And thank you Marc for the article.

In an interview Alan Silva talked about "hours of duo recordings".
That would be awesome to hear.
I am guessing the recent duo with Joelle Leandre was great.
A really cool coincidence is that she came back here and played duo with Wadada Leo Smith. I had a gig that night with Bryerton, Gratkowski and Tim Perkis so I could not hear it, but I heard it was great. Both duos were first meetings.

Yes, I think the Silva interview you're referring to was mine Damon
http://www.paristransatlantic.com/magazine/interviews/silva.html
Specifically:
"Bill was a painter, like me, and we got together to do some very interesting projects in the New York art and dance scene of the time. We used light shows, I was making my own slides, working with colour and music. At the time I was working light shows with rock bands. We went to Warhol's movies and openings, this was the beginning of the psychedelic scene. We worked with visual information, using projections of oil and light as a graphic score, projected on a dancer - we did several important pieces with [dancer] Judith Dunn. I was working with a lot of harmonics by developing my bow technique, and Bill developed a fantastic way of playing the trumpet, using throat sounds and playing through microphones and tape recorders. For us, the tape recorder was standard equipment: Bill was one of the first guys to figure out that a vinyl record could be a vehicle for improvisation. We sat there and figured we could make records like artists make prints. We conceptualised that the record could actually be an art form, and mixed tapes together into huge multi-track pieces. We made a lot of tapes. Bill Dixon has apparently lost them. That's a drag."
Maybe Marc could find out if Bill does after all still have them.. that would be a GREAT discovery!

Bill Dixon is an amazing artist, and I suspect that Dixonia and the interviews I've read (and conducted - much of which has yet to be revised) only scratch the very surface of what he's done.

I can't believe Ben Young played the University of the Streets stuff - I've been losing sleep over that material for years, yet to hear it though.

Damon - your guess is absolutely unwarranted. His Guelph duo with Leandre wasn't "great" in any sense of that word. It was a case of Dixon loosing himself in the moment and sticking to a particular phrase that he would play over and over again, while Leandre did her best to encourage true dialogue. It's a shame really, as there was so much potential there for a truly "great" live event...even great in the sense of the now "legendary" Dixon/Taylor/Oxley trio [which I know too many people unfairly pissed on].

This is a response to Marc Medwin's "A Birthday for Bill". I am a longtime friend and associate of Bill and had the honor of playing and recording for him over several decades. Your words are so true, so beautiful and fitting for an artist who many recognize as one of the greatest American composers and musicl innovators---in any league.
I first heard the University of the Streets piece in 1970, when I first met Bill and he played it for me, and decided on the spot that "that's it--this is the music I want to learn and play"...Bill was my primary teacher and mentor---through the Bennington years and beyond. What makes all this so painful and frustrating is that the "powers that be" have overlooked his contribution....and we can only begin to guess why. Bill may be in stunning company with many of America's foremost creators...but this does not undo the insult and the sting...Here's thanks to Ben Young, who continues to promote and play Bill's music (and celebrates his birthday on the air year after year), and who wrote a most significant biography of Bill for Greenwood Press.

Marc, thank you for your kind and passionate words! America, wake up!

amon - your guess is absolutely unwarranted. His Guelph duo with Leandre wasn't "great" in any sense of that word. It was a "case of Dixon loosing himself in the moment and sticking to a particular phrase that he would play over and over again, while Leandre did her best to encourage true dialogue. It's a shame really, as there was so much potential there for a truly "great" live event...even great in the sense of the now "legendary" Dixon/Taylor/Oxley trio [which I know too many people unfairly pissed on].

Posted by: Tom Sekowski at October 5, 2006 08:08 AM"

- I am going stick to my guess. With those two somethng had to happen, even if it is not what you wanted/expected. A dialog is not always what needs to happen, as Keith Rowe and Radu Malfatti have pointed out. Maybe a a Dixon/Rowe/Malfatti trio should happen.
Does any one know if Rowe and Malfatti have done anything together?

