time do you need to say it to make it true, eh?
-JC
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > My view is only that I don't have enough information to know whether,
> > say, Sco is pandering when he plays with MMW and/or Phil. And for
> > someone to convince me otherwise I need compelling information -- which
> > you have not provided.
>
> Why would I *have* to provide you compelling formation?
You don't have to. But if you don't then don't expect me (or anyone
else) to regard what you say as necessarily the truth.
Especially when my shadowy sources and my "word on the street"
contradict your shadowy sources and your "word on the street".
> And what would
> be compelling for instance?
In this case? An example would be verifiable and unambiguous
statements from authoritative sources (the musicians themselves or
insiders who would definitely know).
> >> Same thing on the Lesh topic.
> >>You're not provided facts or even valid reasoning (though not devoid of
> >>reasoning per se :-) ). You're just spinning to Phil's viewpoint, which
> >>is fine by me I might add.
> >
> >
> > No - I'm saying that I assume that Phil is being honest unless I am
> > provided with compelling information to the contrary. Which again you
> > have not provided.
>
> I guess I just don't get why you would assume him to be 100% honest via
> a press release on his Web page. The facts tell me that's not likely.
> Seem to me you're starting from a biased point of view.
That's correct I am coming from a biased point of view - my bias here
is that Phil (and the rest of the band, FTM) is telling the truth
unless I am provided with compelling information to the contrary.
> > Thanks - I find your intellect to be impressive as well.
>
> It's really not that impressive, though I appreciate the compliment.
> I'm of average intelligence. Only smart enough to know where I stand
> and have an opinion.
That's way smarter than a lot of people right there. You obviously
think critically and independently, as opposed to uncritically being
spoon-fed whatever this or that person or group is telling you. And
from what I can tell you generally build your positions from the solid
foundations up That, unfortunately, is all too often not the case.
Also, you often clearly have a deep and wide understanding of what you
are talking about, especially with regards to music.
> >Which is part
> > of why I don't understand why or how you get into this supernatural
> > mindreading stuff and and moreover repeatedly present it it as fact.
>
> LOL. I don't believe I do. Maybe you shouldn't assume that a hard
> opinion is presented as 100% fact.
I wouldn't assume that, except that when called on said opinion you
often if not usually dig in deeper that said opinion is fact -- as
such, you can't blame others for taking you at your word there.
> > You present things as outright facts all the time that can't be proven.
> > And I don't understand why.
>
> No I don't Ray. I think that a huge stretching of the truth and you
> should know better.
Whether you think you come off that way or not, that's how, as I see
it, you come off much of the time. And that's clearly how at least
some others see it as well.
> >> leftie thinks I'm arrogant
> >
> > FWIW, your "Maybe you can't hear music" declaration struck me as
> > arrogant as well.
>
> It was intended as such.
In which case you should understand why people perceive you as being
arrogant when you make comments like that one.
> I have a lot of
> respect for jazz musicians, the ones who work really hard at their
> craft. I'm envious and in awe actually.
Me too.
> >but I would think
> > that after all the discussions we've had on the topid it should be
> > clear to you as this point that I have more than a passing knowledge
> > and understanding of music, including jazz.
>
> Sure, but there are times when you act as if what I'm saying is a
> completely foreign concept, then you later agree with some finer points.
What I usually take exception to with you is when you often claim to
definitively know what this or that musician is pandering - that to me
IS a foreign concept. FWIW I usually don't even try to claim to know
with certaintly when musicians whom I'm very close to are pandering -
yes, I know they pander sometimes, and yes, I've got my ideas as to
when, but unless they tell me I would never presume to know such a
thing with certainty, let alone present such a thing with the level of
certainty that you often do.
> >As such, I read your
> > comment there as arrogant, and/or a juvenille attempt to yank my chain.
>
> So you haven't been yanking my chain on this thread Ray? Really.
Not intentionally, no.
> How
> many times did you need to parse my ideas and reduce it to 'Phil is
> lying'? Come on man.
I'm not doing that to yank your chain - I'm doing that because that's
really how I see it. In my book there is no other way, for example, to
interpret this statement of yours:
"Phil's statement was very carefully worded and didn't say anything in
respect to his knowledge of any given time frame of events."
This, after Phil stated: "I was not part of this decision-making
process and was not notified that the shows were to be pulled."
Yes, one could parse Phil's statement in such a way as to point out
that the wording leaves open the logical possibility that while he
'wasn't notified' at some given point in time, he was however
nonetheless notified before the shows were actually pulled. But, if
that's really what went down, then Phil's statement was decidely worded
to create a false impression.
And one type of "lie" is "to create a false or misleading impression"
(Websters.com)].
Which is to say, your statement, assuming you intend to convey that
Phil intentionally worded his statement to cover for the logical
scenaro described above (which is how I read it), accuses Phil of
lying.
> > Very often, however, you make definitive declarations about which
> > musicians are pandering and when, instead of "I think",
>
> It's always what I think.
I mean "I think..." as in "my opinion is...", not "it is an objective
fact that...".
Opinions and objective facts are not the same thing, and objective
facts are not always what you (or anybody) think(s).
> >And when people call you on it,
> > rather than either provide your source or say something to the effect
> > of "based on my background and familiarity with the artist that's my
> > opinion," you often instead dig your heels in further with something to
> > the effect of "Of course it's true.
>
>
> People? Like leftie?
Leftie, Neil, me, and others too.
> Sorry Ray, you may dig the guy. I don't take him
> too seriously myself.
I think quite highly of leftie, yes.
> Do I sometimes make strong statements? Sure. I
> enjoy the devil's advocate role.
Nothing wrong with that - I of course often make strong statements too,
and do the devil's advocate thing sometimes as well.
> I not interested however in applying
> your scientific paradigm to what makes good music or bad, sell-out or
> not. When I say Green Day sucks, I MEAN, they SUCK.
Even though I believe you do think that, that's of course a subjective
opinion. As such, that's not the type of definitive statement that I
and others take exception to. What I and others take exception to is
when you defintively assert that, for example, Green Day are corporate
sell-outs. Sorry - unless you provide proof to back it up it's still
just an opinion in my book.
> When I say U2 is a
> sell-out band and also relate that I know someone who's worked with
> Bono, I mean only that.
I which case I think that phrasing assertions like that one, as opposed
to insisting that U2 is *definitely* a sell-out band, instead as say
"Based on what I know - which includes via someone I know who's works
with Bono - it is my belief that U2 is a sell-out band" would go a long
way towards resolving communication problems here. Because that latter
description is often not how you generally come off to me and others -
it's often instead more along the lines of "because of my connections I
KNOW that U2 is a sell-out band, and if you disagree then that's just
because you are ignorant." Big difference there.
> You think I care about appearing cool here? If
> that were my agenda, I'm doin' a pretty shitty job.
The 'cool' part is rhetorical flourish. The "Of course it's true - I
know this because I'm in the know and you're not"-type part, however,
is not.
> >And I know because I'm a cool
> > hep-cat who's in the know about these things. And you aren't."
>
> If someone says Billy K. is technically a superior drummer to Tony
> Williams, I'm gonna say it's bullshit. That's all. How am I going to
> convince someone who obviously can't hear differently? Do I have to
> give a music course here online to prove it?
No - that one is clear to anyone with a fairly significant exposure to
rock and jazz drumming -- even I, with relatively little formal
training, can easily discern that one.
Again I generally don't disagree with your technical assessments in
this arena (indeed, at the moment I can't recall of ever having
disagreed with you in that realm) -- it's the mindreading stuff re-
'pandering' and the like that I and others take exception to.
Ray
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > Unless you present the facts as you know them that brings you to that
> > conclusion that means nothing to me, since the facts as I know them do
> > not support such a conclusion.
>
> All the facts are out in the open. We've come to different conclusions
> obviously.
All of the facts are not out in the open - far from it. And as such, I
haven't come to any conclusions here. I will however continue to
assume that Phil (and the rest of the band members, FTM) is telling the
truth unless compelling information is provided to the contrary.
> > As for a specific example of something that I do consider to be of
> > significant importance, lying about one's role in this Archive issue
> > for any reason other than to hide the dirty laundry would qualify.
>
> Not sure I agree that this spin is any more significant than anything
> else Phil says.
Again I differentiate between ofuscations meant to avoid airing dirty
laundry and otherwise - apparently we disagree there.
> Nor would it bug me as much of you if he told an
> outright lie on the vault issue.
I don't know how much it would 'bug' me, but it would affect how I
would regard similiar statements from Phil in the future - I'd then be
less inclined to assume that he was being truthful in such
circumstances.
