I tend to steer clear of anything that smells like "world music". In my experience, the product comes off trying too hard to sound like what it is. I am also easily distracted by music whose inspiration is spelled out for me. Any personal relationship I have with a piece music is, more often than not, a result of internal rather than external connections/connotations.

My version of Kowald's vision is that musicians of divergent cultures should not be deterred from experimentation or controlled collaboration, in that socially relative elements will always find their way into music whether they work or not. The worst thing music can do is draw attention to itself by way of peripheral reasons or agendas.

Coltrane's "India", for me, is wonderful on all levels (there are only two - musical/delivery and musical/attack). So does Ivo Perelman's Brazilian Watercolour.

I’m confused by a one of your phrases- “trying too hard to sound like what it is.” What else could it sound like, other than what it is? And why is this a bad thing?

I’m not sure about the whole “spelled out” distinction either. The inspiration behind John Coltrane’s A LOVE SUPREME is pretty spelled out. I mean he basically tells you in no uncertain terms what he’s trying to do. Does this distract you from enjoying it? I think too often musicians do the opposite. They release their music with nary a word as to what they’re attempting to accomplish. This can be good in that it allows for broad audience subjectivity, but it can also be bad in that it leaves lots of room for misinterpretation & frustrated head-scratching.

For example, I recently reviewed a disc by composer Justin Yang. Music composed for string quartet and soprano voice inspired by school shootings. The accompanying libretto was essentially testimonials from survivors & law enforcement officials. That’s it. No explanations as to Yang’s thoughts on/connections to the events. The music was supposed to speak for itself & did so only in part. I found the lack of context/background frustrating.

And why are “peripheral reasons or agendas” the worst way music can draw attention to itself?

Also curious about your definition of “world music.”

You’ve got a lot of answering to do my friend, if you choose to pick up the gauntlet thrown :)

Good call on Perelman.

"The worst thing music can do is draw attention to itself by way of peripheral reasons or agendas."

Well... I think it depends on the circumstances. Though contemporary audiences have a very different sense of it now, "Strange Fruit" was, as a musical event and as a musical artifact, extremely significant. And think about it this way, too -- for many of those individuals sitting in Cafe Society listening to Billie Holiday, the American South might as well have been a foreign country, possessed of its own, "alien" culture. The boundaries Derek is talking are, I feel, quite movable.

And to take another example... sometimes fusion isn't necessarily what it appears to be. In Afro-Cuban music, there is a improvisatory tradition that owes very little to "jazz". So what we may take at first to be an incorporation of elements from one music into another is really just a likeness. And there are musicians who play in this style of music who are very proud of the tradition they are upholding. So that part of WHY they play is to honor their culture. And, call me naive, but I think to make the decision, at some point in one's listening habits, to listen with sensitivity to this history, you gain a different appreciation for what is going on in the music itself.

· Ok. To put it more simply, I don’t care for music that uses cultural/world stimuli as a gimmick rather than a sincere source of inspiration. In my experience, most worldish music that can be referenced as a departure by musicians who previously played in a different style ends up sounding silly. Take a musician who thinks he/she has full credibility in taking on a cultural music project for the simple fact that he/she is connected with that culture by blood or nationality or maybe a passing affection, yet that musician has no business playing in this style for lack of true comprehension or insight on the subject.

· A Love Supreme. That music, like any other, can be appreciated on its own for the music that it is. Knowing – after the fact – Coltrane’s source of inspiration can be extremely revelatory for those of us with a spiritual side or can appreciate Coltrane’s. But there are also those of us that might find the peripherals off-putting.

· For me, liner notes tend to be more helpful *after* moderate digestion of the music, rather than before or during. On the flip side, the liner notes for Christof Kurzmann’s latest disc are incredibly helpful in listening to the music, or better relating to the overall tone.

Nice partial parry D’Artagnan, but you only answered some of the questions. I’ll sheath my blade just the same.

I hear you on the dangers of gimmicks. They can sour music of any flavor, not just ‘world.’ But I’m wondering which (if any) among the list above (& beyond) you might consider to be the province of gimmickry rather than sincere inspiration.

Liner notes are something of a universal snack for me- enjoyable before, during & after the consumption of their accompanying music- if they’re well cobbled that is.

no sheathing just yet, Cochise. I thought I answered all of your questions anyway, aside from my useless definition of world music.

"...but it can also be bad in that it leaves lots of room for misinterpretation & frustrated head-scratching."

