Corporate Media: "White Woman in Peril!"

The Daily Show, as usual, nails it.
As does pissed off patricia.

You Know Who Rocks?

Lewis Black.

Best Video Ever

Just when you thought it was impossible to love Björk even more, here comes the video for "Triumph of a Heart"

The Crackers

funny

Derek vs Ella

the meeting that never was

Recent reading

Thom Hartmann on fascism, then and now:

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, bust up unions, and create an illusion of prosperity through government debt and continual and ever-expanding war spending.

America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

Lee Drutman & Charlie Cray:

A consequence of the hyper-commercialization of our culture is that instead of organizing collectively, we often buy into the market-based ideology of individual choice and responsibility and assume that we can change the world by changing our personal habits of consumption. ***
The personal choices we make are important. But we shouldn’t assume that’s the best we can do. We need to understand that it can’t truly be a matter of choice until we get some more say in what our choices are. True power still resides in the ability to write, enforce and judge the laws of the land, no matter what the corporations and their personal-choice, market-centered view of the world instruct us to believe.

plus: Paul Krugman on Social Security and healthcare, and the Phillip Longman article he refers to; an important supplement is Joanne Laurier's article on the drug industry -- it fills in the gaping holes in mainstream news reports about healthcare costs ("prescription drugs will be the fastest-growing sector of the health care industry, accounting for 14.5 percent of all health spending in 2014, up from 11 percent last year" -- numbers merely reported without answering the question Why?).

"America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable."
--Hunter S. Thompson

Ol' Dirty Dmitri

Several weeks ago I opened the case of my copy of Shostakovich's string quartets to find disc #1 missing.
I found it yesterday, in the sleeve of my Ol' Dirty Bastard's greatest hits CD.
I must've been in an eclectic mood that day.

Beyond Meaning

I had purchased a used copy of David Bordwell's Ozu and the Poetics of Cinema a while ago and it sat on my bookshelf unread as I waited for an opportunity to actually see a few Ozu films. One could not ask for much more than the 25-film Ozu Yasujiro retrospective currently in progress at the Film Center, so I cracked open the Bordwell book -- and it is a revelation. Beyond offering vivid, eye-opening analyses of Ozu's formal strategies, Bordwell provides some cogent arguments against prevailing modes of art criticism. If I had to boil his argument down to a single sentence, it would be: Art criticism should be less concerned with what a work means, and more about what it does.

Bordwell defends his historical poetics model by arguing that a film should not be treated as a "text" to be "read," but as

an artifact to be used by the spectator to produce certain effects, of which 'meaning' in its most elevated sense (themes, implicit messages) is only one. The work prompts a range of perceptual, emotional, and cognitive effects -- guidance of attention, establishment of expectations, thwarting of hypotheses, retroactive reconsideration of information -- which are essential to the work's uniqueness.

Bordwell's approach contrasts with critical models based in semiotic or thematic analysis, hermeneutical models which attempt to reveal a work's message or meaning. Such models, he astutely observes, take an "atomistic and vague approach to style" and thereby "refuse the art work its full range of stylistic novelty and power." In other words, in the endless process of interpretation and exegesis, the experience(s) of encountering and engaging with the art work is overlooked.

Of course the preoccupation with meaning is not confined to film or art criticism. It's symptomatic of antiquated religionist ideologies, of a world in which texts written centuries ago are still valued despite their irrelevance to contemporary understandings of the world and its various phenomena. Many keep trying to find ways of reconstructing and refurbishing the House of Meaning instead of razing it and enjoying the unobstructed view.

"I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say, 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose,' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."
-- James D. Watson

"People say that what we are all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think that what we're seeking is an experience of being alive...."
-- Joseph Campbell

For Susan Sontag (1933-2004).

"The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art - and, by analogy, our own experience - more, rather than less, real to us. The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means."
-- Susan Sontag, "Against Interpretation" (1964)

On Time & In Time (in Jive & in Fudd)

This is really ridiculous but pretty funny.
Below are two results of translating part of my previous post through The Dialectizer:

(1) English-to-Jive:

Jedidiah Woodcock writin' on "Th' Tyranny of th' Clock" provides an impo'tant note on th' political economah of mechanical time:

Modern, Western man [] lives in a wo'ld which runs acco'din' t'th' mechanical an' mathematical symbols of clock time. Th' clock dickates his movements an' inhibits his ackshuns. Th' clock turns time fum a process of nature into a commodity thet kin be measured an' bought an' sold like soap o' sultanas. An' on account o', wifout some means of exack time keepin', indestrial capitalism c'd nevah haf developed an' c'd not corntinue t'sploit th' wawkers, th' clock represents an element of mechanical tyranny in th' lives of modern min mo'e potent than enny indivijool sploiter o' enny other machine.
***
Th' problem of th' clock is, in juneral, similar t'thet of th' machine. Mechanical time is valuable as a means of co-o'dinashun of ackivities in a highly developed society, jest as th' machine is valuable as a means of reducin' unnecessary labour t'th' minimum, dawgone it. Both is valuable fo' th' contribushun they make t'th' smooth runnin' of society, an' sh'd be used insofar as they assist min to co-operate efficiently an' t'eliminate monotonous toil an' social cornfushun. But neifer sh'd be allered t'dominate mens lives as they does today.