> It's all a part of the same game to
> me. One of the ways Phil controls his image is through his Web site.
> Would you not agree?
Yes of course - everyone with a web site does that.
> And we know Phil didn't come fully clean on other
> issues, such as forcing Kimock onto TOO tour and others that don't
> spring readily to mind.
Again that's a dirty-laundry issue, which I put in a different
category.
> In
> my view, I'm starting from the center position
What do you define to be the 'center position'? That Phil is equally
likely with any given statement to lie as he is to tell the truth?
> and Phil has convinced me
> through his many actions that he can be extremely controlling, pouty and
> is capable of stretching the truth.
Even if all of that were true (though I'm not convinced of such), in my
view there's still a qualitative difference between stretching the
truth to avoid hanging out the dirty laundry and stretching the truth
to make one look misleadingly better than they really are at the
expense of one's longtime bandmates - to me the latter is a much more
significant obuscation,
> Introducing random significances is
> irrelevant to me.
'Random'?
> > So do you still stand by your claim that "Phil's statement was very
> > carefully worded and didn't say anything in respect to his knowledge of
> > any given time frame of events"?
>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
> >Because if so you are still accusing
> > Phil of lying.
>
> I like to say "stretching the truth", but if you say lying (certainly a
> loaded word), fine by me. Haven't we addressed this already though?
> How many time do you need to say it to make it true, eh?
Lying may be a loaded word, but it's also by definition an accurate one
in this instance.
Ray
JC Martin
> JC Martin wrote:
>
>>Ray wrote:
>>
>>>Unless you present the facts as you know them that brings you to that
>>>conclusion that means nothing to me, since the facts as I know them do
>>>not support such a conclusion.
>>
>>All the facts are out in the open. We've come to different conclusions
>>obviously.
>
> All of the facts are not out in the open - far from it.
The facts we are discussing and lack thereof have already been
established. Like you, I'm not going to introduce shadowy sources and
the like, since a lot of it is hearsay. So yes, the facts as we know
them are out in the open.
>And as such, I
> haven't come to any conclusions here.
Sure you have.
>I will however continue to
> assume that Phil (and the rest of the band members, FTM) is telling the
> truth unless compelling information is provided to the contrary.
That assumption in itself is a conclusion.
>>>As for a specific example of something that I do consider to be of
>>>significant importance, lying about one's role in this Archive issue
>>>for any reason other than to hide the dirty laundry would qualify.
>>
>>Not sure I agree that this spin is any more significant than anything
>>else Phil says.
>
>
> Again I differentiate between ofuscations meant to avoid airing dirty
> laundry and otherwise - apparently we disagree there.
Yup. Goes to the heart of the matter.
>
>>Nor would it bug me as much of you if he told an
>>outright lie on the vault issue.
>
>
> I don't know how much it would 'bug' me, but it would affect how I
> would regard similiar statements from Phil in the future - I'd then be
> less inclined to assume that he was being truthful in such
> circumstances.
See, I don't assume he's being truthful based on past behavior.
Certainly there's a large degree of truth in his statements. But
they're also carefully worded.
>>It's all a part of the same game to
>>me. One of the ways Phil controls his image is through his Web site.
>>Would you not agree?
>
>
> Yes of course - everyone with a web site does that.
Really? How does Bobby do that for instance?
>>And we know Phil didn't come fully clean on other
>>issues, such as forcing Kimock onto TOO tour and others that don't
>>spring readily to mind.
>
>
> Again that's a dirty-laundry issue, which I put in a different
> category.
I don't at all. Serious stuff in my book.
>>In
>>my view, I'm starting from the center position
>
>
> What do you define to be the 'center position'? That Phil is equally
> likely with any given statement to lie as he is to tell the truth?
Meaning, I have no ax to grind against any of them. Nor do I elevate
one member over another musically. Those who prefer Phil's vision tend
to side with his spin and point of view. Those who are more into Bob
tend not to care as much, but again, would tend to stand up for Bobby.
>>and Phil has convinced me
>>through his many actions that he can be extremely controlling, pouty and
>>is capable of stretching the truth.
>
>
> Even if all of that were true (though I'm not convinced of such), in my
> view there's still a qualitative difference between stretching the
> truth to avoid hanging out the dirty laundry and stretching the truth
> to make one look misleadingly better than they really are at the
> expense of one's longtime bandmates -
You don't think Phil believes he's better? How many messages has Phil
posted pertaining to inner-GDP politics? Quite a few actually. The
overall impression I get is that he is promoting himself as the logical,
clear-thinking band member.
to me the latter is a much more
> significant obuscation,
>
>
>> Introducing random significances is
>>irrelevant to me.
>
>
> 'Random'?
Yes, random. By your own admission Ray, you've stated the significances
you brought forth are purely subjective. I disagree with your scale of
significance, so it's irrelevant to me.
>>>So do you still stand by your claim that "Phil's statement was very
>>>carefully worded and didn't say anything in respect to his knowledge of
>>>any given time frame of events"?
>>
>>
>>Absolutely.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Because if so you are still accusing
>>>Phil of lying.
>>
>>I like to say "stretching the truth", but if you say lying (certainly a
>>loaded word), fine by me. Haven't we addressed this already though?
>>How many time do you need to say it to make it true, eh?
>
>
> Lying may be a loaded word, but it's also by definition an accurate one
> in this instance.
Sure, but I believe "stretching the truth" describes my feelings more
accurately. By the definition you give, there's a lot of lies out
there. And there is. But again, it's a loaded word and I believe your
intent was to put me on the defensive more so than seek understanding of
my view. Or maybe both.
-JC
JC Martin
<snip>
>
>>>Which is part
>>>of why I don't understand why or how you get into this supernatural
>>>mindreading stuff and and moreover repeatedly present it it as fact.
>>
>>LOL. I don't believe I do. Maybe you shouldn't assume that a hard
>>opinion is presented as 100% fact.
>
>
> I wouldn't assume that, except that when called on said opinion you
> often if not usually dig in deeper that said opinion is fact -- as
> such, you can't blame others for taking you at your word there.
I don't! Why would even think for a second I care? This is Usenet.
This is where people talk shit and then pretend that it's only the other
person doing so. There's an implied *wink* to any perceived factual
statement I make. Of course, a more diplomatic approach rules the day
in the real world. I'm not so stupid on that point.
>>>You present things as outright facts all the time that can't be proven.
>>> And I don't understand why.
>>
>>No I don't Ray. I think that a huge stretching of the truth and you
>>should know better.
>
>
> Whether you think you come off that way or not, that's how, as I see
> it, you come off much of the time. And that's clearly how at least
> some others see it as well.
And I do it on purpose to those that see it that way.
>>>>leftie thinks I'm arrogant
>>>
>>>FWIW, your "Maybe you can't hear music" declaration struck me as
>>>arrogant as well.
>>
>>It was intended as such.
>
>
> In which case you should understand why people perceive you as being
> arrogant when you make comments like that one.
I do.
>>I have a lot of
>>respect for jazz musicians, the ones who work really hard at their
>>craft. I'm envious and in awe actually.
>
>
> Me too.
>
>
>>>but I would think
>>>that after all the discussions we've had on the topid it should be
>>>clear to you as this point that I have more than a passing knowledge
>>>and understanding of music, including jazz.
>>
>>Sure, but there are times when you act as if what I'm saying is a
>>completely foreign concept, then you later agree with some finer points.
>
>
> What I usually take exception to with you is when you often claim to
> definitively know what this or that musician is pandering - that to me
> IS a foreign concept.
And yet you agree finally that Scofield has pandered.
>FWIW I usually don't even try to claim to know
> with certaintly when musicians whom I'm very close to are pandering -
Yes, I'm fairly certain. Doesn't make my certainty an absolute fact,
nor should you assume so.
<snip>
>>>And when people call you on it,
>>>rather than either provide your source or say something to the effect
>>>of "based on my background and familiarity with the artist that's my
>>>opinion," you often instead dig your heels in further with something to
>>>the effect of "Of course it's true.
>>
>>
>>People? Like leftie?
>
>
> Leftie, Neil, me, and others too.
Leftie is never serious on any topic other than a few political posts
here and there. His modus operandi is to chop up posts and make
wise-ass remarks without any useful content. That's consistent behavior
on his part. He's got a real passive-aggressive streak IMO.
Neil is a great guy. But he often makes absolutist statements without
backing them up with facts be it music, sports and even booze. I think
he also often does so with a twinkle in his eye. He used to like to
stir the pot a little in other words. Not so much so now. I'm not
unique here. What's unique is that I've insulted some people's heroes.
