[NewMusic] Zorn/Taylor Lincoln Center review in NYTimes

[Phillip Greenlief]

-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Damon Smith
Subject: Re: [NewMusic] Zorn/Taylor Lincoln Center review in NYTimes

On Mar 14, 2007, at 7:46 PM, Phillip Greenlief wrote:

>  I would respect that you are
> hearing something different if you could describe it for me - your
> descriptions don't give me real evidence.

Damon:
- My evidence is that I just happened to have listened to the 
recordings I listed recently. 
 
PG:
That's not evidence, in the sense of supporting a claim. Yes, it's clear
you listened to the music. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm trying
to get you to clarify what "differences" there are in the recordings you
are citing.

That's what my argument is all about, I'm not sure what your argument is
all about. That's also my point. All you are doing is saying Cecil is
great. Fair enough, I'm not arguing that point. I was never arguing that
point.

If we go back to the original post, all I was saying was that Ratliff
used words like avant garde to describe Taylor and Zorn. I was
questioning the use of that word. While Taylor may be among the furthest
"advancements" in "jazz" - while he may have taken that artform to the
end of its logical conclusion, there are other forms of music out there
today that have moved into new areas that Cecil has not yet considered.
(how could one musician possibly handle all aspects of moving "the music
forward"??? - it's ridiculous to think anyone could do that). There are
forms of music that are more radical or avant garde than Zorn's Masada
project...so what?

I guess, going back to DuRoche's comment, what the article was really
about, was in the context of "what happens at Lincoln Center", this
music is avant garde. 

And as Broderick pointed out (nice point BTW), when anyone hears Zorn's
music or Cecil's music for the first time, they are in for something
radical. They are in for some good lessons...if they're paying
attention. If this is the case, then my argument that Schoenberg is
still radical (on these terms) still stands. Some people will always be
radical and will always push the boundaries of what "mainstream"
listeners will consider "music".

To sum it all up, which I did in my very first post: if Cecil's trio and
Zorn's Masada project are as "avant garde" as Lincoln Center gets, then
the establishment (curated by Mr. Marsalis), is a conservative one.

(duh, right?)