Now th' movement of th' clock sets th' tempo men's lives - they become th' servant of th' concepp of time which they themselves haf made, an' is held in fear, like Ole Man Frankenstein by his own monster. In a sane an' free society sech an arbitrary dominashun of man's funckshuns by eifer clock o' machine'd obviously be outta th' quesshun. Th' dominashun of man by th' creashun of man is even mo'e ridiculous than th' dominashun of man by man, as enny fool kin plainly see. Mechanical time'd be relegated t'its true funckshun of a means of reference an' co-o'dinashun, an' min w'd return agin t'a balance view of life no longer dominated by th' wo'ship of th' clock. Shet mah mouth! Complete liberty implies freedom fum th' tyranny of abstrackshuns as fine as fum th' rule of men, as enny fool kin plainly see.

(2) English-to-Elmer Fudd:

Geowge Woodcock wwiting on "De Tywanny of the Cwock" pwovides an impowtant note on the powiticaw economy of mechanicaw time:

Modewn, Westewn man [] wives in a wowwd which wuns accowding to the mechanicaw and mathematicaw symbows of cwock time. De cwock dictates his movements and inhibits his actions. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! De cwock tuwns time fwom a pwocess of natuwe into a commodity that can be measuwed and bought and sowd wike soap ow suwtanas. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! And because, without some means of exact time keeping, industwiaw capitawism couwd nevew have devewoped and couwd not continue to expwoit the wowkews, the cwock wepwesents an ewement of mechanicaw tywanny in the wives of modewn men mowe potent than any individuaw expwoitew ow any othew machine.
***
De pwobwem of the cwock is, in genewaw, simiwaw to that of the machine. Mechanicaw time is vawuabwe as a means of co-owdination of activities in a highwy devewoped society, just as the machine is vawuabwe as a means of weducing unnecessawy wabouw to the minimum. Bof awe vawuabwe fow the contwibution they make to the smoof wunning of society, and shouwd be used insofaw as they assist men to co-opewate efficientwy and to ewiminate monotonous toiw and sociaw confusion, uh-hah-hah-hah. But neithew shouwd be awwowed to dominate mens wives as they do today.

Now the movement of the cwock sets the tempo men's wives - they become the sewvant of the concept of time which they themsewves have made, and awe hewd in feaw, wike Fwankenstein by his own monstew. In a sane and fwee society such an awbitwawy domination of man's functions by eithew cwock ow machine wouwd obviouswy be out of the qwestion, uh-hah-hah-hah. De domination of man by the cweation of man is even mowe widicuwous than the domination of man by man, uh-hah-hah-hah. Mechanicaw time wouwd be wewegated to its twue function of a means of wefewence and co-owdination, and men wouwd wetuwn again to a bawance view of wife no wongew dominated by the wowship of the cwock. Compwete wibewty impwies fweedom fwom the tywanny of abstwactions as weww as fwom the wuwe of men, uh-hah-hah-hah.

I like how "life" becomes "wife" :)
ow wather, I wike how "wife" becomes "wife"
Oh, dat scwewy anawchist!

On Time & In Time

Britannica.com has an historical overview about time and its measurement.

George Woodcock writing on "The Tyranny of the Clock" provides an important note on the political economy of mechanical time:

Modern, Western man [] lives in a world which runs according to the mechanical and mathematical symbols of clock time. The clock dictates his movements and inhibits his actions. The clock turns time from a process of nature into a commodity that can be measured and bought and sold like soap or sultanas. And because, without some means of exact time keeping, industrial capitalism could never have developed and could not continue to exploit the workers, the clock represents an element of mechanical tyranny in the lives of modern men more potent than any individual exploiter or any other machine.
***
The problem of the clock is, in general, similar to that of the machine. Mechanical time is valuable as a means of co-ordination of activities in a highly developed society, just as the machine is valuable as a means of reducing unnecessary labour to the minimum. Both are valuable for the contribution they make to the smooth running of society, and should be used insofar as they assist men to co-operate efficiently and to eliminate monotonous toil and social confusion. But neither should be allowed to dominate mens lives as they do today.