>>Sorry Ray, you may dig the guy. I don't take him
>>too seriously myself.
>
>
> I think quite highly of leftie, yes.
Then you must know him offline. Cause he's an idiot here.
>>Do I sometimes make strong statements? Sure. I
>>enjoy the devil's advocate role.
>
>
> Nothing wrong with that - I of course often make strong statements too,
> and do the devil's advocate thing sometimes as well.
>
>
>> I not interested however in applying
>>your scientific paradigm to what makes good music or bad, sell-out or
>>not. When I say Green Day sucks, I MEAN, they SUCK.
>
>
> Even though I believe you do think that, that's of course a subjective
> opinion. As such, that's not the type of definitive statement that I
> and others take exception to. What I and others take exception to is
> when you defintively assert that, for example, Green Day are corporate
> sell-outs.
They are. ABSOLUTELY! ;-)
>Sorry - unless you provide proof to back it up it's still
> just an opinion in my book.
That's okay by me that you feel that way.
>
>> When I say U2 is a
>>sell-out band and also relate that I know someone who's worked with
>>Bono, I mean only that.
>
>
> I which case I think that phrasing assertions like that one, as opposed
> to insisting that U2 is *definitely* a sell-out band, instead as say
> "Based on what I know - which includes via someone I know who's works
> with Bono - it is my belief that U2 is a sell-out band" would go a long
> way towards resolving communication problems here.
Talk about elitist. You're explaining to me HOW I should say something
sucks or which band is a sell-out??? Interesting that you've never
applied the same standards to some of Neil's posts. [I'm not coming
down on Neil BTW...just as an example and knowing you two have
met---there a bias there IMO]
>Because that latter
> description is often not how you generally come off to me and others -
> it's often instead more along the lines of "because of my connections I
> KNOW that U2 is a sell-out band, and if you disagree then that's just
> because you are ignorant." Big difference there.
But I'm not worried about pleasing people who get upset about such
trivial things Ray. These topics are so damn trivial. The idea that
someone would hold a grudge or brand a human being arrogant based on
this is just sad. But that's Usenet for ya.
Okay, enough of defending my honor. Sheesh. Let's just agree to
disagree on how my personality should be, k? People should concentrate
on themselves IMO, not worry about how someone communicates on Usenet.
Last word for you on this topic...I promise ;-)
-JC
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> >>All the facts are out in the open. We've come to different conclusions
> >>obviously.
> >
> > All of the facts are not out in the open - far from it.
>
> The facts we are discussing and lack thereof have already been
> established. Like you, I'm not going to introduce shadowy sources and
> the like, since a lot of it is hearsay. So yes, the facts as we know
> them are out in the open.
The facts that we know about are out in the open, yes. (I love
tautology.) But not all of the facts are out in the open - far from
it. For example, we don't know if say Phil supports removing the
downloadable soundboards from the Archive, or if, say, Bobby, Billy,
and Mickey had intended to remove the downloadable auds from the
archive. Those are big questions with regards to making definitive
conclusions here.
> >And as such, I
> > haven't come to any conclusions here.
>
> Sure you have.
Only in the sense that the available facts have narrowed the range of
plausible scenarios. Yes, I tend towards believing those scenarios
whereby the band members are not lying, but that's not the same thing
as reaching definitive conclusions.
> >I will however continue to
> > assume that Phil (and the rest of the band members, FTM) is telling the
> > truth unless compelling information is provided to the contrary.
>
> That assumption in itself is a conclusion.
I'm don't conclude with certainty that Phil didn't lie or intentionally
try to deceive here -- I simply don't know Phil well enough to say that
with certainty. In fact I don't know Phil at all, save for what know
about him as a fan. But as a fan I'll give him (and FTM Bobby and the
other band members- I don't see this as side-taking thing or either/or)
the benefit of the doubt here, unless compelling information is
provided to the contrary. After all, they all seem like nice and
honest enough guys to me.
> > I differentiate between ofuscations meant to avoid airing dirty
> > laundry and otherwise - apparently we disagree there.
>
> Yup. Goes to the heart of the matter.
Yup - that's pretty-much the bottom line here. So let's agree to
disagree.
> >>It's all a part of the same game to
> >>me. One of the ways Phil controls his image is through his Web site.
> >>Would you not agree?
> >
> > Yes of course - everyone with a web site does that.
>
> Really? How does Bobby do that for instance?
Any and all websites present the image and the information that those
who run the website intend for it to disseminate. You don't see
negative stuff about Bobby on his site, do you?
> >>In
> >>my view, I'm starting from the center position
> >
> > What do you define to be the 'center position'? That Phil is equally
> > likely with any given statement to lie as he is to tell the truth?
>
> Meaning, I have no ax to grind against any of them.
Nor do I.
> Nor do I elevate
> one member over another musically.
Really? So what was this all about then?
You wrote earlier in this thread, re- Phil:
"I
think he's proved that he has a better vision of the GD legacy than any
other band member. Musically, he's shown his superiority even though
he's not a legitimate songwriter or a multi-dimensional bassist."
> Those who prefer Phil's vision tend
> to side with his spin and point of view. Those who are more into Bob
> tend not to care as much, but again, would tend to stand up for Bobby.
It would appear that your own rhetoric demonstrates otherwise.
Have you seen me criticize or otherwise take sides against Bobby in all
of this? No. Again I don't see this as side-taking thing or either/or.
FTM I'm somewhat equivocal on the entire issue about whether it's
'right' or 'wrong' for GDP to remove shows from the Archive - which is
why I for the most part have not weighed in on it.
> > in my
> > view there's still a qualitative difference between stretching the
> > truth to avoid hanging out the dirty laundry and stretching the truth
> > to make one look misleadingly better than they really are at the
> > expense of one's longtime bandmates -
>
> You don't think Phil believes he's better? How many messages has Phil
> posted pertaining to inner-GDP politics? Quite a few actually. The
> overall impression I get is that he is promoting himself as the logical,
> clear-thinking band member.
I said 'misleadingly better'.
> >> Introducing random significances is
> >>irrelevant to me.
> >
> > 'Random'?
>
> Yes, random. By your own admission Ray, you've stated the significances
> you brought forth are purely subjective.
Subjective and random are not the same thing - far from it.
> I disagree with your scale of
> significance, so it's irrelevant to me.
That much I understand, and as you say it's the heart of the matter.
Let's agree to disagree on it then.
Ray
JC Martin
> JC Martin wrote:
>
>>Ray wrote:
>>
>>>>All the facts are out in the open. We've come to different conclusions
>>>>obviously.
>>>
>>>All of the facts are not out in the open - far from it.
>>
>>The facts we are discussing and lack thereof have already been
>>established. Like you, I'm not going to introduce shadowy sources and
>>the like, since a lot of it is hearsay. So yes, the facts as we know
>>them are out in the open.
>
>
> The facts that we know about are out in the open, yes. (I love
> tautology.)
*LOL*
>But not all of the facts are out in the open - far from
> it. For example, we don't know if say Phil supports removing the
> downloadable soundboards from the Archive, or if, say, Bobby, Billy,
> and Mickey had intended to remove the downloadable auds from the
> archive. Those are big questions with regards to making definitive
> conclusions here.
Agreed.
>
>>>And as such, I
>>>haven't come to any conclusions here.
>>
>>Sure you have.
>
>
> Only in the sense that the available facts have narrowed the range of
> plausible scenarios. Yes, I tend towards believing those scenarios
> whereby the band members are not lying, but that's not the same thing
> as reaching definitive conclusions.
I haven't made a definitive conclusion either. For instance, to what
extent Phil stretches the truth or not, I have not a clue. I only know
that he has shown a pattern of it in the past and a pattern of
advertising the band's inner politics on his web site. That's what I go
on. Well, I go on a little more, but that's technically all hearsay.
>>>I will however continue to
>>>assume that Phil (and the rest of the band members, FTM) is telling the
>>>truth unless compelling information is provided to the contrary.
>>
>>That assumption in itself is a conclusion.
>
>
> I'm don't conclude with certainty that Phil didn't lie or intentionally
> try to deceive here -- I simply don't know Phil well enough to say that
> with certainty.
A valid point of distinction admittedly. I too don't know for sure that
my point of view is correct. Of course, my view is based on Phil's past
behavior and all the chatter/hearsay I hear about him from various
sources. Trust me, I take it all with a grain of salt. Personally,
from the outside I find it quite amusing. I'm sure it's not so amusing
from the inside though.
