Larry Kart

Good enough then. OK, what about ballet? Wait while I cinch up my tutu.

I for one never said that it's not. All I said was that, yeah, it's good, but I'll take a pass in favor of other things. Apparently that triggers a feeling of rejection in some. I'm reminded of Cecil Taylor's comment along the lines that "white people" can not disabuse themselves of the notion that they have some indefinable something that non-white people want. Well, this isn't exactly about that, but when I say that I've given opera a thorough general examination and have concluded that, no, there's not anything there that I particularly want, much less need. then the response is all this "oh but there's such a great history to this, it's part fo the Great Tradition, you can't understandThe History Of All The Music In All The History Of All The World" type stuff that feels to me more than a little as if I'm being told that there's something wrong with me because of my decision, or at the very least that I'm making my decision based on cultural politics and not musical objectivity, and that, c'mon, get real, who are you kidding, you know it's Great Music. Well, golly gee-whiz, guess what - I've made my decision based solely on personal, musical grounds, and no, there's nothing wrong with me. Strange as it might seem, "it's all good" doesn't mean that "it all works for me". I can, and do, appreciate -or am working on appreciating - damn near everything. But if something doesn't "work" for me after a "darn good look", including Great Music, then I feel no need to fake the love, or even the like. And somebody who's gotten metaphorical death threats about not loving, much less even liking Bill Evans ought to...have at least some part of a clue about this... Opera & metal - the two genres that, a few specifics aside - do absolutely nothing for me. Doesn't mean that they're not "good", or that they're not "significant" (or in the case of opera - Significant - no sarcasm intended), just that they don't give me anything significant and/or anything that I don't get better - for me - elsewhere. I fully recognize, accept, and even...welcome the fact that for many, many other people, an undeniably large # of people over an undeniably large period of time, that this is not the case. But I am not one of them. Sorry if that's a "problem", but if it is, it for damned sure ain't my proplem. I can't remember all of this clearly enough anymore, but some posters on this topic (but not, I think, Jim) have said or implied that there's something wrong with us if we are among those who feel that " there's a great history to this, it's part of a [not, for me, THE] Great Tradition." The "cultural politics" thing came up because it was being said over and over here ( but, again, not I think by Jim) that opera in particular was pretty much a rich white folk's snobfest. I don't believe I ever said that Jim's likes and dislikes were determined by cultural politics (because I certainly don't think so); that kind of thinking was being brought to bear here, unfairly I thought, in the other direction -- the implication being that mostly assholes liked, say, "The Marriage of Figaro," because doing so made them feel superior or something. Please, let that be the last thing I say on this!

I agree with what you're saying, but I'm sure you can at least understand that cultural politics can get in the way of one's initial appreciation of something, can't they? The sad part is that the opposite also occurs - People who appreciate what in enshrined as "fine art" but who dismiss other types of art because they're not "supposed" to like it or take it seriously. Yes, to both.

Right, but the kind of music within which/from which opera arose had its beginnings, at the very least, when I said -- around or before 1200.

Nothing -- except that sometimes it's used as an excuse (or even as something close to a demand) to stop thinking and talking.