Now the movement of the clock sets the tempo men's lives - they become the servant of the concept of time which they themselves have made, and are held in fear, like Frankenstein by his own monster. In a sane and free society such an arbitrary domination of man's functions by either clock or machine would obviously be out of the question. The domination of man by the creation of man is even more ridiculous than the domination of man by man. Mechanical time would be relegated to its true function of a means of reference and co-ordination, and men would return again to a balance view of life no longer dominated by the worship of the clock. Complete liberty implies freedom from the tyranny of abstractions as well as from the rule of men.

Among the funkijazzical cuts I played on my radio show last Wednesday was a wicked cover of Sly & the Family Stone's "In Time" recorded by a group led by Maceo Parker and featuring fellow funkateers Fred Wesley, Pee Wee Ellis, and Bootzilla himself, Bootsy Collins.

In preparing for the show, I discovered a tune recorded by The House Guests (the group Bootsy formed after he left James Brown and which morphed into Funkadelic) called "My Mind Set Me Free" which appears on a couple of hard-to-find funk compilations (I found it on SoulSeek; see this discography for more info). The other single by that group, "What So Never the Dance," is my favorite track from the best-of-Bootsy compilation.

Well, the countdown clock is getting close to The One, so here's to keepin' the funk alive in '05.

Heads I win, tails you lose ("How do you spell relief?")
Would you trade your funk for this? ("you deserve a break today")
Or that? ("have it your way")
A funk a day keeps the nose away; ain't it true?
I ain't gonna hold the lettuce, the pickles or the mustard.
***
Mind your wants 'cause someone wants your mind.
--George Clinton, "Funkentelechy"

Holy Ghost

Last November marked 34 years since the 34-year-old body of Albert Ayler was found in NYC's East River. Revenant's spirit box is a wonderful tribute to the late musician, and a bargain: 7 (+1) discs of music, 2 discs of interviews, and a book of insightful essays which by itself would be worth $20.
The track of Ayler performing with Cecil Taylor's trio in 1962 is, as Mats Gustafsson calls it, the "missing link" in the Ayler discography, the key which opened the door to Ayler's revolutionary "Spiritual Unity" trio. As Marc Chaloin notes in his essay, Ayler had not "thoroughly integrated the pianist's universe" (as had Jimmy Lyons) but rather "appears like a precious fellow-traveler to Taylor -- who in turn provided him at a crucial juncture with just the congenial musical environment he needed to fully come into his own." (An interesting parallel is the 1958 recording of John Coltrane with Thelonious Monk at the Five Spot -- also poorly recorded -- in which we can hear Trane develop certain aspects of his music heard in full bloom in the "Kind of Blue" and "Giant Steps" recordings of 1959. But the Ayler-Cecil meeting led to a much more radical restructuring, centered around Sunny Murray's expansive rhythms.)

A couple of weeks ago, as I was starting to dig into the Ayler box, I caught a screening of Michael Snow's film "New York Ear and Eye Control," which has a soundtrack by an expanded version of Ayler's group. I had seen the film once before, years ago, but forgot about the sequence of musicians posed before the camera, including Ayler in shadows, his luminous eyes cutting through the image to give the sense of an inner light shining through. (This footage is included on the "Digital Snow" DVD-ROM.)

This is "angry" music? The man wore a green leather suit!!

"I'm going to give the American people another chance."

-- Albert Ayler, 1970

Here's that chance.
Ho, ho, ho.

Voices of Sanity, Wages of Fear

Stan Hister in an important addendum to Thomas Frank's analysis of the problems with contemporary liberalism:

A long time ago, as the popular image of the worker went from Tom Joad to Archie Bunker, the left stopped caring much about the plight of the working class. Identity is what came to matter: politics became increasingly personalized (and almost as niche-marketed as cable tv), while economics receded into the background. But this shift away from class was also a shift away from any challenge to the system. In the old left-wing paradigm, the fight against racism or the oppression of women was seen as integral to the fight against capitalism. But with identity politics the goal isn't revolution anymore but inclusion. Which is why identity politics has never been radical in any meaningful sense - because its goal is fundamentally conformist.
The issue of same sex marriage illustrates the larger problem: gays and lesbians want 'in' - to a reactionary institution that is collapsing all around them. Of course they should have that right and of course the right wing campaign against it should be opposed. But the problem isn't inclusion as such but making a virtue of it. Same sex marriage isn't just about spousal benefits or adoption rights (which could be accommodated outside the framework of marriage), but above all about 'acceptance'. But acceptance of what and for what? Why should gay marriage be any less "legalized prostitution" than straight marriage, why should it be any less emotionally stifling, any less prone to abuse? The larger social critique, however, all but disappears in the battle for inclusion.