>In fact I don't know Phil at all, save for what know
> about him as a fan. But as a fan I'll give him (and FTM Bobby and the
> other band members- I don't see this as side-taking thing or either/or)
But here many do Ray.
> the benefit of the doubt here, unless compelling information is
> provided to the contrary. After all, they all seem like nice and
> honest enough guys to me.
Generally I think that's probably true. Money and power tend to distort
people's reality a bit though, some more than others.
>>>I differentiate between ofuscations meant to avoid airing dirty
>>>laundry and otherwise - apparently we disagree there.
>>
>>Yup. Goes to the heart of the matter.
>
>
> Yup - that's pretty-much the bottom line here. So let's agree to
> disagree.
I see your reasoning. But I don't buy it. I think Phil's need to use
his web site to promote his personal views/stances on Dead politics
shows a certain compulsion on his part to promote himself a the "good
guy" in all the infighting. Phil is very image conscious. Look at the
Jimmy Herring deal for instance. He put out positive spin on what I
heard (hearsay admittedly, but I'm sure you heard too) was not a happy
parting.
>>>>It's all a part of the same game to
>>>>me. One of the ways Phil controls his image is through his Web site.
>>>>Would you not agree?
>>>
>>>Yes of course - everyone with a web site does that.
>>
>>Really? How does Bobby do that for instance?
>
>
> Any and all websites present the image and the information that those
> who run the website intend for it to disseminate. You don't see
> negative stuff about Bobby on his site, do you?
I don't see anything other than information on Ratdog. You can't
honestly say that's the same deal as Phil's image control.
>>>>In
>>>>my view, I'm starting from the center position
>>>
>>>What do you define to be the 'center position'? That Phil is equally
>>>likely with any given statement to lie as he is to tell the truth?
>>
>>Meaning, I have no ax to grind against any of them.
>
>
> Nor do I.
Wasn't saying you were FYI.
>>Nor do I elevate
>>one member over another musically.
>
>
> Really? So what was this all about then?
>
> You wrote earlier in this thread, re- Phil:
>
> "I
> think he's proved that he has a better vision of the GD legacy than any
>
> other band member. Musically, he's shown his superiority even though
> he's not a legitimate songwriter or a multi-dimensional bassist."
Well, okay. That's an assessment I've made on Phil's legacy post-Dead.
In the above I was speaking to the individual band member's talents in
the context of the Dead.
>>Those who prefer Phil's vision tend
>>to side with his spin and point of view. Those who are more into Bob
>>tend not to care as much, but again, would tend to stand up for Bobby.
>
>
> It would appear that your own rhetoric demonstrates otherwise.
No, I think I explained what I meant.
> Have you seen me criticize or otherwise take sides against Bobby in all
> of this? No. Again I don't see this as side-taking thing or either/or.
Again, I'm not saying you do. I was answering your question.
> FTM I'm somewhat equivocal on the entire issue about whether it's
> 'right' or 'wrong' for GDP to remove shows from the Archive - which is
> why I for the most part have not weighed in on it.
>
>
>>>in my
>>>view there's still a qualitative difference between stretching the
>>>truth to avoid hanging out the dirty laundry and stretching the truth
>>>to make one look misleadingly better than they really are at the
>>>expense of one's longtime bandmates -
>>
>>You don't think Phil believes he's better? How many messages has Phil
>>posted pertaining to inner-GDP politics? Quite a few actually. The
>>overall impression I get is that he is promoting himself as the logical,
>>clear-thinking band member.
>
>
> I said 'misleadingly better'.
I know what you said.
>>>>Introducing random significances is
>>>>irrelevant to me.
>>>
>>>'Random'?
>>
>>Yes, random. By your own admission Ray, you've stated the significances
>>you brought forth are purely subjective.
>
>
> Subjective and random are not the same thing - far from it.
In this case I believe they are. You're using a paradigm I don't
subscribe to. In fact, I don't see why your 'dirty laundry' theory
weighs more heavily than Phil's overall behavior. But so be it. We've
already agreed to disagree on that point, right?
>>I disagree with your scale of
>>significance, so it's irrelevant to me.
>
>
> That much I understand, and as you say it's the heart of the matter.
> Let's agree to disagree on it then.
Word. But I am RIGHT dammit. ;-)
Peas,
JC
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> >>> And I don't understand why.
> >>
> >>No I don't Ray. I think that a huge stretching of the truth and you
> >>should know better.
> >
> > Whether you think you come off that way or not, that's how, as I see
> > it, you come off much of the time. And that's clearly how at least
> > some others see it as well.
>
> And I do it on purpose to those that see it that way.
I don't know why you would intentionally want to do that, but hey
whatever works for you.
> > What I usually take exception to with you is when you often claim to
> > definitively know what this or that musician is pandering - that to me
> > IS a foreign concept.
>
> And yet you agree finally that Scofield has pandered.
No - what I agree with that it's not unusual for musicians to pander.
Whether Sco has pandered or not -- and especially specifically whether
he has pandered re- MMW and will be pandering re- Phil -- I couldn't
say.
Which brings me back to a question that you didn't answer when I asked
it last time:
In your mind was Sco's work with MMW 'pandering'?
Ray
Ray
> I think Phil's need to use
> his web site to promote his personal views/stances on Dead politics
> shows a certain compulsion on his part to promote himself a the "good
> guy" in all the infighting.
Phil's been the odd man out on a lot of this stuff - that's gotta be
tough on him sometimes.
> Phil is very image conscious. Look at the
> Jimmy Herring deal for instance. He put out positive spin on what I
> heard (hearsay admittedly, but I'm sure you heard too) was not a happy
> parting.
Like you say, that just internet hearsay - so who the fuck knows. It's
just as likely that the hearsay that Bob was behind insisting that GDP
take Rosebud against Jerry's dying wishes, and that Phil then bought it
and gave it to Irwin.
Who the fuck knows about internet rumors like these. Somebody knows,
sure, but not us.
And thus unless and until I get real, verifiable information on any of
this stuff I take it all with a grain of salt, and instead generally
continue to assume the best in all of those guys. They all gave me a
lot of really great, life-memorable times -- as well as truly opened
and blew my mind in multiple ways and on numerous occasions. And so at
this juncture the least I can do is give them the benefit of the doubt
on these sorts of things.
> > Let's agree to disagree on it then.
>
> Word. But I am RIGHT dammit. ;-)
LOL. Well ok then - *I'M* convinced. =-0
peace,
Ray
JC Martin
> JC Martin wrote:
>
>>Ray wrote:
>>
>>>>>You present things as outright facts all the time that can't be proven.
>>>>>And I don't understand why.
>>>>
>>>>No I don't Ray. I think that a huge stretching of the truth and you
>>>>should know better.
>>>
>>>Whether you think you come off that way or not, that's how, as I see
>>>it, you come off much of the time. And that's clearly how at least
>>>some others see it as well.
>>
>>And I do it on purpose to those that see it that way.
>
>
> I don't know why you would intentionally want to do that, but hey
> whatever works for you.
>
>
>>>What I usually take exception to with you is when you often claim to
>>>definitively know what this or that musician is pandering - that to me
>>>IS a foreign concept.
>>
>>And yet you agree finally that Scofield has pandered.
>
>
> No - what I agree with that it's not unusual for musicians to pander.
> Whether Sco has pandered or not -- and especially specifically whether
> he has pandered re- MMW and will be pandering re- Phil -- I couldn't
> say.
MMW's records were a lot more dense and challenging pre-Shackman and the
Scofield Blue Note sessions were IMO his best work. Of course he was
playing with Bill Stewart on Blue Note, probably one of the top 5
drummers alive and Big Joe was on top of his game. Sco's Grammavision
material was compositionally his most complex work (progressive jazz
fusion), but I didn't care for that stuff as much. I just prefer the
more traditional head>solo jazz format. I'm not a big jazz fusion fan
in general in fact, though of course I respect the incredible talent it
takes to play such music. And yes, I think MMW has pandered as they've
went along...but unlike Sco, they created a few gems in the process.
Pandering leads to a lot of great music in fact. Not always so with
jazz musicians though, since they come to rock and pop with an elitist
viewpoint usually. That's my experience anyway.
> Which brings me back to a question that you didn't answer when I asked
> it last time:
>
> In your mind was Sco's work with MMW 'pandering'?
Missed that.
Yes, somewhat. Both MMW and Scofield watered down the content a bit.
Lee Townsend's productions tend to be that way actually and I'm pretty
sure he set that session up. Still, it's a fine record and I learned to
enjoy it after the initial disappointment. For the poppier side of
groove jazz, this is a pretty cool record actually. It's been awhile
too. I'll have to check that out. Could have been so much more from
what I remember through repeated listenings. And I think Sco's groove
records have become more and more watered down after that.
