clifford_thornton Posted May 10, 2012 Report Posted May 10, 2012 I was just trying to say he's not really a "jazz" pianist, or connected to it in the same way that Cecil is, but he's real good. Quote
mjazzg Posted May 10, 2012 Report Posted May 10, 2012 The most interesting aspect of this article for me is its mentioning of pianist Thollem McDonas whom I have never even heard of, but now plan to check out. Same here! He's good. With his music, I see the piano as an expressive tool divorced somewhat from Tradition, but with energy and soul to spare. He's also a very nice person. Plays with Mike Watt (Minutemen)! Does being divorced somewhat from tradition mean that he (or any of these out cats) have to be subsidized in some way to make up for that? Can they stand on their own feet? Am I being too harsh? Q Exactly what are you writing about???? Perhaps I'm dense. Please explain yourself. Seems clear enough to me, but just for you ... if they are divorced from the tradition in jazz, it (perhaps) means that few people listen, so therefore they (the musicians) may be subsidized by public funds... It happens in Europe all the time. Whether it should happen is something else. It didn't happen in the past... It may not happen with these guys ... Q public funded arts - especially for jazz and improvised music but not exclusively, if only there was more of it in the UK Quote
paul secor Posted May 10, 2012 Author Report Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) The most interesting aspect of this article for me is its mentioning of pianist Thollem McDonas whom I have never even heard of, but now plan to check out. Same here! He's good. With his music, I see the piano as an expressive tool divorced somewhat from Tradition, but with energy and soul to spare. He's also a very nice person. Plays with Mike Watt (Minutemen)! Does being divorced somewhat from tradition mean that he (or any of these out cats) have to be subsidized in some way to make up for that? Can they stand on their own feet? Am I being too harsh? Q Exactly what are you writing about???? Perhaps I'm dense. Please explain yourself. Seems clear enough to me, but just for you ... if they are divorced from the tradition in jazz, it (perhaps) means that few people listen, so therefore they (the musicians) may be subsidized by public funds... It happens in Europe all the time. Whether it should happen is something else. It didn't happen in the past... It may not happen with these guys ... Q To my ears, Cecil isn't divorced from "the tradition in jazz". If you want to look for someone who's subsidized, look no further than "Mr. Tradition", Wynton M. If "...It may not happen with these guys" - and who are "these guys", anyway? - why bring it up? Edited May 10, 2012 by paul secor Quote
Larry Kart Posted May 10, 2012 Report Posted May 10, 2012 The most interesting aspect of this article for me is its mentioning of pianist Thollem McDonas whom I have never even heard of, but now plan to check out. Same here! He's good. With his music, I see the piano as an expressive tool divorced somewhat from Tradition, but with energy and soul to spare. He's also a very nice person. Plays with Mike Watt (Minutemen)! Does being divorced somewhat from tradition mean that he (or any of these out cats) have to be subsidized in some way to make up for that? Can they stand on their own feet? Am I being too harsh? Q Have to be subsidized, no -- IMO. Should be, yes -- on a selective basis. Factors involved would be the actual quality of work (this to be judged in the usual crapshoot manner, but fingers-crossed, as soundly as possible), how costly specific ambitious projects might be, etc. Why any of this, you ask? Because over my almost life-long contact with jazz (57 of soon to be 70 years), such artists have been of great value to the world at large, whether or not the world at large knows it. Further, if I'm right about that, and if such figures need or can significantly benefit from subsidized support but don't get it, then some/much/maybe all? of what we otherwise would get from them and benefit from, we would not get. It would be lost, at a cost that can't of course be quantified, but I think it might be immense. Quote
David Ayers Posted May 10, 2012 Report Posted May 10, 2012 There is a very decent amount of public subsidy for the arts in the UK. It is worth studying what gets funded and why. For jazz to get funded it needs to be part of a package framed in a certain way, but the idea of handouts for critic-determined quality of a supposedly self-identical genre cuts much less ice than maybe it once did. We currently have a festival here which illustrates how things have to be pitched to the Arts Council. This boat is the kind of thing they like best, I guess. Quote
JSngry Posted May 10, 2012 Report Posted May 10, 2012 Just as Louis Armstrong never heard no horse sing a song, I've never seen any spendable money that wasn't public in some form or fashion at one time or another. As much as I like the idea of subsidizing "the arts", I'm less than enamored with the bulk of the results. More often than not, it quite often doesn't result in more or better (or even newer) "art", it just replaces one marketplace with another, and a committee of five can be more ignorant and harmful than an audience of three. Gotta be some kind of better way. And how does Colby Lewis strike out 12 and give up 5 HRs in the same game? Never mind too little for too late, just how the hell does that happen? Quote
Chuck Nessa Posted May 10, 2012 Report Posted May 10, 2012 Never forget Quasi has a familial agenda. Good for him, I guess. Not sure this helps his cause. Smarter folks abound. Quote
Quasimado Posted May 11, 2012 Report Posted May 11, 2012 Whoops - It would appear Quasi got into some wine and ran somewhat amok last night. I'll tighten the leash. Q Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.