Arundhati Roy in a piece adapted from a book based on an earlier speech:

If you think about it, the logic that underlies the war on terror and the logic that underlies terrorism are exactly the same. Both make ordinary citizens pay for the actions of their government. Al Qaeda made the people of the United States pay with their lives for the actions of their government in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. government has made the people of Afghanistan pay in the thousands for the actions of the Taliban and the people of Iraq pay in the hundreds of thousands for the actions of Saddam Hussein. *** One does not endorse the violence of militant groups. Neither morally nor strategically. But to condemn it without first denouncing the much greater violence perpetrated by the state would be to deny the people of these regions not just their basic human rights, but even the right to a fair hearing. People who have lived in situations of conflict know that militancy and armed struggle provokes a massive escalation of violence from the state. But living as they do, in situations of unbearable injustice, can they remain silent forever? *** Terrorism is vicious, ugly and dehumanizing for its perpetrators as well as its victims. But so is war. You could say that terrorism is the privatization of war. Terrorists are the free marketers of war. They are people who don’t believe that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

An interesting, if useless, statistic from William Blum, quoted in an article by Mickey Z, about the $400 billion spent annually on the U.S. military:

One year's military budget in the United States is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.

The U.S. has 4% of the global population and accounts for 45% of global military expenditures. The U.S. military budget accounts for 51% of discretionary spending, followed by education ($55B, or 7%) and health ($49B, or 6.3%). In a true free market, capitalists would bear the full costs of security for their imperial adventures, but we know their game is to socialize costs and privatize profits while promoting ignorance, fear, and passivity through their ministry of propaganda (the mass media).

“A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.”
--Clarence Darrow

The current temperature is 10 degrees Fahrenheit, or 261 Kelvin. Here's a tip on overcoming frozen balls.

Chastity Belts Under the Christmas Tree

One thing (the only thing, really) I miss after cancelling my cable TV service is The Daily Show. Thankfully the occasional great clip is posted at onegoodmove, and one doesn't need a subscription (yet) to The New York Times to read Paul Krugman and Frank Rich. Rich's article (also here) on the no-nothings is on target, though he should have put a little more emphasis on the degree to which the religionists' moralizing is less about protecting children and more about defending patriarchal (i.e., authoritarian/capitalist) order. Richard Goldstein gets it right as well, though I've never seen the show he discusses:

Religious conservatives are perfectly willing to be entertained by immorality; they only require that it be punished, at least eventually.

Since those who suffer most from the theocrats' ignorance-only approach to sex ed tend to live on other continents and have a darker epidermal hue, it won't be long before "African HIV Survivor" becomes the next hit reality show, the latest way for one community to feel superior to another while denying its own problems and their actual causes.

The feudalists set up these fictitious culture wars, propping up theocrats as straw men, while they do the dirty work behind the scenes to keep a few men fat and happy and all others begging for gifts. "Women and children first," they all say, repeating the same old story: "It's OK, my dears, everything will be all white if you place your trust in the heavenly master and his invisible hand."

Trees With Balls

Among the great alternative holiday tunes from April Winchell's site (scroll a bit past halfway down to "Seasonal Favorites") is "Hang Your Balls on the Christmas Tree" by Kay Martin and Her Body Guards.

Also on Winchell's page, under the "Terrifying Christian Recordings" category, is a truly chilling recording of "Happy Birthday Jesus" by Little Cindy; this track is included on John Waters' compilation of his favorite holiday music, offered with his wishes for "a merry, rotten, scary, sexy, biracial, ludicrous, happy little Christmas." Waters elaborates here on his love of the holidays.

I'll be covering the 10am-12:30pm slots for the WNUR Jazz Show on Wed, 15-Dec, and on Wed, 29-Dec. I'm gonna slip in some less well-known holiday music, perhaps the aforementioned Ms. Martin as well as a nice tuba+guitar version of "Frosty the Snowman" (also at Winchell's site) which seems appropriate to play tomorrow in advance of Melvin Poore's solo tuba performance at the Empty Bottle (though I doubt he'll do any holiday tunes).

Read here about some alternative Santa legends. I like the 13 wicked Icelandic Santas (Jolasveinar).

More on Peter Brötzmann & "Fire Music"

The following are selections, slightly edited, from the discussion at Bagatellen which followed my initial response to Adam Hill's piece:

Adam:

ah, once again the argument that if someone doesn't like something, they just don't get it, though Jason G's argument is more passionately made than the typical old saw of this kind. To lump me in with the "oppressive" "conservatives" hilariously undermines his own point about reactionary reductions. (Perhaps Santa will bring you a text on critical thinking)

Jason:

Have you heard Brotzmann in person? How often?

Adam:

As with just about any improvisational musician, I have no doubt that seeing Brotzmann live is preferrable to his recordings. That said, he releases a large number of recordings under his name every year, and you can buy recordings of his dating from the late 60's to the present day. Is his sound not represented on these? Any of these? Even the live recordings? Even though most of his recordings are done outside of a studio? If not, how could we possibly evaluate them? And then, why release them? See what I'm getting at?