Clifford, a live performance of University of the Streets circa '68 was available for download on dimeadozen.org several months ago. I have a copy of it and would be more than happy to provide you with one if you aren't able to download it any more.

Thanks for the terrific write up on Bill Dixon. And thanks for the opportunity to thank Bill for his inspiration while I was at Bennington in the 70's. It was a chance encounter with Steve Horenstein in the Bennington Commons where he was wailing away on his tenor that convinced me Bennington was the place for me to study, as a high schooler in 1973. He told me to avoid the music department, and stick with the Bill's anti-music department.

FWIW, I have the DaD download of UOS, and it doesn't even come close to what Ben Young played the other day. I think the broadcast from 10/3 and the circulating material overlap, the DaD stuff probably from an earlier broadcast, but the material I heard this week really changed my whole thinking about the piece's scope. I'd love the opportunity to hear it again sometime.

"Does any one know if Rowe and Malfatti have done anything together?"

certainly not in the last 10-12 years, maybe in the seventies.

not sure why you think this would be interesting in any way, Radu has (as far as I know) two ways of working these days, both superminimal, usually composed (as with Mattin this past weeeknd), occasionally improvised (as with the brilliant set with Klaus Filip on Monday).

I asked Radu afterwards about how often he improvises these days, and he said he'll only do it with a very short list of people, he listed Sugimoto, Unami, Klaus and Mattin. maybe there are a couple of others he didn't remember at the time, but that's at least close to the full list.

what these musicians have in common is that they know how Radu wants to work and they're willing to work within that soundworld. Keith could do that if he wanted, but I'm not sure what the point would be.

I was just wondering if it had happened. Seeing any great musicians together has a theoretical interest just to see what happens.

Dixon (and Butch Morris and Adam Rudolph and a Horace Tapscott ghost band)will be in a festival of improvising orchestra music at the REDCAT here in LA next Feb. (http://redcat.org/season/0607/mus/creative.php).

I don't who the players will be; I'm available.

"Seeing any great musicians together has a theoretical interest just to see what happens."

Clearly, Dixon doesn't share this view, as his remarks on the Wiener Musik Gallerie in the One Final Note interview testify. He seems uninterested in getting together with Susie Ibarra just because some promoter thinks it's a cool idea to put them on the same stage, and I for one am grateful to him for bringing some contention to an underdiscussed problem in the current music scene, i.e. Identity Politics being diluted to fashion statements used to determine merit when assembling festivals and grants. Except his characterization of it as "the women's movement" probably raised some unnecessary hackles.

Well, It was Mr. Dixon who intiated the concert with Leandre. I know for a fact he likes Birgit Ulher's trumpet playing quite a bit.
I think most improvisors value the way working with someone who has a different cultural experience can positively affect the music.
If you just try to play with the most interesting players you will end up with a diverse group of collaborators.

To the best of my knowledge Rowe and Malfatti have never played together, and as Jon wrote above, I don't know what purpose it would serve if it were to happen now. You certainly wouldn't hear much from Radu in there, that's for sure.
Meanwhile nice to see Steve Horenstein checking in above! Enjoying your ceedee The Raw & The Cooked very much Steve.

Off topic, but I wanted to mention how much I enjoyed Dan's interview with Malcolm Goldstein over at PT this month (wherin the psychological aspects of composition from those of improvisation are nicely--if too late--distinguished!).

Thanks for the plug Walt. The interview will be worked into a full length piece for the forthcoming Signal To Noise, complete with photos (inc photos of MG's scores). I also heard from Joe that Riti will be releasing a recording of MG with Butch Morris, Lowell Davidson and Joe himself - can't wait for that! Maybe JM can give us more details
Meanwhile, dumb question: was the Bill Dixon Archie Shepp Quartet album from 62 reissued on CD? (If so, anyone got a URL?) My vinyl copy, bought at a fleamarket on the outskirts of Paris for the princely sum of 10 old French francs, sounds like one of those records people walked all over in Christian Marclay's installation piece.

