Free / Avant-Garde Jazz Forum

[Д.Д.]

Tony, I udnerstand where your proposal is coming form, but I think The Rat is serving the purpose just fine. If you refer to The Rat being frequented by a close group of 5-6-7 people, I very much doubt it would have attracted more wide attention has it been called "The Avant-Garde Thread" or whatever. Most of the posters at Organissimo make a conscious choise of not being interested in the music beyond 60s bop too much - nothing bad about that; and having no interest in "avant-garde" (what the fuck does it mean now, anyway?), they don't discuss it - and setting up a special forum will not help much if there is no interest.

And actually, I do like having it all in the one thread - there are a lot of circularly recurring subjects (how many times have we brouhgt up Brötzmann by now?!) and a lot of logical links - one thinkg awakes another which in turn leads to some other unexpected turn in discussion - may be at some point coming back to the original subject, may be not - but I don't have any problem following the twisted logics of the thread, and I do beleive it gets overall more informative this way, rather than if it were broken up into more confining and narrow topics.

And I just love Funny Rat title.

[JSngry]

I don't visit the rat thread too often just because it's so...long. And "self-contained". Love the music though (lots of it anyway), and would personally prefer that it come out of the rat closet and into the rest of the board. Anybody who's not inclined will probably stay away from any thread about something they don't like, and a curious type or two just might pick up some hints.

Now, if it's a "social" thing, hey, cool. But if it's mostly about the music, treat it like what it is - music of today by musicians of today. No need to hide it as far as I'm concerned.

Which of the pre-existing forums, by definition, would newer music of this type NOT be appropraite in? None that I can see.

[Alon Marcus]

I'm very much interested in Avant - Garde and tried to go through the funny rat thread a few times. I must say that it is user unfriendly with too much info packed in one place.

I don't understand why the funny rat thread has grown so big. I would prefer to see a few smaller, more focused threads.

I don't see the need for an Avant – Garde sub forum the same as I don't see the need for early jazz or fusion sub forums, but it's a possibility.

[Jim R]

Yes, although the term 'avant-garde' gets to be a drag. Basically, we're talking about new music. I remember Marshall McLuhan saying that the only people he met that enjoyed living in the present were artists, that others were looking in the rearview mirror.

We're talking about "NEW" music? Somebody help me out here. Is there an aspect of free jazz, a school of free jazz, a movement in free jazz, or whatever (I'm not sure how to put it) that somehow lays claim to the term "new music"?

BTW, is "New Age" still "new"?

Also, please explain the Marshall McLuhan quote to me as well. I'm not comfortable with it, but maybe I don't get it...

[JSngry]

It's the same gist as the one that says that "Great artists aren't ahead of their time, most people are behind theirs" or something like that.

Uncomfortable as that might make some feel, and as often as the faddists fall by the wayside after the novelty wears off, I nevertheless believe it to be true.

Edited October 2, 2004 by JSngry

[JSngry]

And yeah, there is a lot of truly "new" music being produced that gets lumped together under the umbrella term "avant-garde". But since most of it involves elements of electronics and/or hip-hop and/or other technological elements outside of the traditional accoustic ones in one form another, and since most of it is decidedly non-linear, it's not likely to appeal to the average "jazz fan" of today.

Which is cool, don't misunderstand me. But it kinda bums me out to think that there's "avant garde" fans and detractors alike who are still operating under the illusion/delusion that the territory plowed 40-45 years ago is still AVANT-GARDE. It ain't.

Accoustic Ornette is mainstream, bygod. COLLEGE KIDS play that stuff these days (how well is irrelevant...)! Ayler's probably in more people's (not "jazz fans' but ALL people's) collection than is Grant Green. On and on.

Not a lot of this music has gone on to great fame and fortune in the marketplace, but it's stuck around, and it's influence has been permanent. Peter Brotzzman is only "avant-garde" if you've missed out on the last few decades...

Now, when Matthew Shipp deconstructs a Roy Clark song in real-time and production terms simultaneously and turns it into a group blowing vehicle AND fodder for a DJ remix, well, that's pretty damn new, and, yes, "avant-garde". For now, anyway. Will it have staying power and influence? That remains to be seen, but the peril and the thrill alike of living in the present is that you don't know how the story's going to end.

We all know how Lee Morgan ends. So there's one less degree of "danger" in following his story and investing in it (although there's plenty more in finding out what that story really is...). Don't get me wrong, I have a pretty big investment in it myself, but I like a, uh, "diveersified portfolio" if you will. And Lee would be a "blue chip" - tried, true, reliable, and always rewarding. Risky as hell when the franchise was being built, but in terms of today, safe, but worthwhile. And vice-versa. I like that a lot.

But...

Matthew Shipp's (a great example of somebody who really is dealing with the "now" element of music-making) story is far from finished, so to invest in following his thing is risky in a way that doing so for the legends isn't. If Lee's a "blue chip", Matthew's a "high-risk, high yiled potential", or whatever the hell the investors terminology. Because you just don't know.