How's that for "right"? Absolutely!
-JC
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > In your mind was Sco's work with MMW 'pandering'?
>
> Missed that.
>
> Yes, somewhat. Both MMW and Scofield watered down the content a bit.
What exactly do you mean by "watered down the content" in this context?
And why in your mind does that necessarily translate to pandering?
I'm not trying to grill you - you're position really is foreign to me
and I don't understand it.
Ray
JC Martin
> JC Martin wrote:
>
>>Ray wrote:
>>
>>>In your mind was Sco's work with MMW 'pandering'?
>>
>>Missed that.
>>
>>Yes, somewhat. Both MMW and Scofield watered down the content a bit.
>
>
> What exactly do you mean by "watered down the content" in this context?
I think I explained that earlier. It's in the notes and licks that the
musicians choose to play. In other words, they've heavily edited out
any challenging ideas that's normally found in their playing. But
again, I think it's a pretty good record for what it is. After getting
over my initial disappointment and expectations for what I was hoping
they would pull off together (I was a huge fan of both well before this
session took place), I realize that it's successful for what it attempts
to be. That's why they brought in Lee Townsend...cause he has a
successful track record of making jazz albums that sell more than your
everyday session.
> And why in your mind does that necessarily translate to pandering?
Because the general viewpoint of a jazz musician is that pop forms of
music are "lesser than". From the viewpoint of a funk fan or a jamband
fan, it's not seen as pandering and I totally understand that. Rock
fans don't seem to get it though. It's not just jazz fans that are
snobs. Jazz musicians are snobs and elitists as well. They do think
their music is more sophisticated and they they're standing on pretty
firm ground actually. I come to his conclusion from my own personal
experiences and knowledge and I don't expect to convince a leftie or a
Bill. Pandering in this case is not such a bad thing to me.
> I'm not trying to grill you - you're position really is foreign to me
> and I don't understand it.
No worries. I assume I'm on hot coals each and every time we have a
conversation. ;-) You actually help me clarify my own views, some
which needs a little dusting off every now and then, so I commend you
for that.
-JC
Olompali4
> snobs. Jazz musicians are snobs and elitists as well. They do think
> their music is more sophisticated and they they're standing on pretty
> firm ground actually.
>
Mathematically and physically tighter sure but more sophisticated
artistically?
No.
JC Martin
Depends how you define "artistic". But I'm definitely in the camp that
sees value in most forms of music. I do think both classical and jazz
forms require more artistry, technique and developed listening skills
however, but that doesn't always translate to the final product being an
artistic success. The more tools (or technique in a musician's case)
an artist has, the more difficult it is to find their own voice. But
those that do...wow!
-JC
nau...@nil.com
> I think I explained that earlier. It's in the notes and licks that the
> musicians choose to play. In other words, they've heavily edited out
> any challenging ideas that's normally found in their playing. But
> again, I think it's a pretty good record for what it is. After getting
> over my initial disappointment and expectations for what I was hoping
> they would pull off together (I was a huge fan of both well before this
> session took place), I realize that it's successful for what it attempts
> to be. That's why they brought in Lee Townsend...cause he has a
> successful track record of making jazz albums that sell more than your
> everyday session.
Let me offer a differnt point of view. "Challenging" ideas are not always
the stuff of a great or even good musical experience. There are many,
aesthetic aims that can underlie a piece, one of which is just laying a
nice groove with simple melodies.
>> And why in your mind does that necessarily translate to pandering?
>
>
> Because the general viewpoint of a jazz musician is that pop forms of
> music are "lesser than". From the viewpoint of a funk fan or a jamband
> fan, it's not seen as pandering and I totally understand that. Rock
> fans don't seem to get it though. It's not just jazz fans that are
> snobs. Jazz musicians are snobs and elitists as well. They do think
> their music is more sophisticated and they they're standing on pretty
> firm ground actually. I come to his conclusion from my own personal
> experiences and knowledge and I don't expect to convince a leftie or a
> Bill. Pandering in this case is not such a bad thing to me.
>
For the most part, that's been my experience in jazz. (with many
exceptions, including Scott Sawyer, Nnenna Freelon's guitarist, who is
wonderfull humble and open minded). I think jazz has evolved into an
unfortunate culture where complexity for complexity's sake is confused
with making effective music.
Just my few pennies,
Mike Babyak
JC Martin
Have you ever seen someone like Billy Higgins live BTW? There was a dude
that played with immense passion and feeling, yet had incredible
technique. His restraint, ability to elevate the playing of other
musicians around him, his big ears (not in the literal sense for all you
funny guys out there) and jaw dropping poly rhythms were a sight to
behold. But yeah, then there's dudes like Jeff "Tain" Watts, who has
monster technique, and swings like mad, but IMO overplays and steps all
over other musicians. Branford digs him obviously, I so I can't say
anything too bad about the guy. But his playing doesn't appeal to me,
even though he's incredible to watch in person and has shown a little
more restraint lately on record.
-JC
Ken Fortenberry
>
> ... But yeah, then there's dudes like Jeff "Tain" Watts, who has
Wow, you could be describing Herb Ellis to a T. But
oh lardy, lardy can that man play jazz guitar.
--
Ken Fortenberry
JC Martin
> JC Martin <jcma...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>I think I explained that earlier. It's in the notes and licks that the
>>musicians choose to play. In other words, they've heavily edited out
>>any challenging ideas that's normally found in their playing. But
>>again, I think it's a pretty good record for what it is. After getting
>>over my initial disappointment and expectations for what I was hoping
>>they would pull off together (I was a huge fan of both well before this
>>session took place), I realize that it's successful for what it attempts
>>to be. That's why they brought in Lee Townsend...cause he has a
>>successful track record of making jazz albums that sell more than your
>>everyday session.
>
>
> Let me offer a differnt point of view. "Challenging" ideas are not always
> the stuff of a great or even good musical experience. There are many,
> aesthetic aims that can underlie a piece, one of which is just laying a
> nice groove with simple melodies.
We don't differ at all on this point of view actually. I totally agree.
But not all jazz musicians are good at playing simply.
>>> And why in your mind does that necessarily translate to pandering?
>>
>>
>>Because the general viewpoint of a jazz musician is that pop forms of
>>music are "lesser than". From the viewpoint of a funk fan or a jamband
>>fan, it's not seen as pandering and I totally understand that. Rock
>>fans don't seem to get it though. It's not just jazz fans that are
>>snobs. Jazz musicians are snobs and elitists as well. They do think
>>their music is more sophisticated and they they're standing on pretty
>>firm ground actually. I come to his conclusion from my own personal
>>experiences and knowledge and I don't expect to convince a leftie or a
>>Bill. Pandering in this case is not such a bad thing to me.
>>
>
>
> For the most part, that's been my experience in jazz. (with many
> exceptions, including Scott Sawyer, Nnenna Freelon's guitarist, who is
> wonderfull humble and open minded). I think jazz has evolved into an
> unfortunate culture where complexity for complexity's sake is confused
> with making effective music.
>
> Just my few pennies,
Let me make one point clear. Many of the jazz cats I know are real
humble and great human beings, inspiring to me even. But when it comes
to music, from a rock fan's perspective, they would be considered
arrogant and snobby for their views. Personally, I have no problem with
people being music snobs. The world could use more of them IMO. Music
is one of those areas where critical thinking and strong viewpoints are
not encouraged in modern society...because it might OFFEND someone.
Musical political correctness sucks...that's a fact. Green Day sucks.
And U2 are a bunch of corporate sell-outs! Jammy whammy bands are
factually a bore as well. Do I make myself clear? ;-)
-JC
JC Martin
Definitely...or Joe Pass. Man, that guy has wicked chops. But the dude
puts everything he has into each and every song. There's no mystery or
intrigue there. Buddy Rich is another one. Gimme Max Roach over that
any day.
-JC
JimK
wrote:
If you don't mind my jumping in here with a suggestion, you guys might
want to consider using a different term than pandering. While JC
maintains he's not using it in a negative way, the word itself carries
unavoidable negative connotations. As I see it, pandering suggests an
attitude on the part of the musician that he's better than his
audience and that he's dumbing down his music for them just so he can
make a paycheck. Even though it's undeniably true that some types of
music are more complicated than others, I don't think that type of
arrogance is what you're talking about here. There's a difference
between pandering and simply playing a variety of musical styles, some
of which happen to be more complex than others.
JimK
mjd
>Green Day sucks.