Look, I respect your passion for his music. And you just have to take my word for it when I tell you I'm not a reactionary conservative interested in oppressing any art form. I am interested in serious discussion, sans the personal smacks, which are understandable, but tend to get my lesser angel worked up.

Jason:

Though your piece definitely pushed some of my buttons, I had no intention of responding with personal flames, so I'll take back the “reactionary conservative” label (for now). I do have issues with what I see as the political implications of your piece, e.g., ignoring or diminishing the socio-political contexts from which the music arises and upon which it comments, conflating a genuinely radical counterculture with the capitalist-friendly hedonist-hippies of the Sixties, etc. (Have the authoritarian systems of Western free-market capitalism and various Euro-Asian totalitarian/fascist regimes been dismantled? Funny, I hadn't noticed.) But I decided to ask about seeing/hearing Brotz live instead for a particular reason. You didn't answer the question, but here's what I'm getting at:

I really don't think the “live/Memorex” issue is the same regarding Brotzmann [as] it is regarding “just about any” improv musician. Brotzmann's music suffers more than most if you only focus on the recordings for this reason: The intensity and complex texture of his sound is at the core of his music (as it is with, say, Borbetomagus), something which is simply impossible to be faithfully reproduced by the best recording played on the finest stereo. It's not a sound you merely hear with your ears, but a penetrating, enveloping sound that vibrates throughout one's body, from feet to crotch to stomach to the hairs on your chiny-chin-chin. You can crank up the stereo, but it doesn't really help. That's one, important, aspect, but it has other implications: it becomes misleading to evaluate the nature of his interaction (or “communication”) with fellow performers on a recording, where you can't hear what they're really interacting with -- not clusters of notes which are more or less dissonant, more or less dynamic, but thick sonic brushstrokes which no currently-known recording technology can accurately reproduce. And then there is the visual element, but I'll stop here. ***

So that's where I'm coming from, regarding Brotzmann in particular. [] I think anyone who discusses jazz & improv music(ian)s without hearing the music in person is missing a lot; with a musician like Brotzmann, s/he is missing almost everything [well, at least “a lot more”].

To make visual art analogies: you get more of the essence of a Mondrian painting in a reproduction than you do of the essence of Pollock painting in a reproduction; you get more of the essence of a Lubitsch film on home video than you do from a Brakhage film on home video. Brotzmann is more Pollock/Brakhage than Mondrian/Lubitsch. So...

You ask: “Is his sound not represented on these? Any of these? Even the live recordings? Even though most of his recordings are done outside of a studio?”

The answer is: No, his sound is not [fully] represented on record. (By asking the question you answer my question about hearing him live.) [But a more accurate reproduction of] his sound can be mentally reconstructed [while] listening only after having had the opportunity to experience the music in person. (I think of it as a sort of retroactive, subconscious “filling in the blanks” process. Don't ask me to elaborate.) [Some recordings are certainly better than others, and it's not as problematic with certain musicians as it is with others, but there's no way to know unless and until you have heard the musician performin person.]

“If not, how could we possibly evaluate them? And then, why release them?”

You can evaluate the records after having heard him live, preferably multiple times in different contexts. I know all the problematic implications of this, regarding access to live performances, etc, etc. I just can't avoid the conclusion that it's an absolute imperative if you're going to seriously, competently discuss improvised music in general, and Brotzmann's music in particular.
Why release them? Well, in a culture in which information is allowed to circulate only [about that which has been or has the potential to be commodified], it becomes unavoidable to have to put out records. For another thing, as a source of income, records are necessary, if insufficient per se, “in order to survive” [i.e., they may bring in a little money, but more importantly serves as a promotional tool for performances]. But my argument is not that the records are completely useless (see my “fill-in-the-blanks” explanation above).
Once Brotzmann's body gives out, the recordings will become the artefacts which best inform future generations, however imperfectly, about his music. Gary Peacock and others [Amiri Baraka] have commented on how inadequately Ayler's sound [his Sound] is captured in even the best recordings. [In a way that doesn't necessarily “make sense” [though cognitive scientists may be able to explain it], hearing Brotzmann live helps one “hear more” of this unreproducable element of Ayler's music when listening to the reproductions.]

[References to Brotzmann and the blues tradition, to the socio-political context/implications of his music, and to] the title of Mike Heffley's imaginary dissertation: "Mississippi Blues, Rhenish Folk, and the Unbearable Whiteness of Brötzmann."