You don't know what his next record's going to be like, you don't know who's going to be on it, you don't know if it's going to suck or be great, hell, you might not even know if you like it or not, much less if you'll like it 5, 10, 25 years from now. You just don't know. And i like THAT a lot too. Because I'm alive in the now just like he is, and I bet that he doen't know either, not truly. He's discovering every day just like the rest of us are (hopefully), and none of us really knows anything except what's already happened.

Hey, if you did know, you'd not be living in the present, right? The only way to have all the answers is if the test has already been given, right?

The past is a great place to be from, but a man could get killed trying to live there.

Edited October 2, 2004 by JSngry

[Guest Chaney]

Thank you ALL for the feedback. ALL opinions are valid and very welcome.

Firstly, I chose the term avant-garde as a catch-all. I am aware that as applied to jazz, it mostly pertains to a particular era of this music and that the AG is no longer considered the new thing.

Secondly, let it be understood: I simply asked the question. Don't assume that I'd vote YES. (For the record: I didn't vote.)

Frequenters of the Funny Rat know that this question sometimes arises and I simply thought I'd ask. Honestly, I'm very surprised that the voting is as close as it is as I really expected the NO vote to trounce the YES vote. (Although, those who chose to post a response seem to favor things as they are, apparently most of those voting YES are choosing to remain silent. Or so it would seem.) (Also, as voting is so light, I guess I should have added an additional candidate: NO OPINION.)

My sentiments? I agree with Brother Д.Д.

My only concern with the Funny Rat though is that we're burying treasure. We're dealing with tiny record labels that could really use more exposure -- I know, as could all of jazz -- and artists that would no doubt appreciate the support. (You think Mosaic Records releases limited editions? Go visit lIMItEd SEdItION.) (I once ordered an OOP Gerry Hemingway title from Gerry Hemingway and Gerry wondered over the sudden flurry (my word) of orders. I explained that we were discussing him and his work in a particular thread on this board. Unfortunately, I'm guessing that the flurry hardly amounted to a light dusting -- even by typical jazz standards.)

Just tryin' to get the word out.

By the way, I didn't name the Funny Rat. It named itself.

[Dan Gould]

I am shocked that its running so closely-there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a separate, dedicated forum. Mike Fitzgerald's post hit it on the head.

If you want to keep yourselves segregated in the Rat thread, go for it.

Otherwise, post your threads where they already belong: Artist, New Releases, Reissues, whatever.

Or do you people think that Free/Avante/whatever the fuck you call it is so special it deserves its own forum? After all, everyone else is looking in the rearview mirror, right?

[couw]

After all, everyone else is looking in the rearview mirror, right?

yeah! and they smell too!

[J.A.W.]

After all, everyone else is looking in the rearview mirror, right?

When we're listening to recordings, we're all looking in the rearview mirror...

[Guest Chaney]

(...)

Or do you people think that Free/Avante/whatever the fuck you call it is so special it deserves its own forum?  After all, everyone else is looking in the rearview mirror, right?

Yes Dan. "WE" are special and the rest of you? LOSERS.

Believe it or not, it's allowable to listen to the old, the new and everything in between. It's not a battle so it's not necessary to take sides.

After all, everyone else is looking in the rearview mirror, right?

When we're listening to recordings, we're all looking in the rearview mirror...

Wise words, Brother Hans.

[JSngry]

My only concern with the Funny Rat though is that we're burying treasure.

A valid concern, afaic.

[Jim R]

A few follow-ups...

Jim, thanks for addressing and expressing. Your views and insights are always worth reading, and I basically agree with everything you said. However, just to clarify, I'm not sure you understood my point. When you said:

And yeah, there is a lot of truly "new" music being produced that gets lumped together under the umbrella term "avant-garde".

You were making a good observation, but not quite answering my question. What I was sort of objecting to was the somewhat arrogant (IMO) use of the term "new music" to describe only "free" jazz. I just can't see turning over the rights to the term "new music" like that. Music can't be "new" in any other area of jazz besides free? (I realize that semantics are coming into play here, BTW ). I feel the same way about Marshall McLuhan's use of the term "artist". I also think it's misguided to view everybody outside of free jazz as "living in the past", looking backward, etc etc. I'm not buying it. All that's required is a new song, a new approach, a new idea... even if it's all based on a traditional style. If people are digging it, buying it, paying to go hear it, etc, I don't see how that's somehow not "living in the present".

If info is getting buried in the Funny Rat thread (and I can sure understand how that is happening), then I agree- start more threads in the appropriate places.

Finally, I'm still not sure how Oscar Robertson gets improved in any way by a new forum...

[Tom Storer]

I voted no for the same reasons already expressed. What purpose would it serve to start separate forums per style? It's not like there are so many threads each day that one can't keep track.

Similarly, if information is getting "buried" in the Funny Rat thread, just start more threads. That would also give the "funny music" crowd less of an impression of being outnumbered and under siege.

[Noj]

I say yes. We need a place for those people. Avante garde weirdos! They're all alike.

FWIW, I voted no.

I agree that the Funny Rat thread is too cumbersome, much like the eai threads at Jazz Corner. I'd rather see separate discussion threads, "Corners" for major artists and more specific topics.