After it was mentioned earlier in this thread, I went back and read the
thread from February where this was kicked around quite a bit. I had
always hated Green Day, but I have a soft spot for good pop rock
sometimes and American Idiot is a very good record. There's little
point in even bringing them up in a discussion that's mainly about
jazz, but I don't think they suck at what they do, which is pop
rock'n'roll. The February thread talked a lot about hiring songwriters
and pre-packaged record industry posers, but from what I've read and
seen these kids were into music in a big way from a very early age. I
think they have more cred than you've given them credit for. They've
written some excellent pop rock songs, and Tre is a helluva drummer.
He grew up in a very out-of-the-mainstream lifestyle, and was drumming
in a punk band when he was 11. There - I've stuck up for Green Day so
now I can face my kids in good conscience!
JC Martin
Well Jim, you may disagree with me, but I do mean exactly "pandering" as
you've defined it and I think I've explained why. Ray actually doesn't
buy it and rejects the word, so you're both entitled to disagree. I
stand buy it...from the general jazz musician's perspective anyway.
It's not a negative that jazz musicians are generally snobby about their
craft. Goes with the territory.
-JC
JC Martin
And a fine job you've done. Not that you're right, but very admirable
on your part. ;-)
Green Day is pure corporate evil...tattoos and punk roots (cartoonish
British wanna-be punk from Berkeley deadbeats) be damned!
-JC
mjd
hell, it's Friday...
"I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies!"
JC Martin
> I figured you'd enjoy rehashing an old debate all over again! what the
> hell, it's Friday...
Hey, I can only take so much of this debate stuff man, k?
Mob rules.
-JC
mjd
mean, just look at that Ray\JCMartin tree there... it's a thing of
beauty.
JC Martin
Keeping up with Ray definitely requires stamina. The dude done tuckered
me out though. Excuse me while I toss my brains into a frying pan.
-JC
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > JC Martin wrote:
> >
> >>Ray wrote:
> >>
> >>>In your mind was Sco's work with MMW 'pandering'?
> >>
> >>Missed that.
> >>
> >>Yes, somewhat. Both MMW and Scofield watered down the content a bit.
> >
> >
> > What exactly do you mean by "watered down the content" in this context?
>
>
> I think I explained that earlier. It's in the notes and licks that the
> musicians choose to play. In other words, they've heavily edited out
> any challenging ideas that's normally found in their playing. But
> again, I think it's a pretty good record for what it is. After getting
> over my initial disappointment and expectations for what I was hoping
> they would pull off together (I was a huge fan of both well before this
> session took place), I realize that it's successful for what it attempts
> to be. That's why they brought in Lee Townsend...cause he has a
> successful track record of making jazz albums that sell more than your
> everyday session.
Ok - we're on the same page so far. (Right down to the initial
dissappointment about the record - I too was expecting something more
challenging. But then I grew to really like it.)
> > And why in your mind does that necessarily translate to pandering?
>
>
> Because the general viewpoint of a jazz musician is that pop forms of
> music are "lesser than". From the viewpoint of a funk fan or a jamband
> fan, it's not seen as pandering and I totally understand that. Rock
> fans don't seem to get it though. It's not just jazz fans that are
> snobs. Jazz musicians are snobs and elitists as well. They do think
> their music is more sophisticated and they they're standing on pretty
> firm ground actually.
The key here is the word 'general'. I agree that, *generally
speaking*, jazz musicians are snobs and elitists who view pop forms of
music as "lesser than" because it is generally technically less
sophisticated.
But that is not the same as saying that *every* jazz musician has an
elitist viewpoint about *all* forms of pop music or "watered down"
(that is, less technically challenging) jazz.
Is the Sco/MMW collaboration "A Go Go" 'pop music' or 'jazz'? And does
it matter? In my view it's both pop music and jazz, and it doesn't
matter anyway. And that moreover the entire 'what is jazz' question
regarding any music that can even be remotely construed as jazz is a
pointless and futile exercise. Miles put it best: it's music.
Do Sco and MMW consider "A Go Go" to be "lessor" music because it is
less technically challening than what all of them are capable of?
Since in my view it's nonetheless really good music I doubt that,
however since I can't read any of their minds let alone all of them I
couldn't say for sure.
And in a similar vein, that you maintain you can say for sure that they
were pandering here (or, similarly, that Sco will be pandering when
playing with Phil) baffles me.
> They do think
> their music is more sophisticated and they they're standing on pretty
> firm ground actually.
Jazz is, generally speaking, more technically sophisticated than most
forms of pop music. Which is one reason why I'm a jazz fan (many forms
of it, anyway) - when I'm in a mood for technically sophisticated music
that's often if not usually what I reach for. (Classical Indian also
hits the spot for me.)
But that doesn't make it "better" music than all pop music, and I think
that at least some jazz musicians (and classical Indian musicians FTM),
understand and agree with this. They prefer, *generally speaking*, to
play more technically sophisticated music - obviously, because
otherwise they wouldn't be doing it (it's safe to say that they are not
into it for the money). But does that mean that they ALWAYS prefer to
play only more technically sophisticated music and regard it as
'pandering' to do otherwise? No.
> I come to his conclusion from my own personal
> experiences and knowledge and I don't expect to convince a leftie or a
> Bill.
Leftie and Bill are not in the same category - far from it. Unlike
Bill, leftie hasn't challenged you on obvious technical assessments you
have made here, such as that Tony Williams is a technically superior
drummer to Billy K. Instead you disparage leftie for calling you on
arrogant remarks - remarks that you conceed are arrogant and were
moreover meant to be interpreted as such. That makes no sense to me.
And as far as leftie's opinion on your 'pandering' assessments are
concerned, I'm in full agreement - that too baffles to me.
> Pandering in this case is not such a bad thing to me.
As JimK observed, 'pandering' carries unavoidable negative
connotations. And it's your absolute faith in these negative
connotations that I and others find unwarranted in many circumstances.
Ray
kpn...@yahoo.com
Ray wrote:
> kpn...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > JC Martin wrote:
> > > leftie wrote:
> > > > Ray wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Agreed. And I think he got Sco more because he wanted to play with Sco
> > > >> than any other reason.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #####
> > > > Oh, horsepucky. He got Sco because he knows Sco is a noodling panderer
> > > > who would sell out his soul and his art -- while compeletely dumbing
> > > > down his chops -- for a chance to play for the large, unwashed and
> > > > well-paying jamband crowd. You know it and I know it. End of discussion.
> > > > #####
> > >
> > >
> > > Leftie, it's funny only when you lose the anger bro. Let go my friend.
> > > You can be right...in your own mind at least. ;-)
>
> Leftie's right in my mind too. And that's also what my shadowy sources
> tell me.
>
> > Actually, I think there is a bit of truth there. I saw Sco on the
> > Uberjam tour,
> > and while the music was jazzy, he encouraged the crowd to dance and
> > move into the reserved section. He was pandering to the "unwashed" no
> > doubt about it. That being said, I saw him again when he did the Larry
> > Young tribute at the Chicago Jazz Fest. Different audience, different
> > approach. I don't think I would say he is disingenuous or dumbing down,
> > but the man knows how to play to his audience. He is a professional
> > after
> > all; he didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I would imagine exposure
> > is more
> > the reason for playing with Phil than musical exploration, especially
> > when
> > you consider who he can play with.
>
> Exposure can be the primary reason for Sco playing with Phil, but that
> doesn't mean that Sco is "pandering" - it just means exposure is his
> primary reason for playing with Phil.
>
> Did Branford, or FTM every other artist who sat in with them, "pander"
> when playing with the Dead? Some, perhaps, but who knows. In any
> event until I get compelling information that strongly indicates as
> much, I will not assume the worst in these people.
When I saw Sco play for the hippies, he mugged for the audience. When
I saw Branford play with the Dead last year, he was into it but didn't
verbally
encourage hippie behaviour. Night and day difference. Pandering is the
right word not that there's anything wrong with that.
Kurt
Brad Greer
wrote:
>If you don't mind my jumping in here with a suggestion, you guys might
>want to consider using a different term than pandering. While JC
>maintains he's not using it in a negative way, the word itself carries
>unavoidable negative connotations. As I see it, pandering suggests an
>attitude on the part of the musician that he's better than his
>audience and that he's dumbing down his music for them just so he can
>make a paycheck. Even though it's undeniably true that some types of
>music are more complicated than others, I don't think that type of
>arrogance is what you're talking about here. There's a difference
>between pandering and simply playing a variety of musical styles, some
>of which happen to be more complex than others.
