Originality

[JSngry]

It means no such thing.

It does mean that if there's a front there will also be a back.

How soon that back becomes apparent, though, is in no way rigid nor mathematical. But it is inevitable.

[Larry Kart]

It means no such thing.

It does mean that if there's a front there will also be a back.

How soon that back becomes apparent, though, is in no way rigid nor mathematical. But it is inevitable.

Give me an example or two of a "front" and a "back" in art, because the words in themselves don't link up to anything there with which I'm familiar. Now, if by "front" and "back" you mean something like yin and yang, I'm with you up to a point but still believe that at times, over time, what might justly be tagged as yin or yang would never have been so regarded in previous eras, nor will they be so regarded a further good piece down the road. If that is so, the belief in a eternal byplay between front and back or yin and yang becomes something close to an illusion. It just ain't necessary conceptually IMO; the shit that matters happens and will happen regardless.

[JSngry]

Now, if by "front" and "back" you mean something like yin and yang, I'm with you up to a point but still believe that at times, over time, what might justly be tagged as yin or yang would never have been so regarded in previous eras, nor will they be so regarded a further good piece down the road. If that is so, the belief in a eternal byplay between front and back or yin and yang becomes something close to an illusion. It just ain't necessary conceptually IMO; the shit that matters happens and will happen regardless.

Yin & yang, yes, exactly, and yes, the shit that matters happens and will happen regardless (eventually...maybe not always at the "best" possible time, because humans get in the way too often in an attempt to impose...), but as far as mattering in term of understanding what has happened, what is happening, and might yet happen (or if we are bold enough to presume some sense of self-directiveness, what might need to happen next to realize a particular individual or colective vision), then you'd be hard pressed to avoid it except through the willful ignorance of the "oh well, sometimes shit just happens" mantra, which is a good enough response right at the moment, but becomes increasingly worthless with every passing second after. Either that or else just figure that what happens happens, and what happens right in front of your face is all that happens anywhere, ever.

But you and I both know that that's just dumb, that for every push there's a pull, because friction is the essence of life - it creates it, it holds it together, it sustains it, and it eventually "ends" it (redistributes it is more to the point...). Even time...time is what keeps everything from happening all at once, somebody once said, and time is friction too...so you can disregard the yin and the yang as you like, but you cannot destroy them, nor can you pull them apart into separate, independent elements, except as an illusion. One can choose what one chooses to see, but something as fundamental as this either is or isn't, at least in this world.

As far as how that's "regarded", here we go again...fuck how it's "regarded". We in the "west" have been so dualistic, so "either/or", so "with us/against us", so "us/them" for so damn long, and with such three-dimensional spiritual and intellectual outcomes that "regarding" is too often a case of "here's a thing, here's some bags, find the bag that the thing best fits in, put it there and then move on to the next thing" that the notion of opposites (and in-betweens) existing as part of a bigger, evolving-but-constant whole is something reserved for a source of funding for churches and physics labs instead of everyday life, where it plays out most fully and is therefore most relevant.

So yeah, fuck how it's "regarded". That don't mean shit to me at this point, even though that's just how I "regard" it.

[JSngry]

It means no such thing.

It does mean that if there's a front there will also be a back.

How soon that back becomes apparent, though, is in no way rigid nor mathematical. But it is inevitable.

Give me an example or two of a "front" and a "back" in art, because the words in themselves don't link up to anything there with which I'm familiar.

FRONT:

BACK:

[Larry Kart]

It means no such thing.

It does mean that if there's a front there will also be a back.

How soon that back becomes apparent, though, is in no way rigid nor mathematical. But it is inevitable.

Give me an example or two of a "front" and a "back" in art, because the words in themselves don't link up to anything there with which I'm familiar.

FRONT:

BACK:

OK, that one I kinda get. I recall the night on the U. of Chicago campus in (probably) 1967 when I was about to go in to hear a Roscoe Mitchell concert at Ida Noyes Hall and Big Joe Williams was in the lobby area, seated on a flight of steps and playing his ass off. The relationship between the rhythmic and formal freedoms (of if you prefer, "freedoms)" of Big Joe and those of Roscoe, Lester Bowie, et al. that I was about to hear was quite evident. On the other hand, about ten years further on down the road, Roscoe would be playing some fabulous stuff where that front/backrelationship would not obtain that much. You could say "once, therefore forever" I suppose.