[JSngry]

Well, hey Jim, people who are out on a limb are usually too worried about falling off to notice that there's other people in the same predicament, sometimes even on the same tree.

Having been out on a limb or three myself over the years, I don't begrudge the sentiment at all, although, having seen the rest of the tree (and who else is on it), I'm not inclined to make such statements myself (too much) these days. But I'm rapidly getting to be an old fart, so what do I know?

Now, as far as McLuhan goes, he was one of the visionaries of our time, afaic. But since he was not a "jazz critic" (or even a jazz fan for all I know...), I'd not take umbrage at his definition of an artist. Viewed objectively, he's right, I think ("comfort in the present" needn't always manifest itself in creating the future imo). He was talking "artist" in the VERY broad sense.

But being right, it's easy enough for anybody who wants to to appropriate that statement as a "defense". Sometimes they'll be right, and sometimes not. Depends on how it all shakes out (DAMN That tree! ), which, again we don't/can't know until it happens.

Pretty much how I see it is that confidence in what you're into translates into being able to bring it into the world to at least some degree, w/o fear of getting pummelled (hey, that;s what scar tissue is for, to protect you in the future, right?). And it also translates into not fearing or feeling the compulsion to attack anything else that's different (older or newer). Because how it shakes out, as I see it, is that ther's only so many stories you can tell, period. That's the nature of the human condition.

What IS unlimited is the ways to tell those stories - there's as many perspectives as there are individuals. New individuals from new times, new perspectives on the same old stories (aand just because the perspectives changes radically, and the form of the story follows suit, does not (no no no no NO!) meant that the story itself changes. It can't, unless the fundamental human condition does, And how long have we all been waiting for THAT to happen?

Sure, there's going to be some radicalass teenagers bent on destruction, but that's the way it goes (and that's also an eternal story). Sometimes they succeed in their goal (and often enough blame somebody else for it when they've got nothing left), and sometimes they go on to become wise elder statesman. Sometimes they just give up (those are the ones you REALLY gotta watch out for - they'll try to take you down with'em...). And sometimes what at first appears to be destructive is actually a reconstruction of something that was about to die anyway. So the result is actually CONstructive. You just never know.

But that's the game. Same as it ever was, same as it will always be. Let's play!

Edited October 2, 2004 by JSngry

[Д.Д.]

After all, everyone else is looking in the rearview mirror, right?

When we're listening to recordings, we're all looking in the rearview mirror...

Bravo, Hans!

[Jim Alfredson]

How about using two letter anacronyms for avant-garde related threads and just keep them in the Artists forum or whatever? Like:

AG - Henry Threadgill Corner

or

FRE - Brotzman's Latest Release

AG = avant garde, obviously and FRE = Funny Rat Extension

Just a thought.

[Matthew]

How about using two letter anacronyms for avant-garde related threads and just keep them in the Artists forum or whatever? Like:

FRE - Brotzman's Latest Release

Just a thought.

I don't think anyone on earth can keep track of all that Brotzmann's releases.

[Guest Chaney]

How about using two letter anacronyms for avant-garde related threads and just keep them in the Artists forum or whatever?  Like:

FRE - Brotzman's Latest Release

Just a thought.

I don't think anyone on earth can keep track of all that Brotzmann's releases.

Should have a Brotzmann Forum.

[JSngry]

Should have a Brotzmann Forum.

Bingo!

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Disagree with labeling idea, too. For the same reasons. Why on earth would we need to label everything AG? Then BB (Bebop), SW (Swing), NO (New Orleans), CH (Chicago), BL (Blues), WC (West Coast), EC (East Coast), F (Funk), CL (Classical), PR (Progressive Rock), P (Punk), NW (New Wave), BA (Baroque), TT (Twelve Tone), MT (Microtonal), IC (Indian Classical), EM (Electronic Music), TF (Traditional Folk), C (Country), BG (Bluegrass), RB (Rhythm & Blues), and so on and on.

That's just silly. All those things (and more) have been discussed here on the site before. And I go back to my point about artists and art that refuses to fit into the cookie cutter pigeonholes.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me something that CAN'T fit in the existing structure of this board.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I really don't understand what the entire point is here. To keep "Avant Garde" discussion separated out of one's way if you don't want to read it? To draw attention to it if you do want to read it? As far as I can tell, if you had a thread in the Artists forum called "Peter Brotzmann" that would give a very good idea of what it contained. Like PB, read it; Don't, don't. How is this ANY different from a thread in the Artists forum called "Count Basie" or "Warne Marsh" or "Renee Rosnes"?

I can see the problems some have with the "Funny Rat" thread - while it didn't start out that way, it has *become* a poorly labeled thread. So relabel it! It's too big because people seem to use it for purposes other than for what it was intended. So start new, more specific threads!

How exactly are these things difficult to do?

Mike

[JSngry]

How exactly are these things difficult to do?

"It's hard work, Mike. HARD work!"

[7/4]

How exactly are these things difficult to do?

"It's hard work, Mike. HARD work!"

How did he get so tanned, so quick?

[JSngry]

Getting roasted does that to you.

But I fear we go off-topic...