Yeah -- and what a kind. I think that's the problem, Larry. The whole tone of that remark is wrong for me. European classical music isn't any better or more worthy of attention than R&B, Jazz, Funk, Reggae, Gospel music, Hip hop, Mbalax, Mbaqanga, Zouglou or any other kind of music. And it isn't any worse, or less worthy of attention, either. Which ones a person decides to become enthusiastic about is a matter of personal taste - and perhaps personal cultural background. So get off your high horse, young sir MG The kind of music I'm talking about, the kind that opera is one significant part of, runs in a relatively unbroken stream from, at the very least, Leonin (b. circa 1135) and Perotin (b. circa 1160) to the present. That's almost ten centuries. You can talk about fallow periods, dis that music's present and recent past if you wish, and complain about rich snotty bastards in Great Britain and elsewhere who get their Glyndebournes subsidized, but we're still left with a pretty astonishing body of work, in terms of quality, variety, and volume. Again, and of course, one likes what one likes -- "personal taste [plus] personal cultural background." But -- and I say this as someone whose entire life has been shaped by my discovery and love for jazz -- give me a call when we're into the tenth century of that music, and of R&B, Jazz, Funk, Reggae, Gospel music, Hip hop, Mbalax, Mbaqanga, Zouglou, etc. I see the smiley face, but IMO this whole discussion has been corrupted by allegations of high horse-ism. Yes, some people who love the music I mentioned up top are snotty bastards; I am not, nor are a whole lot of other people who love it. Further, if snotty-bastardism lies at the heart of that music, as you seem to come close to saying at times, how over all that time could all that music -- some of which you surely acknowledge as marvelous -- have been made in the first place? Snotty bastards tend to produce art that's hollow crap, right? Also -- and this may the main point I want to make as this jawfest, I hope, winds down -- just because you love Machaut, Mozart, and Monteverdi doesn't mean that you can't love the Swan Silverstones or Dock Boggs or James Brown. I know plenty of people who do, including people who post here all the time and don't ride high horses. Yet again -- personal taste has to prevail. I'm just saying, don't let your/our/anyone's curiosity be curtailed by cultural politics.

Yeah -- and what a kind.

One could argue that this is also the case with going to orchestra concerts in the US. Not among everyone in the audience, of course, but a significant percentage. The self-congratulatory smugness of the supposed anti-smugness here is something else. As for Jim's "I understand quite well that opera, Italian opera especially, was in its time, at root entertainment of a type not too terribly dissimilar from a Broadway musical.. People came for the show, not the 'art', and much of the medium was constructed accordingly. Well, ok, it's only rock and roll, etc..." what then do we do when the opera -- as with much Mozart, Verdi, Handel, Gluck, Monteverdi, Wagner, etc. etc. -- is brimful of art, and art of a kind and quality that can't be found or is hard to find anywhere else in music? The history of music minus the history of opera would be a fairly weird, distorted thing. Jim is of course perfectly free to step away from it himself if it doesn't work for him, for the "Don't have the time or the taste for this" reasons he gives, and so is anyone else. But I and a whole lot of people who aren't at all culture vultures feel otherwise. And we haven't even mentioned ballet!

I think that at this point in time, as the particulars of their individual immediacies inevitably fades to reveal the permanence of their intents (that is to say, all human behavior ultimately comes down to a handful of "types" of actions, although the ways they get acted out are seemingly infinite), that they are far more alike than not. Sounds interesting, but, on second thought, I don't know what you mean here. I'm not pulling your chain, but please amplify if possible. Simple. You know, the "seven (or five or how many ever) basic themes of literature" thing extrapolated to human behavior. People, individually & collectively, don't really do that many different things. They just don't. That's why there's only seven (or five or how many ever, I've got it down to one uber myself) themse to write about, because that's really all we do. The "interesting" part is in the ways we do it. Studying that shit'll have you working nights and weekends. But that 's the how. The what, that all comes down to few. And what opera, musicals, and cabaret (ususally) are is stories told with one too many layer of signification and one too many layer of I'm supposed to find this "deeper" (or something) than the stories found in real life. It;s not that it's not real, it's that it's presented to me with an implicit assumption that I'm going to like this better than reality because this is "special" or something. Like if I don't sit there and be dazzled/charmed/transported/whatever that it's my fault/problem. Opera, musicals, cabaret, are ultimately - for me - different ways of getting your ass in a chair to be convinced that what you're seeing is "magic", that the people doing it are "special", and that because I buy into their illusion, I am "sophisitcated". No matter how artfully it's done (and hell yeah, there's been enormous artfulness in all three), it's in the service of that vision (which is surely a tangent of one of the seven or five or one great themes...), and that's a vision that does not interest me at all. If I want "magic", I'll take it in, like 2-5 minute doses at a street fair and then move the hell on. And if I want real magic, hell, reality (as in unscripted real reality) has more than enough to offer, good, bad, funny, scary, and real surprise endings a fair amount of the time. And if I want MAGIC, shit, I've had a voodoo curse placed on me (for real), and how that played out has let me know in no uncertain terms that I most assuredly don't. OK, now I understand much better what you're saying, but about good parts of it, I couldn't disagree more. In particular, all or most of this: "And what opera, musicals, and cabaret (ususally) are is stories told with one too many layer of signification and one too many layer of I'm supposed to find this "deeper" (or something) than the stories found in real life. It;s not that it's not real, it's that it's presented to me with an implicit assumption that I'm going to like this better than reality because this is "special" or something. Like if I don't sit there and be dazzled/charmed/transported/whatever that it's my fault/problem. Opera, musicals, cabaret, are ultimately - for me - different ways of getting your ass in a chair to be convinced that what you're seeing is "magic", that the people doing it are "special", and that because I buy into their illusion, I am "sophisitcated". Sometimes it is that way -- "presented ... with an implicit assumption that I'm going to like this better than reality because this is 'special' or something..," especially in certain circles and/or late in the historical-social game -- but otherwise, that's a very grim way to remove all the fun and flatten all the meaning out of some stuff that never could have been created in the first place or lasted very long if it hadn't been a big source of pleasure and meaning to a lot of people who were concerned with something more than proving to themselves and to others how terrifically, righteously snotty they were. Also, as far as "'the "seven (or five or how many ever) basic themes of literature' thing extrapolated to human behavior" goes, the more literature I read, the more music I hear, etc., the more I'm convinced of the detailed specificity of the work itself unto itself, and the artist himself/herself unto himself/herself, provided it and he/she are really good. To hell with "themes," basic or otherwise; school is out. Shirley Horn is Shirley Horn, Monday M. is Monday M., Billie Holiday is Billie H., Mozart is Mozart, Monk is Monk, etc., etc.