>
I was thinking the same thing - JC's use of the word pandering is
setting up all sorts of negative meanings for Ray (and, btw, I happen
to agree with Ray's viewpoint, pandering is a pretty negative word to
me as well) and they may not actually be all that far off in viewpoint
once we get the exact words used cleared up.
Does Scofield pull out all of the stuff he'd use to play in front of a
jazz crowd when he plays with MMW or some other "jam" band? Probably
not, all of his jazz licks might not necessarily make sense in that
context, for one thing. Does he feel he's "dumbing down his playing"
just to make a paycheck? Again, I think probably not, I think he
enjoys playing in general and he was able to get a pretty good groove
thing going with MMW that a lot of people really got off on. And for
some musicians that's the goal - to get your audience off on your
playing. If that means you simplify things a little bit because
that's what will get the best reaction from your audience than so be
it, play what works.
JC Martin
Scofield is one the snobbiest jazz musicians I have ever met or have
seem perform on stage.
> Is the Sco/MMW collaboration "A Go Go" 'pop music' or 'jazz'? And does
> it matter? In my view it's both pop music and jazz, and it doesn't
> matter anyway. And that moreover the entire 'what is jazz' question
> regarding any music that can even be remotely construed as jazz is a
> pointless and futile exercise. Miles put it best: it's music.
>
> Do Sco and MMW consider "A Go Go" to be "lessor" music because it is
> less technically challening than what all of them are capable of?
Again, Lee Townsend produced this record and he does approach recording
jazz musicians in a way a pop producer would take the reigns of a pop
session. So I have little doubt that they feel concessions were made.
> Since in my view it's nonetheless really good music I doubt that,
> however since I can't read any of their minds let alone all of them I
> couldn't say for sure.
>
> And in a similar vein, that you maintain you can say for sure that they
> were pandering here (or, similarly, that Sco will be pandering when
> playing with Phil) baffles me.
I didn't say Sco *would* pander with Phil, though realistically you
could call his newfound interest in the Dead pandering to some extent.
But on that point, I have clue. Musically however, and given Sco's
history of separating his audiences into musical categories and
adjusting his playing to fit, I fear he may. That would be a bummer
IMO. He could be no more than Jimmy Herring if he plays that card.
>
>>They do think
>>their music is more sophisticated and they they're standing on pretty
>>firm ground actually.
>
>
> Jazz is, generally speaking, more technically sophisticated than most
> forms of pop music. Which is one reason why I'm a jazz fan (many forms
> of it, anyway) - when I'm in a mood for technically sophisticated music
> that's often if not usually what I reach for. (Classical Indian also
> hits the spot for me.)
>
> But that doesn't make it "better" music than all pop music, and I think
> that at least some jazz musicians (and classical Indian musicians FTM),
> understand and agree with this. They prefer, *generally speaking*, to
> play more technically sophisticated music - obviously, because
> otherwise they wouldn't be doing it (it's safe to say that they are not
> into it for the money). But does that mean that they ALWAYS prefer to
> play only more technically sophisticated music and regard it as
> 'pandering' to do otherwise? No.
This has been addressed numerous times and obviously we have some
agreement here.
>>I come to his conclusion from my own personal
>>experiences and knowledge and I don't expect to convince a leftie or a
>>Bill.
>
>
> Leftie and Bill are not in the same category - far from it.
Bullshit. They BOTH have serious passive-aggressive issues.
>Unlike
> Bill, leftie hasn't challenged you on obvious technical assessments you
> have made here, such as that Tony Williams is a technically superior
> drummer to Billy K.
That's cause he knows better, unlike Bill, who's in outer space. But he
consistently has attacked my character, parsed my posts and taken things
I've said out of context. If you do a Google search and say different,
then you're being totally dishonest. If you defend that behavior, we
have nothing more to say on the subject.
>Instead you disparage leftie for calling you on
> arrogant remarks -
Oh bull. The guy has disparaged me far more than I have him. Total
crock of shit. This is where bias and friendship with him distorts your
reality. Either that, or really don't know our history. The guy
projects his hang-up on others. A total bore. I'm done trying break
through his wall.
remarks that you conceed are arrogant and were
> moreover meant to be interpreted as such. That makes no sense to me.
> And as far as leftie's opinion on your 'pandering' assessments are
> concerned, I'm in full agreement - that too baffles to me.
Be baffled, but don't get passive-aggressive on me.
>>Pandering in this case is not such a bad thing to me.
>
>
> As JimK observed, 'pandering' carries unavoidable negative
> connotations.
It is what it is. Again, when it comes to the music business, I'm a
realist. Negative and positive connotations are all in the realm of the
subjective.
>And it's your absolute faith in these negative
> connotations that I and others find unwarranted in many circumstances.
Negative to you. Real life experience to me. But again, you don't have
to agree. If everyone saw things the same way, life wouldn't be so
interesting.
-JC
Ray
> Have you ever seen someone like Billy Higgins live BTW? There was a dude
> that played with immense passion and feeling, yet had incredible
> technique. His restraint, ability to elevate the playing of other
> musicians around him, his big ears (not in the literal sense for all you
> funny guys out there) and jaw dropping poly rhythms were a sight to
> behold.
Yeah, 'Smiling' Billy Higgins was the shit - tuly an awesome drummer,
both technically and spiritually. And yes - he elevated the playing of
other musicians around him, with his playing, his energy, and his
ever-present shit-eating grin. After the first time I saw him live I
caught him every chance I could, and am thankfull for every such
opportunity. RIP Billy.
I put Zakir Hussain in the same category - a truly awesome musician,
both technically and spiritually, and he elevates the playing of other
musicians around him via his playing and energy. I found his work with
Planet Drum to be his least compelling, so I'd guess that many
Deadheads don't realize what a truly amazing musician he really is. I
highly recommend seeing him live.
Speaking of, Zakir is regarded by many to be the worlds greatest living
classical Indian tabla player. Whether one agrees with that assessment
or not Zakir is unquestionably world-class in that arena, and yet (and
much to the chagrin of classical Indian purists) Zakir also plays
plenty of music that is not nearly as complex or as disciplined --
Planet Drum and Zakir's multiple projects with Bill Laswell ("Tabla
Beat Science" and others) are examples. Is Zakir 'pandering' when he
does these projects? Again I'm not a mind reader so I can't say for
sure, but my bet is 'no' -- I believe instead he's just following his
muse wherever it takes him, as many great musicians do.
Ray
JC Martin
Branford without a doubt was totally diggin' on the Dead and IMO when he
plays pop music, he has a genuine love for it (some of it pretty bad
IMO). And you're dead on about Sco's mocking behavior. I too have seen
up to close and again, I hear it in the notes he plays. That mocking
behavior he not how he talks in Europe or to his American jazz fans.
-JC
JC Martin
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 12:22:41 -0500, JimK <jkezwind@comcastDOTnet>
> wrote:
>
>
>>If you don't mind my jumping in here with a suggestion, you guys might
>>want to consider using a different term than pandering. While JC
>>maintains he's not using it in a negative way, the word itself carries
>>unavoidable negative connotations. As I see it, pandering suggests an
>>attitude on the part of the musician that he's better than his
>>audience and that he's dumbing down his music for them just so he can
>>make a paycheck. Even though it's undeniably true that some types of
>>music are more complicated than others, I don't think that type of
>>arrogance is what you're talking about here. There's a difference
>>between pandering and simply playing a variety of musical styles, some
>>of which happen to be more complex than others.
>>
>
> I was thinking the same thing - JC's use of the word pandering is
> setting up all sorts of negative meanings for Ray (and, btw, I happen
> to agree with Ray's viewpoint, pandering is a pretty negative word to
> me as well) and they may not actually be all that far off in viewpoint
> once we get the exact words used cleared up.
>
> Does Scofield pull out all of the stuff he'd use to play in front of a
> jazz crowd when he plays with MMW or some other "jam" band? Probably
> not, all of his jazz licks might not necessarily make sense in that
> context, for one thing.
Sure they would. Check out "Hand Jive" or "Groove Elation". It's all
on the table in a groove format.
BTW, I'm a big MMW fan. They still can bring it live. Billy Martin is
insane.
-JC
JC Martin
I don't know. I've never met him, don't know enough about Indian
culture or music nor have I read much up on him. But I agree, he's a
heck of a player. I honestly love classical Indian music and have a
handful of goodies in my collection, but I haven't listened to it enough
for my ears to be able to discern what makes one tabla player so
superior to another. Most I've heard are technically flawless. I
really enjoy Dildar Hussein's playing with Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan for
instance, but I have no clue whether he's technically superior or more
expressive than Zakir. I think I do remember there being a crowd of
people who feel that Zakir does in fact pander to western crowds, but
again, I don't have enough information or experience to make that call.