[JSngry]

Or you could say that we don't always see the front and the back simultaneously, if ever.

And/or you could say that sometimes the back is completely internal to the front's external.

And/or you could say that whether we are seeing the front or the back is more or less a question of what we think we are seeing.

And I would say that finding the back (or the front) is not/should not be an impedement to fully experience the "now".

For as long as it lasts, which...of course...is...uh...NOW.

But not now, this is another NOW, although not THIS one.

They do all fit together though, into one "thing", eventually, somehow, that I can and will say, now.

But the one thing you can never say is that there is a front w/o a back, or vice-versa.

Hell, even a hologram has a projector...

But the thing to remember is is that a "thing" is neither just its front or its back. That's old-school "western" thinking. And a "thing" is not just its front "and" its back. That's new-school "western" wishful thinking.

A "thing" is really no thing at all. It's part of "the one". We can only see it as a "thing" by limiting that to various degrees, which is sometimes useful, becuase even though me, that tree, and my car are really all part of the one, for right here and now, it's probably best that I keep them "separate". Although, in the really big picture, big whoop.

But as it pertains to "music" and stuff, well, yeah, we need to market, and we need to ruminate, and we need to seek and find, we need to do all that, but after we do it, we've done it. And then, maybe, just maybe, the best thing to do with all that is to let it go, and to let that "thing" go back to where it truly belongs, which is not not being a "thing" at all.

Who knows, we might even let some of our self go there with it.

[danasgoodstuff]

OK, let me take my run (or run my take) on this - there was some thing/non-thing about Armstrong/Parker/Monk/whoever that people dug. And some people said that it was 'cause they were "original". Which they kinda were, only there was a lot of other stuff that they were that 'original' didn't really get to and (on the back of that front?) there was also a lot of stuff that 'original' snuck in that didn't have nothing to do with A/P/M. So when people tried to get to and then move on from A/P/M, using 'original' as part of their mental roadmap threw 'em off course. Not everyone of course, Ornette listened to Parker in particular, heard what he heard, felt what he felt, and played what he played. To the limited extent that I can make any sense outta what he says verbally/in words, it's simply saying not to get hung up on words/concepts like 'original'.

I know we've been avoiding particular examples, mostly, but I can't make any sense outta stuff like this without 'em.

To tie into that other thread, maybe one of the reasons jazz needs to be 'saved' is 'cause too much of its audience and attempts to broaden same are hung up on achaic concepts like 'originallity' which is surely a red herring in an age when sampling is simply how music is done to them young 'uns...

This seemed much better when it was still just in my head!

[fasstrack]

Also, sometimes the student eclipses the master, as IMO Marsh over Tristano and especially Berg/Schoenberg. I think, especially with Berg his music was more felt. I admit I've listened to more Berg tahn Schoenberg, but maybe that's b/c Schoenberg's music was less appealing to me. It's hard for me to get into music that's mathematically contrived, including even Trane's Giant Steps.

Schoenberg's music from 1907-13 was as far from being mathematically contrived as could be -- if anything, one could argue that at times it was bit too much an "outpouring from the soul." About S's later twelve-tone works, and there are different periods there too, even the "strictest" of those pieces comes across in a good performance as driven by inner necessity (which was the case), not as a product of calculation. Then, in his final period, there was his String Trio for one -- which was inspired by a near-death experience of S's and sounds as though it had been.

I told you I haven't studied his music closely. I can't say anymore until I do.

OK, but you have been saying a lot of dismissive stiff about it that is, apart from matters of taste, factually not accurate. Why not hold off on that kind of thing until you do become more familiar with his music? Or if you don't want to do that, just make your points while leaving S. and his music out of it.

OK.

[fasstrack]

Also, a thing can't exist without its opposite.