Adam:

a thoughtful post. i'll have to take your word for it in regards to seeing him live, because no, i have not seen Brotzmann live, though I don't doubt it could be stirring, especially surrounded by other brave men. however, i just can't agree with you that he (or any other jazz artist) cannot be evaluated unless or until seen live. i do like your analogies, though i think all the plastic arts suffer in reproduction, and I'm not convinced that an audio art form suffers in the same way.

as i tried to make clear in my piece, it's really aesthetics. i do not like Brotzmann's excessive intensity, his howling squalls, his choice of visceral over intellectual. *** i hope i've made myself a wee bit clearer, so that you might see my objections to his playing are based on aesthetics that do not necessarily lend to a socio-political agenda.

[Jason's note: Part of my point in this discussion was to insist that one cannot so easily separate aesthetics from socio-political concerns. That kind of separation is symptomatic of Christian/Cartesian dualistic notions of mind/body, intellect/emotion, man/nature -- false or irrelevant notions which only serve as conceptual frameworks in support of those systems of oppression from which they arise.]

Derek:

One thing that I find laughable is the contention that Brötz can’t play the blues. That he isn’t a bluesman- that he’s a victim of the “unbearable whiteness” of that dissertation title. To my ears there’s a real sense of blues in his music. ***

Jason:

Oh, I absolutely agree that there's a lot of blues in Brotz's music. Maybe I misunderstood Heffley's point in his imaginary dissertation title, but I take the "unbearable whiteness" as a reference to post-WWII Germany. Brotz has said "I have the European blues or the after-war blues." In keeping with Cornel West's definition of the blues tradition, there is much dialogue, resistance, and hope in Brotzmann's music.

My point about live/records is more about a critic's responsibility: It's irresponsible for a critic (emphasis on critic) to conflate the aesthetics of a recording with the aesthetics of the music. Beyond the purely acoustic sound qualities, I include a lot of visual information in my definition of improvised music "aesthetics." For example, the ability to see a drummer decide when and where to hit a particular cymbal in a particular way, to watch a sax player decide when and where to start/stop blowing, provides a great deal of information about the shape, flow, and interactivity of a lot of improv music. After you've had the live experience, you hear the aesthetics of recorded music differently and I'd say more accurately. A critic who dismisses or ignores the live experience not only misses a great deal of this aesthetic information but also shows a lack of interest/understanding about the socio-political affinities of the music. Once again: We're talking about more than a mere commodity -- it's a living music. Maybe I'm adhering to an antiquated, pre-Internet/blog notion of "criticism" proper, but I think it's appropriate to hold critics to a higher standard for the writing they generate for public consumption.

Adam:

a few comments about aesthetics.*** positing that reproduction of say a Rothko painting is only a 'slightly worse version of the thing' and that a recording of say Giant Steps is a distortion of its essence, a cheap knock-off of sorts, is extremely unconvincing no matter how many technical and personal factors one cites. Besides the truly faulty analogy, it's trying to have it both ways. You know those recordings you've loved all these years? You shouldn't love them, at least not unless you've seen those artists live on dozens of occasions and have taken in every possible element of performance. C'mon! That kind of criteria is absurd, and to dress it up as a critic's responsibilty is tantamount to say nothing should be evaluated and criticized. And then to add the layer of socio-political connotations, well, what the hell, why even bother to trust the immediacy of music at all? Afterall, we're just kidding ourselves when we respond to it as it plays on our stereos.

Jason:

one last shot, Adam:

Ayler is dead. Brotzmann is not. That matters.
A serious critic will understand how this fact relates to the aesthetics and politics of creative/jazz/improvised/Great Black musics and enables a basic understanding of why musicians working in this tradition have something unique to offer in our culture of alienating commodification.
Serious criticism (contra hobbyist opinionating) about jazz/improv musics does not require the impossible (hearing dead people) but should have reasonable prerequisites (hearing live people in a live context -- at least once -- before discussing their music and its "relevance").
Brotzmann is very much alive. If you can make your way to Chicago on January 12, I'll gladly pay your admission to the Empty Bottle to hear him perform with the members of the DKV Trio.

Happy listening...

Peter Brötzmann & "Fire Music"

An article by Adam Hill at One Final Note prompted much discussion at Bagatellen. The whole piece is ridiculous, but Hill's discussion of Peter Brötzmann's music was particularly disturbing to read in a publication that generally has some decent, informed writing about jazz & improvised musics. Hill asserts:

Brötzmann still enjoys playing [the sort of free music that come off as little more than brutal balls-out blasting] even though this bombastic and dense style has by now congealed into little more than a cliché. To so brazenly forgo subtlety as if it’s little more than sentimentalism, and subsume it with histrionic pyrotechnics, is far too easy a refuge. It’s low art blown big with hot air.