-JC
Brad Greer
wrote:
>Brad Greer wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough in my post. Outside his work with MMW
(which, I agree, he should feel less need to "simplify" his playing
when he plays with them) I think when Sco (or any other jazz musician)
plays with a "jam" band he should simplify his playing somewhat.
>BTW, I'm a big MMW fan. They still can bring it live. Billy Martin is
>insane.
>
While we're on the subject of jazz musicans, the Grateful Dead and all
that, JC, what was your impression of David Murray's playing with the
Dead and his Octet album of Dead covers?
I was lucky enough to see his big band play a couple of shows at the
Knitting Factory in NYC back in '96 (I think) before the album of Dead
covers came out. Seeing a big band *jamming* to Grateful Dead songs
was incredible, the first song they played the first show I saw was an
amazing rendition of One More Saturday Night (of all songs), they also
did a killer rendition of Shakedown Street. For these shows (with the
big band) he mixed in normal David Murray material as well, the band
was all jazz musicians so I don't think any pandering went on. One of
these days I really have to convert the DAT masters I have to CD...
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > classical Indian tabla player. Whether one agrees with that assessment
> > or not Zakir is unquestionably world-class in that arena, and yet (and
> > much to the chagrin of classical Indian purists) Zakir also plays
> > plenty of music that is not nearly as complex or as disciplined --
> > Planet Drum and Zakir's multiple projects with Bill Laswell ("Tabla
> > Beat Science" and others) are examples. Is Zakir 'pandering' when he
> > does these projects?
>
>
> I don't know.
That was a rhetorical question that wasn't directed specifically at
you, but hey let's run with it.
> I've never met him, don't know enough about Indian
> culture or music nor have I read much up on him. But I agree, he's a
> heck of a player. I honestly love classical Indian music and have a
> handful of goodies in my collection, but I haven't listened to it enough
> for my ears to be able to discern what makes one tabla player so
> superior to another. Most I've heard are technically flawless. I
> really enjoy Dildar Hussein's playing with Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan for
> instance, but I have no clue whether he's technically superior or more
> expressive than Zakir.
As with Billy Higgins (and Jerry Garcia, and many others), to *really*
get what Zakir is all about you need to see (or rather experience) him
live - the recordings are often great but still pale in comparison.
Assuming that Zakir is 'on' (a generally safe bet), any music fan who
can appreciate great music independent of genre (as you clearly are)
will apprehend that Zakir is a 'great' musician, both technically and
expressively.
> I think I do remember there being a crowd of
> people who feel that Zakir does in fact pander to western crowds,
Without doubt - the classical indian purists are disgusted by his
collaborations with Mickey, Bill Laswell, and others, but he's such an
unquestionably great classical player that they can't simply reject him
because of said 'pandering'. Zakir is the man.
Speaking of Laswell, Norwegian jazz trumpet player Nils Petter Molvaer
is a collaborator in Laswell's relatively less technical electronica
ventures as well (check out for example Molvaer's work with Laswell on
'Radioaxiom - A Dub Transmission" - great stuff). FTM Molvaer blends
all sorts of electronica, hip hop, and rock elements into his own,
mostly jazz-oriented works. Is Molvaer 'pandering'? Or just following
his muse?
FTM, how about MMW's work on "A Go Go"? You declare that Sco is one of
the most snobbish musicians you've met and that understandably
influences your opinon of Sco's contributions there, but what about M,
M, & W? Do you think they were 'pandering' too? If so, why?
FTM, what about Miles Davis? Miles was influenced by and wanted to
play with, amongst others, Jimi Hendrix and Prince. Was his interest
in wanting to play with those guys because he wanted to 'pander'? FTM
was Miles' going electric 'pandering'? Many purists of course say yes
to both of these questions (echoing, of course, purist who claim Dylan
pandered big-time when going electric), but again I would submit no, he
was following his muse - though again I couldn't say for sure.
Taking it further: what about Miles' post-retirement stuff -- was his
covers of, for example, the pop tunes 'Human Nature' and 'Time After
Time' 'pandering'? That I really couldn't say, but if someone insists
to me that he was for sure pandering there then they need something
other than just their belief system for my to buy it.
Ray
JC Martin
See, I disagree. I think there's enough people in the jam band scene
that would appreciate him laying it all out. Sco has that off-kilter
behind-the-beat rhythm that makes his complex playing so palatable. I
think Sco shortchanges himself and the audience. It's one of his
artistic weaknesses IMO. I hope you're wrong and that he brings it with
Phil. It's not like Sco would play avant garde...so I'm pretty excited
about the possibilities. Otherwise, it's just gonna sound like a fusion
guitarist playing rock and funk licks.
>>BTW, I'm a big MMW fan. They still can bring it live. Billy Martin is
>>insane.
>>
>
> While we're on the subject of jazz musicans, the Grateful Dead and all
> that, JC, what was your impression of David Murray's playing with the
> Dead and his Octet album of Dead covers?
I thought it was good, not great.
> I was lucky enough to see his big band play a couple of shows at the
> Knitting Factory in NYC back in '96 (I think) before the album of Dead
> covers came out. Seeing a big band *jamming* to Grateful Dead songs
> was incredible, the first song they played the first show I saw was an
> amazing rendition of One More Saturday Night (of all songs), they also
> did a killer rendition of Shakedown Street. For these shows (with the
> big band) he mixed in normal David Murray material as well, the band
> was all jazz musicians so I don't think any pandering went on. One of
> these days I really have to convert the DAT masters I have to CD...
Yeah, I saw them in the Bay Area. Very fun show. Much better than the
CD. One thing you can say about a David Murray solo, the dude never
panders. He always DAVID, in any format.
-JC
Brad Greer
wrote:
>Brad Greer wrote:
>> Sorry, I wasn't clear enough in my post. Outside his work with MMW
>> (which, I agree, he should feel less need to "simplify" his playing
>> when he plays with them) I think when Sco (or any other jazz musician)
>> plays with a "jam" band he should simplify his playing somewhat.
>
>
>See, I disagree. I think there's enough people in the jam band scene
>that would appreciate him laying it all out. Sco has that off-kilter
>behind-the-beat rhythm that makes his complex playing so palatable. I
>think Sco shortchanges himself and the audience. It's one of his
>artistic weaknesses IMO. I hope you're wrong and that he brings it with
>Phil. It's not like Sco would play avant garde...so I'm pretty excited
>about the possibilities. Otherwise, it's just gonna sound like a fusion
>guitarist playing rock and funk licks.
Maybe we disagree a bit on this, I don't know how open most "jam band"
fans are to real jazz. I may not be giving them enough credit. Also,
there are a lot of musicians in the jam band scene who could not keep
up, although Sco could limit his playing with jam musicians to those
who could (such as the guys in MMW).
>>>BTW, I'm a big MMW fan. They still can bring it live. Billy Martin is
>>>insane.
>>>
>>
>> While we're on the subject of jazz musicans, the Grateful Dead and all
>> that, JC, what was your impression of David Murray's playing with the
>> Dead and his Octet album of Dead covers?
>
>
>I thought it was good, not great.
>
I'd agree on the album, I thought the MSG show he sat in with the Dead
was the shit, though. Like you say below, he was David Murray in his
soloing, no pandering whatsoever.
>
>> I was lucky enough to see his big band play a couple of shows at the
>> Knitting Factory in NYC back in '96 (I think) before the album of Dead
>> covers came out. Seeing a big band *jamming* to Grateful Dead songs
>> was incredible, the first song they played the first show I saw was an
>> amazing rendition of One More Saturday Night (of all songs), they also
>> did a killer rendition of Shakedown Street. For these shows (with the
>> big band) he mixed in normal David Murray material as well, the band
>> was all jazz musicians so I don't think any pandering went on. One of
>> these days I really have to convert the DAT masters I have to CD...
>
>
>Yeah, I saw them in the Bay Area. Very fun show. Much better than the
>CD. One thing you can say about a David Murray solo, the dude never
>panders. He always DAVID, in any format.
>
Did he play with the Octet or the Big Band in the Bay area? I thought
the only big band shows he did that included Dead covers was during
his residency at the Knitting Factory (he played every Monday night
for a year, I think). I know that after the album was released he did
a tour essentially promoting the album by playing mostly Dead songs,
the shows at the Knitting Factory were before the album came out and
Dead songs were, at most, 1/2 the material played.
The coolest thing for me was watching the band rehearse Dark Star
before the first of the shows I caught at the Knit.