Art very often is not a matter of "opposites." To think that it is IMO implies a belief in an almost mathematical-like rigidity of discourse, plus a belief that historical processes are based on underlying and more or less "eternal" principles.

They understand this in Eastern cultures better than Western. I don't know about mathematical formulae, not being a mathematician. (Though music is math, the measureable---teachable----part, anyway. The 'magical' part is the most interesting, but can't be measured----which is a good thing, b/c music will keep reinventing itself as long as human curiosity stays at least at current levels). Anyway, all I meant is that nothing seems to have meaning unless by comparison. If you don't like 'opposite', pick something else.

I was afraid of getting into this kind of hair-splitting. I admittedly speak sometimes more from emotion than science or provable fact, but all I tried to do was get a discussion going. I'm an emotional guy, that's why I'm a musician, not a physicist. And I repeat, I know what works for me, but I'm not here to ram it down on anyone.

Now that I think about it, a lot of times boredom is the mother of creativity as much as neccessity. Another broad statement, I know. I'll think of examples----there are so many----and get back with them.

Edited August 16, 2009 by fasstrack

[fasstrack]

Or you could say that we don't always see the front and the back simultaneously, if ever.

And/or you could say that sometimes the back is completely internal to the front's external.

And/or you could say that whether we are seeing the front or the back is more or less a question of what we think we are seeing.

And I would say that finding the back (or the front) is not/should not be an impedement to fully experience the "now".

For as long as it lasts, which...of course...is...uh...NOW.

But not now, this is another NOW, although not THIS one.

They do all fit together though, into one "thing", eventually, somehow, that I can and will say, now.

But the one thing you can never say is that there is a front w/o a back, or vice-versa.

Hell, even a hologram has a projector...

But the thing to remember is is that a "thing" is neither just its front or its back. That's old-school "western" thinking. And a "thing" is not just its front "and" its back. That's new-school "western" wishful thinking.

A "thing" is really no thing at all. It's part of "the one". We can only see it as a "thing" by limiting that to various degrees, which is sometimes useful, becuase even though me, that tree, and my car are really all part of the one, for right here and now, it's probably best that I keep them "separate". Although, in the really big picture, big whoop.

But as it pertains to "music" and stuff, well, yeah, we need to market, and we need to ruminate, and we need to seek and find, we need to do all that, but after we do it, we've done it. And then, maybe, just maybe, the best thing to do with all that is to let it go, and to let that "thing" go back to where it truly belongs, which is not not being a "thing" at all.

Who knows, we might even let some of our self go there with it.

The way you seperated those lines, if you made them 7 lines each it would be Haiku

[fasstrack]

OK, let me take my run (or run my take) on this - there was some thing/non-thing about Armstrong/Parker/Monk/whoever that people dug. And some people said that it was 'cause they were "original". Which they kinda were, only there was a lot of other stuff that they were that 'original' didn't really get to and (on the back of that front?) there was also a lot of stuff that 'original' snuck in that didn't have nothing to do with A/P/M. So when people tried to get to and then move on from A/P/M, using 'original' as part of their mental roadmap threw 'em off course. Not everyone of course, Ornette listened to Parker in particular, heard what he heard, felt what he felt, and played what he played. To the limited extent that I can make any sense outta what he says verbally/in words, it's simply saying not to get hung up on words/concepts like 'original'.

I know we've been avoiding particular examples, mostly, but I can't make any sense outta stuff like this without 'em.

To tie into that other thread, maybe one of the reasons jazz needs to be 'saved' is 'cause too much of its audience and attempts to broaden same are hung up on achaic concepts like 'originallity' which is surely a red herring in an age when sampling is simply how music is done to them young 'uns...

This seemed much better when it was still just in my head!

Very good points. It seems like a lot of this stuff is sort of undefiniable, anyway---you sort of kill it by defining it. But it's human to want to compartmentalize, especially to identify something 'new' with sometyhing 'old'---otherwise it's too scary.