I posted the following response at Bagatellen:

To characterize Brötzmann's music as only about "overblown," "screaming," "raucous", "wailing", "bombastic", "histrionic," "simplistic," "angry", "hectic" or "abrasive" sounds (maybe Santa will replace that worn-out thesaurus) seems to miss almost everything about his music. His musical language incorporates certain techniques and sound elements -- hyper-visceral sounds which, yes, to some degree had to do with a certain time and place, i.e., the 1960s European art scene and counterculture. But he uses those elements as part of what he does as an improvisor, in exactly the same way that Johnny Hodges incorporated his "searing tone and slithery motion" (per Kevin Whitehead) in his improvisations. I wonder if Adam Hill would dismiss Hodges for anachronistically repeating his "cliches" and ignore the consistent creativity of Hodges' improvisations in the manner he has dismissed and ignored Brötzmann. How 'bout Sonny Rollins or Max Roach? Is an artist expected to create a revolutionary new style every few years? If someone like that exists, I'd like to know his/her name. Off the top of my head, among 20th-Century artists, only Picasso exhibited that kind of capacity from decade to decade (or from day to day). (Duke, Miles and Trane covered a lot of ground, but not to that degree.)

Writers like Hill tend to take music(ian)s which provide some initial discomfort, reduce them with the labels of "shocking" and "avant-garde," and then later, once their own discomfort has faded, criticize those music(ian)s for failing to provide what they had perceived as its only worthwhile quality, ignorant of the fact that the music(ian)s were never as one-dimensional as they thought, but were very much, dare I say, part of a tradition. The more I hear Brötzmann -- who I've heard on average once a year since the mid-1990s -- the more I hear the spirit of Coleman Hawkins.

Again we're faced with the huge deficiencies in perception and understanding of the visceral and structural elements of improvised musics. For the moralist with regard to sound (as Hill appears to be), the criticism seems to be about what sounds are proper material for "music". That's fine, but just state that up front ("I don't like Brötzmann's tone/volume/vibrato/whatever") rather than complain about cliches or irrelevance while ignoring the experience of listening to the music. Or just admit "I don't get it". (It's not hard. Here, I'll start: "I don't get Keith Jarrett." Now you try.)

Part of the problem may be that Hill is using reproductions of performances rather than live listening experiences to draw his conclusions. I treasure my records as much as the next guy, but we're dealing with a living music, people.

But even regarding Brötzmann's recordings, there is an astonishing diversity among just his solo, Die Like a Dog, and Chicago Tentet projects, and duets with Walter Perkins. Still, it's impossible to overstate the error in mistaking his records for the entirety of his activity as an artist -- not just in music but in visual arts as well, as evidenced by the work included in the current exhibition at Corbett vs. Dempsey: http://corbettvsdempsey.com/

Adam Hill's writing is a sobering reminder about the oppressive, pre-Cagean attitude towards what types and qualities of sounds are proper materials for "music" -- and for that matter, towards the purpose(lessness) of art-in-life. Unfortunately, this reactionary conservatism is a sign of our times. Four more years!
(Speaking of which, I can't describe how life-affirming it was to hear Brötzmann "bark 'n bite" in duo with Robert Barry this last November 3. Gustafsson was "ferocious" with a different group that night as well.)

-Jason

The Hackiest of the Hacks

Matt Taibbi concludes his brilliant "Wimblehack" series, or the First Quadrennial Election Hack Invitational, awarding the top prize (or not) to Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times.
(Greg Sargent also singles out Bumiller's hackiness.)

Here are the previous rounds of "Wimblehack":
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4, which illuminates this gem of pure hackiness:

In an Oct. 21 piece [Bumiller] co-wrote with third-round dropout Jodi Wilgoren ("A Blistering Attack by Bush, A Long Indictment by Kerry"), Bumiller managed to relay 1325 words of Bush-Kerry accusations on security issues without including one detail about what their actual Iraq policies are. In the spaces where those explanations should have come, she and Wilgoren just stuck in Tumulter-saults** as in this passage:

"Mr. Kerry sought to rebut Mr. Bush with a detailed policy speech Wednesday, unusual for this late stage in a campaign. His aides said Mr. Kerry delivered the speech because he must prove himself as an acceptable wartime leader before he can win over undecided voters on domestic issues like health care and embryonic stem-cell research."

** dfn: "Named after Karen Tumulty, who pioneered and perfected its use, the Tumulter-sault is a neat little literary device through which reporters refer to 'details on the issues' without ever elaborating upon those actual details."

This is a good one, confining a "detailed policy speech" to the words "detailed policy speech" in order to leave room for more newsworthy stuff like this:

"Mr. Bush's aides said they were delighted to see Mr. Kerry spend the day discussing national security, the central component of the president's campaign, because they believed it meant he was on the defensive."

Try to imagine that scene. Elisabeth Bumiller is sitting somewhere in Iowa chatting up a Bush aide (or "aides," according to the attribution). One of the aides deadpans: "You know, Elisabeth, we're delighted that Kerry spent the day discussing national security, because that means he's on the defensive."
Bumiller nods seriously, writes it down in her notebook... And then an hour later, she fucking publishes it? Her husband must have to restrain her from taking notes when they go used-car shopping.