What is there to misinterpret? Why do you really need liner notes, aside from knowing who-is-playing-what? I mean, so what if you don't recognize some classical motif or Rossini or Basie quote in a tune? But if you DO, then it makes for a fuller listening experience; more elements to draw upon in conscious or subconscious judgment.

Also, what lack of context in the Yang thing? You said that the music was inspired by school shootings and the disc included (probably morose) testimonials. What other context would you need?

Okay, gleaming scimitar unscabbarded (though slightly dulled by the last duel) :)

Re: what is there to misinterpret? Lots. Braxton’s opera Trillium R is a better example. And one where notes aren’t completely helpful either. Actually a lot of Braxton probably fits this bill. He’s got lots of stuff going on both musical & extra-musical and sometimes the sounds alone aren’t enough to convey/elucidate it all (at least for me). Not that it all has to be elucidated mind you.

I don’t necessarily *need* liners & agree that their relative ‘usefulness’ consists mainly of play-by-plays and who-does-whats, but I do like them for the extra subjectivity they can provide and moreso for their entertainment value, especially if they’re well written & creative. Some of the same things I look for in reviews.

With the Yang thing my frustration was probably more a product of the overall package. The severity of the subject matter just sort of screamed to me that there should be more than there was. The ‘school shootings’ thing isn’t explictly stated. The composition titles are just dates/locations- only in reading the notes & listening carefully is one able to clearly discern what the thing is about. It left me with a lot of unanswered questions (maybe that was Yang’s point, I dunno). Wondering who is Yang? Why did he compose/choose this project? What are his thoughts on the events he’s seeking to comment on musically? Why the particular instrumentation? Etc. All of these could’ve been touched upon in the notes.

In addition, the music itself is poorly balanced (taken from a live performance that sounds like it was recorded in a gymnasium) with the strings cleanly rendered, but the pre-recorded audio testimonials muffled and garbled. As such one needs to consult the notes, which helpfully provide transcriptions, but nothing else. Maybe I’ll send him an e-mail & get my answers.

Getting back to the original topic…

"the liner notes for Christof Kurzmann’s latest disc are incredibly helpful in listening to the music, or better relating to the overall tone."

really? I'm pretty familiar with him, his music and his political stances, and I've never thought there was any overt connection. I can hear antiwar sentiment at times on Duos for Doris, but I don't ever hear that in Christof's work, including The Air Between, which, to be honest, I didn't like much. Christof has a 24 minute duo with Toshi Nakamura on the upcoming AMPLIFY box, which is intense, the best thing I've heard from him since Schnee.

Jon, the disc is, in Kurzmann's words, "...an account that documents the surrender of my musical and creative self to my social self..."

That one quote played over and over in my head the first time I listened to the disc. The music is pretty campy in spots and the surrender he speaks of is prevalent in what I hear to as new agey motifs. On this occasion I admire the honesty of the liner notes rather than the escape in having none.

we're talking about The Air Between, right? the only liner notes on my copy are the full translated text of the letter from Gabriel Garcia Marquez to Bush. where are you seeing that Kurzmann quote?

Al sez:

"Ok. To put it more simply, I don’t care for music that uses cultural/world stimuli as a gimmick rather than a sincere source of inspiration."

I think I know what you mean, but you have to admit that it kind of begs the quesiont. I mean, what WOULD ANYONE appreciate that's used as merely as "a gimmick rather than a sincere source of inspiration"? You might say the same thing about a mixing board....or a violin.

Jon, the quote is from the Christof's press release, not the liners. My mistake.

I mean, what WOULD ANYONE appreciate that's used as merely as "a gimmick rather than a sincere source of inspiration"? You might say the same thing about a mixing board....or a violin.

Well, Dick Smothers had a juggling act that ALWAYS delivered.

Actually, Keith Rowe's guitar approach appeals to me for the fact that he is able to reproduce, musically, these sounds that are unlikely to be heard nowhere else and, most importantly, use them genuinely in a musical context. By any other standard, what Rowe does with his instrument might be considered a "gimmick." In fact, when explaining his music - best as I can - to friends, I quite frequently get, "Hmm, interesting trick," or "that's silly." Both comments indicate a reaction to something found to be either "cute" or "attention-getting."

However, a gimmick derived from inanimate objects is largely different from a social/cultural/intellectual gimmick. Taking a cultural approach to music, IMO, should assume that the artist has a unique, learned perspective on the subject. On the other side, what philosophical criteria should be considered to sit down and make music on a "pianoharp?"