I avoided the examples myself, b/c I was afraid it would turn into a 'my hero's great, yours sucks' pissing contest. I just think there is a lot of misconception of originality, period. I remember what I loved about Jimmy Raney, and I'm proud that he instilled in me, by conversation and, better yet, example that he wanted to be good more than anything. 'Quality can be honed', I believe were his exact words. There are people that are just lame, and a 6 is not a 10. If someone is good, even if they don't knock you out you have to give at least grudging respect. In Jimmy's case, I believed he was secure enough in his voice and relative originality not to worry about it. Probably he knew people would hear it in his playing, a 'forced' quality, if he approached it that way (or maybe he didn't care what people thought). That can really kill the flow, turning potential beuty into a kind of self-conscious (sp?) obsession, and there can be a thin line between a real idea and a contrivance----which is why I think ultimately 'usefulness', and maybe advancing ther common language and goals, is a test.

Edited August 16, 2009 by fasstrack

[tkeith]

"Meaning" is not in the thing itself, it's in what you do to the thing and what it does to you after you find it.

So, yeah, the same thing can be profound to one, utter bullshit to another, and both will be right within themselves, if they are both being wholly honest in their intellect and emotion. Outside of themselves, hey, it's ultimately evolution and consensus, as much as we'd like to think otherwise.

To thine own self, etc, because there is no Number One.

+1... as usual.

[fasstrack]

"Meaning" is not in the thing itself, it's in what you do to the thing and what it does to you after you find it.

So, yeah, the same thing can be profound to one, utter bullshit to another, and both will be right within themselves, if they are both being wholly honest in their intellect and emotion. Outside of themselves, hey, it's ultimately evolution and consensus, as much as we'd like to think otherwise.

To thine own self, etc, because there is no Number One.

+1... as usual.

It's relative to the things around it, otherwise we'd all live in a bubble. Which a lot of people do, a big problem with life.

Hey, screw the guitar. I'm putting all this stuff in fortune cookies and I'll clean up.

[JSngry]

I think we all do live in a bubble, ultimately. It's the only way we can have a notion of "self". Or perhaps a collection of bubbles.

The question then becomes, perhaps, how transparent or opaque is anybody's given bubble at any given time, and for what purpose and to what end?

In the end, though, all bubbles pop. It's what bubbles do.

[Larry Kart]

I avoided the examples myself, b/c I was afraid it would turn into a 'my hero's great, yours sucks' pissing contest. I just think there is a lot of misconception of originality, period. I remember what I loved about Jimmy Raney, and I'm proud that he instilled in me, by conversation and, better yet, example that he wanted to be good more than anything. 'Quality can be honed', I believe were his exact words. There are people that are just lame, and a 6 is not a 10. If someone is good, even if they don't knock you out you have to give at least grudging respect. In Jimmy's case, I believed he was secure enough in his voice and relative originality not to worry about it. Probably he knew people would hear it in his playing, a 'forced' quality, if he approached it that way (or maybe he didn't care what people thought). That can really kill the flow, turning potential beuty into a kind of self-conscious (sp?) obsession, and there can be a thin line between a real idea and a contrivance----which is why I think ultimately 'usefulness', and maybe advancing ther common language and goals, is a test.

Jimmy Raney is maybe one of my ten favorite jazz musicians, regardless of instrument, and I agree with what you say about him, up to a point. That unforced security of voice he had was a beautiful, bottomlessly deep thing. But I'm not sure that Raney really flows that well into your "ultimately 'usefulness', and maybe advancing ther common language and goals, is a test." In his own relatively quiet way, Raney IMO was about a fairly radical form of risk -- the risk of sustaining a living line through time, with "living" (as I believe he understood and felt that) being the kicker. That is, a living line for Raney was one that not only flowed but also flowed amidst, and responded to, acknowledged pressures -- the pressures of time as realized in/outlined by the given harmonic framework. But this also worked the other way around at the same time; the given harmonic framework was often being pressed AGAINST by Raney, not accepted as a given, and the ways he pressed against -- so subtle, so novel, so personal -- were deeply original, albeit not flamboyantly so. Another aspect of this perhaps -- Raney's lovely sense of swing was not IMO typically generated by, or in terms of, accenting but by his harmonic choices, the way his lines tugged against the harmonic framework's gravitational field, the way he would place "up" against "down" and vice versa to create a linear byplay of striving and hoped-for release. It was like Bach. The "test" for Raney was the life of the line amid stress or stresses -- a stress that his lines, if you will, brought to life. If pressed, I'd even go so far to say that his art was tragic in its acceptance, its necessary understanding that while the flight of time's arrow dreams of the horizontal infinite, it and we will eventually curve downwards to earth.