I think that at this point in time, as the particulars of their individual immediacies inevitably fades to reveal the permanence of their intents (that is to say, all human behavior ultimately comes down to a handful of "types" of actions, although the ways they get acted out are seemingly infinite), that they are far more alike than not. Sounds interesting, but, on second thought, I don't know what you mean here. I'm not pulling your chain, but please amplify if possible.

Whoa -- When I wrote "If you're a non-fan of opera, you won't get a fair bit of where Armstrong and Bechet in particular were coming from," I was under the impression that you (and I didn't mean you in particular as much as I meant "one," as in "anyone of us") had in your life pretty much avoided the stuff on the "fat loud tenors, shrieky sopranos" principle . Since then you've explained that that's not the case at all. Fine; I understand. But I didn't feel the need in the light of that info to then formally retract what I'd first said, not realizing that we were in court of law or something. Also, my "won't get a fair bit of" point was based on my own experience; I didn't get that aspect of Armstrong and Bechet until someone pointed it out to me, played some of the pertinent records, noting resemblances, and showed me some of the texts that made it clear how much opera Armstrong and Bechet been exposed to in their youth in New Orleans.

MG I said two different things: What you quote above, and this ("...if you do run across good examples of some or all of that stuff, it's not unlikely, if you're a curious, broadminded jazz fan, that you'll find yourself enjoying yourself some. It ain't just anthropology/musicology, nor is it sauerkraut juice"). I believe that both these things are true and don't see how they're incompatible. As for "I'm not sure how an amateur, accidentally running across examples, would know whether they're good, bad or indifferent"), first, there are as in all things degrees of amatuerish-ness; one tries to learn some and listen some at the same time, and even if you're not making a conscious effort to learn, with increased exposure you often do. Second, while some musics are so damn different from other musics that one is clueless without hardcore tutelage, I think that in the case of the musics were talking about, some basic musicality on the part of the listener will carry him or her a good ways in the right directions.