The partisan and ideological biases of outlets like Fox News and of the Loud 'n Louder punditry are obvious. Taibbi's more astute media criticism diagnoses the democracy-threatening disease of passive conformity which infects most contemporary journalism. Election coverage is stripped of political content in favor of the "flash 'n' clash" sensationalism of personalities engaged in competitive sport:

That is what our national elections are all about. It's a gladiatorial spectacle in which individual dignity is ritualistically destroyed over the course of more than a year of constant battering and television exposure. Whether this is a trick of the elite to deliver a frightening object lesson to the population, or whether it represents the actual emotional desire of an impressively mean and stupid citizenry, that's hard to say. Either way, it sucks.

It was all a game to these people, which is why they covered it like a game.

The watchdogs have become lapdogs, repeatedly chasing the ball thrown by their masters and returning it, tails wagging, knowing they'll get treats and pats on the head. Say what you will about the plutocratic elite, they recognize dogs as their best friends and treat them very well.

For Albert (1989-2004)

Loyalität für Sicherheit

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator."
--George W. Bush

After repeatedly complaining about the "hard work" of leading the most powerful nation in history, Dubya continues his attack on the reality-based community, making it easier to shape facts to fit his divine mission:

The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush.... MORE

The (likely) future Attorney General shares his predecessor's disdain for the law and the Constitution:

Federal judges are jeopardizing national security by issuing rulings contradictory to President Bush's decisions on America's obligations under international treaties and agreements, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Friday.

The president is not above the law!?!? "Unacceptable!" cry Ashcroft and others -- The Uncurious [sic(k)] One has declared it thus:

"I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
--George W. Bush

But Ashcroft's concerns will disappear as W continues packing the bench with more accomodating judges.

Who exactly is threatening "our way of life"?

“We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”
--George Orwell

Jim Garrison said the following in 1967:

What worries me deeply, and I have seen it exemplified in this case, is that we in America are in great danger of slowly evolving into a proto-fascist state. It will be a different kind of fascist state from the one of the Germans evolved; theirs grew out of depression and promised bread and work, while ours, curiously enough, seems to be emerging from prosperity. But in the final analysis, it's based on power and on the inability to put human goals and human conscience above the dictates of the state. Its origins can be traced in the tremendous war machine we've built since 1945, the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower vainly warned us about, which now dominates every aspect of our life. The power of the states and Congress has gradually been abandoned to the Executive Department, because of war conditions; and we've seen the creation of an arrogant, swollen bureaucratic complex totally unfettered by the checks and balances of the Constitution. In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. But this isn't the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here, the process is more subtle, but the end results can be the same. I've learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the state and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act. I've always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government's basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I've come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism." I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.

"It can't happen here"?

"The modern patriotism, the true patriotism, the only rational patriotism is loyalty to the Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it."
--Mark Twain, "The Czar's Soliloquy" (1905)

Liberals Return To Sodomy, Welfare Fraud

BERKELEY, CA—No longer occupied by the 2004 election, liberals across the country have returned to the activities they enjoy most: anal sex and cheating the welfare system. "I've been so busy canvassing for the Democratic Party, I haven't had a single moment for suckling at the government's teat or no-holds-barred ass ramming," said Jason Carvelli, an unemployed pro-hemp activist. "Now, my friends and I can finally get back to warming our hands over burning American flags and turning kids gay." Carvelli added that his "number-one priority" is undermining the efforts of freedom-loving patriots everywhere.

And lattes for everyone! (paid for by Michael Moore's tax cuts)

Torture & Tanks

While many, including myself at times, think the "fascist" label is inappropriate when applied to this Bush regime, the evidence keeps mounting...

• Meet Bush's nominee to replace Ashcroft as U.S. Attorney General: Alberto Gonzales, who has justified torture and related crimes and has supported the execution of the mentally retarded. (This reminds me of the Orwellian irony used by the LAPD, which puts its motto, “To protect and serve,” in quotations on the sides of its squad cars.) But it looks like the Democrats won't raise a fuss.
  
• Armored tanks -- armored fucking tanks!!! [CORRECTION: Marine APCs, not tanks] -- showed up at an anti-war protest in Los Angeles.
  
• A neo-con pundit has suggested that Zell “I Challenge You to a Duel!” Miller should replace Colin Powell as the next Secretary of State. Yeah, he'd be perfect to help make peace in the Middle East.
  

On a more upbeat note:

• SEIU's Andy Stern is pushing for much-needed change within the labor movement. MORE
  
• Election Day had a few positive results.
• Bush's whatever-that-thing-was-on-his-back is inspiring a fashion trend.