[JSngry]

Coulf you convert that into haiku form?

[Larry Kart]

Coulf you convert that into haiku form?

Raney places "down'

against "up." Arrows

dream of perpetual flight.

[JSngry]

Excellent!

Now can you do Pig Latin, for the kids???

[Larry Kart]

Excellent!

Now can you do Pig Latin, for the kids???

Well, it begins with "uck."

Which reminds me of a joke. Two Hassidic Jews in the shetl go to Pincus the tailor and say that they need new suits but are not happy with the last pair Pincus made for them. "They weren't black," they say, "but a kind of dark grey. We want black."

"OK," Pincus says. "I also make the habits for the nuns, and I'll make your suits out of the same material."

Two weeks later, the Hassids pick up their suits and go out for a stroll when they see two nuns. One of the Hassids goes up to one of the nuns, places the sleeve of his suit again the sleeve of her habit, says something under his breath, and walks away.

"What did he say?" the other nun asks.

"It sounded like Latin," the first nun says. "Pincus fuctus."

[jeffcrom]

Jimmy Raney is maybe one of my ten favorite jazz musicians, regardless of instrument, and I agree with what you say about him, up to a point. That unforced security of voice he had was a beautiful, bottomlessly deep thing. But I'm not sure that Raney really flows that well into your "ultimately 'usefulness', and maybe advancing ther common language and goals, is a test." In his own relatively quiet way, Raney IMO was about a fairly radical form of risk -- the risk of sustaining a living line through time, with "living" (as I believe he understood and felt that) being the kicker. That is, a living line for Raney was one that not only flowed but also flowed amidst, and responded to, acknowledged pressures -- the pressures of time as realized in/outlined by the given harmonic framework. But this also worked the other way around at the same time; the given harmonic framework was often being pressed AGAINST by Raney, not accepted as a given, and the ways he pressed against -- so subtle, so novel, so personal -- were deeply original, albeit not flamboyantly so. Another aspect of this perhaps -- Raney's lovely sense of swing was not IMO typically generated by, or in terms of, accenting but by his harmonic choices, the way his lines tugged against the harmonic framework's gravitational field, the way he would place "up" against "down" and vice versa to create a linear byplay of striving and hoped-for release. It was like Bach. The "test" for Raney was the life of the line amid stress or stresses -- a stress that his lines, if you will, brought to life. If pressed, I'd even go so far to say that his art was tragic in its acceptance, its necessary understanding that while the flight of time's arrow dreams of the horizontal infinite, it and we will eventually curve downwards to earth.

This paragraph is beautiful - as is the haiku.

[Larry Kart]

This paragraph is beautiful - as is the haiku.

Thanks. The haiku took a bit of fiddling. The paragraph came from out of nowhere.

[fasstrack]

I think we all do live in a bubble, ultimately. It's the only way we can have a notion of "self". Or perhaps a collection of bubbles.

The question then becomes, perhaps, how transparent or opaque is anybody's given bubble at any given time, and for what purpose and to what end?

In the end, though, all bubbles pop. It's what bubbles do.

It's just one of my pet peeves----or dark observations. It's tough being a weirdo, especially in America. (Tolerance is better in Europe, it seems). I realize my viewpoint on everything is in the minority, but, for one example, my ears and nerves are so sensitive when people jabber loud on cell phones in public places it pisses me off that they are so stupid and unobservant of anyone but themselves. I'm talking about adults, not kids now. I'm not one to bite my tongue either, so I find myself in more unpleasant conversations just sticking up for my basic right not to be harrassed by idiots than I care to be in. Probably I should let it slide, me being the one getting hurt, not the morons in question.