But Reagan's influence/zone of being was that of political and social power, while opera's is in the (or "a") zone of potential aesthetic pleasure. Thus, it would seem to me, getting what Reagan was about and being a fan of Reagan is not very comparable to getting what opera was/is about and being a fan of opera. Different strokes, of course, when it comes to what one finds pleasurable; you can't enjoy what you don't enjoy. On the other hand, and this is certainly understandable, some people who don't like opera (or musicals or cabaret -- not these are at all the same kind of thing) do so for reasons that are analogous in part to why you and I might not like Ronald Reagan. That is, there are social issues and auras and histories of groups winning and losing involved; if an art form reeks of a crowd or attitudes that you rightly can't take (given who each of us -- rightly for ourselves -- are), then that is likely to be the end of it. As for MG's: "But do you need to be a fan of military band music in order to appreciate New Orleans jazz? Or a fan of Spirituals? Or a fan of various kinds of African-descended music sourced from the traditional musics of the Wolof, Mandinke, Bambara and Serahule peoples that, in their contemporary, late nineteenth century form, we can never hear?" No you don't need to IMO, but if you do run across good examples of some or all of that stuff, it's not unlikely, if you're a curious, broadminded jazz fan, that you'll find yourself enjoying yourself some. It ain't just anthropology/musicology, nor is it sauerkraut juice.

No? You mean I have to be a "fan" to grasp the influence? Hmmmm.... It would help, probably. Anyhow, there's so much great music there, i.e. in Opryland. BTW, Battistini's "A Tanto Amor" (I think it's the 1906 recording, but I can't be sure) can be downloaded here: http://www.emusic.com/album/Mattia-Battist...d/11009191.html The passage I have in mind comes almost at the end, but the excerpt that I can listen to without doing the whole downleading thing, only runs about 20 seconds.

Just to be clear, there is evidence, in addition to the sound of their music, that Armstrong and Bechet encountered, really dug , and were influenced by Italian opera in the New Orleans of their youth.

Jim -- If you're a non-fan of opera, you won't get a fair bit of where Armstrong and Bechet in particular were coming from. There's a 1906 recording of Donizetti's "A Tanto Amor" by the great baritone Mattia Battastini (1856-1928) where in the course of a closing cadenza he throws in a roulade that's so thrillingly Armstrong-like that you might not believe it. The tenor Fernando De Lucia (1860-1925) was another singer of that era who did things with time and timbre that jazz musicians could have fed on. Caruso (1873-1921), too, of course, but Battistini and De Lucia were of an earlier era in which a good deal more rhythmic fluidity and all-around freedom prevailed. But even if opera had no connection to jazz whatsoever... well, up to a certain point in my early teens I thought most classical music was indistinguishable from Mantovani.

Shill

Anthony Trollope's "Phineas Finn." Highly recommend his "The Eustace Diamonds." The central character, Lizzie Eustace, is one of most amazing and closely observed monsters in fiction. She could eat Becky Sharpe for breakfast.

It's those meaty arpeggios I have a problem with.

I am the real Larry K., know well to almost all of you. Send your nice money to me, and I will return it soon with extra money.

Granville Theodore Hogan Jr. (G.T. Hogan) born 1/16/29 in Galveston, Tex. Don't know those details on Wilbur Hogan, except that he is or was, as they say, a different drummer. I know this BTW because the subject came up some 45 years ago, when G.T. was making his few but excellent records (e.g. Two Horns Plus Rhythm, with Kenny Dorham and Ernie Henry) and the distinction between the two drumming Hogans was explicitly made.

According to Eugene Chadbourne's entry at www.allmusic.com they were one and the same person. Mr. Chadbourne is wrong.

I have Grado SR125s and like them a lot. The original over-the-ear pads were very fatiguing to wear, though; they cut into the back of my apparently too-large-for-Grado ears. Finally, I got some replacement pads from a good hi-fi store that fit Grados and rest on the ear and don't enclose it, as the original Grado pads do. As I recall, the on-the-ear pads very slightly change the sound "style" and/or imaging of the phones, as one might expect (if only because the sound sources are now a bit further from your ear drums), but the phones still sound fine to me, and the increase in comfort makes a big difference. I should add that I listen through speakers most of the time, using phones only when I want to listen in a very close-in "analytical" manner or don't want to disturb my wife when listening to something very loud late at night.

Off the top of my head, my favorite Kerouac book is "Desolation Angels," followed by "Big Sur" and "Book of Dreams."

Bad boy.