[fasstrack]

I avoided the examples myself, b/c I was afraid it would turn into a 'my hero's great, yours sucks' pissing contest. I just think there is a lot of misconception of originality, period. I remember what I loved about Jimmy Raney, and I'm proud that he instilled in me, by conversation and, better yet, example that he wanted to be good more than anything. 'Quality can be honed', I believe were his exact words. There are people that are just lame, and a 6 is not a 10. If someone is good, even if they don't knock you out you have to give at least grudging respect. In Jimmy's case, I believed he was secure enough in his voice and relative originality not to worry about it. Probably he knew people would hear it in his playing, a 'forced' quality, if he approached it that way (or maybe he didn't care what people thought). That can really kill the flow, turning potential beuty into a kind of self-conscious (sp?) obsession, and there can be a thin line between a real idea and a contrivance----which is why I think ultimately 'usefulness', and maybe advancing ther common language and goals, is a test.

Jimmy Raney is maybe one of my ten favorite jazz musicians, regardless of instrument, and I agree with what you say about him, up to a point. That unforced security of voice he had was a beautiful, bottomlessly deep thing. But I'm not sure that Raney really flows that well into your "ultimately 'usefulness', and maybe advancing ther common language and goals, is a test." In his own relatively quiet way, Raney IMO was about a fairly radical form of risk -- the risk of sustaining a living line through time, with "living" (as I believe he understood and felt that) being the kicker. That is, a living line for Raney was one that not only flowed but also flowed amidst, and responded to, acknowledged pressures -- the pressures of time as realized in/outlined by the given harmonic framework. But this also worked the other way around at the same time; the given harmonic framework was often being pressed AGAINST by Raney, not accepted as a given, and the ways he pressed against -- so subtle, so novel, so personal -- were deeply original, albeit not flamboyantly so. Another aspect of this perhaps -- Raney's lovely sense of swing was not IMO typically generated by, or in terms of, accenting but by his harmonic choices, the way his lines tugged against the harmonic framework's gravitational field, the way he would place "up" against "down" and vice versa to create a linear byplay of striving and hoped-for release. It was like Bach. The "test" for Raney was the life of the line amid stress or stresses -- a stress that his lines, if you will, brought to life. If pressed, I'd even go so far to say that his art was tragic in its acceptance, its necessary understanding that while the flight of time's arrow dreams of the horizontal infinite, it and we will eventually curve downwards to earth.

I knew Jimmy. Just a little, but enough so it had a real impact on me. I studied with and hung out with him in '79-80. I recently got back in touch with his son Jon, actually by starting a thread about Jimmy on this board. He remains one of my major influences----even though I myself had to break away long ago and find my own voice. Yes, he was a giant in melodic thinking, first absorbing and personalizing the language of Bird (one of the first, and for my money the best---guitarists to do this on a very tough jazz instrument and at an early age) and having the extraordinary technical skill to bring it off. He contributed as a composer, too, from an early age, and developed his own style through the years, never really changing. Jimmy chose to live as an artist. But, speaking of reality, as distasteful as playing commercial music may have been to him----or life in the mean Apple, he always did have an out: he could go home to Louisville---his mom always welcomed him. I mention this b/c it may be to our benefit that he never had to really 'sell out', but most musicians are not in that position, having someone get their back when it's too tough. That's why I try really hard not to put any musician down for playing any kind of music. If you can make a living playing an instrument, more power to you. BTW Jon, if you're reading this by all means jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not trying to make short shrift of your analysis, which I don't disagree with. I think Pres was a big influence on him, and approached melody and time similarly.

Edited August 22, 2009 by fasstrack

[fasstrack]

Funny, and apropos of this, I think: I got a myspace friend request from a classical composer named Dary John Mizelle. Listening to his music now. Interesting stuff. Usually I never bother, not wanting to be disappointed. But this guy knows what he's doing. Here's his web page: http://www.myspace.com/mizellemusic

I'm sure the poor guy does what everyone else has to to survive: teach (not that it's a bad thing). Probably he has to go into hock to get his music played.