Dan, is this what you're looking for?
Steve Horenstein

Bill Dixon/Archie Shepp

# Audio CD (March 13, 2001)
# Original Release Date: February 4, 1962
# Number of Discs: 1
# Label: Savoy Jazz
# ASIN: B000059LZ

(available at Amazon.com)

Unfortunately, that Dixon/Shepp disc Steve mentions isn’t the quartet set. It’s a combo of sides by the Dixon 7-tette and the NY Contemporary Five, still very much worth owning.

Dixonia is chock-full of jaw dropping session stats. I don’t have it handy, but seem to remember a string of duets w/ Wilbur Ware at the Speakeasy Cafe in NYC, summer & fall of '61, but can’t recall whether they were taped or not. There's also mention of Cecil Taylor concert w/ this line-up: Dixon, Roswell Rudd, Jimmy Lyons, Albert Ayler, Carla & Paul Bley, Gary Peacock & Sunny Murray (whoah!).

Thanks for the Riti news, Dan. I’d heard something about it in the pipeline, but didn’t have the details. That should be fascinating release. Hopefully Joe will be swinging by to tell us more about it.

I have more info on that cd when I finish all of the business for it. It will be done soon though.
The mention of it reminded me that there were some great players around Boston and around Lowell Davidson who also worked with Bill Dixon. Laurence Cook the great drummer, on "Nov 81'" (is that the title?) The bassists Mario Pavone, and John Voigt played with Lowell and might have been the first 2 bass team with Dixon ( I'm not sure about that, but they both worked with Dixon) I saw Voigt play with William Parker, Cook and Dixon in Vermont in the late 80's. Also, Glynis Lomon who is one of the most interesting and unique improvising cellists in the world. She studied with Bill Dixon. I was in an improvising string trio with her starting in 1981. She also worked with Lowell Davidson. There are other former Dixon students in Boston too
Just thought I'd add those names to the Dixon conversation.

To my ears, the best thing about those Bill Dixon Soul Notes ("In Italy vols. 1 & 2" and "Nov. 1981") was Alan Silva's bass playing ... He had (and still has) wide-open ears.

Regarding the recent Dixon/Leandre duet that took place in Guelph: Damon, you HAVE NOT made an "unwarranted guess". It was a truly dynamic performance from where I was sitting. I might also add that the concert was recorded. (To Joe Morris) Bill began using two bassists back in the '60s. The recording INTENTS AND PURPOSES teams Reggie Workman and Jimmy Garrison. During the early '80s Mario Pavone was first teamed with Alan Silva. At different times Pavone was paired with Barre Phillips, John Voigt, Joe Fonda and William Parker (in that order). Barry Guy and William Parker were teamed in the '90s.

Sharon

Thanks Sharon.

Nice to have such a positive and informative exchange about Bill's music.

All of which confirms what I'd long suspected. That without great bassists, Bill Dixon's music would go unnoticed.

I am not sure about unnoticed, his duos with Oxely are incredible.
I think his way of working with bass players is special and unique, obviously it has had a huge impact on my playing.
Thanks, Sharon for the report on the duo. I think people can have trouble hearing Bill's concept.
I had a conversation yesterday with my friend Oluyemi Thomas (a fantastic reed player), he was at the trio concert with BIl, Tony and Cecil. He said it was great.
Then I saw Oluyemi play a solo concert later that was just mind blowing.

Hi Joe. It is good to have a positive exchange about Bill's work. I took a look at Marc's article and decided to join in on the conversation. As you would know, Bill was one of the first (if not the first in creative music) to use two double-bassists. I also think you would agree with me that Bill does not go "unnoticed" when he chooses an instrumentation that doesn't include bass players. I'd love to hear you and Bill play duets. Perhaps it will happen.
Thanks, Damon. You're very perceptive.

Sharon

Sharon - where were you sitting during the Dixon/Leandre performance?? I was in the fourth or fifth row of the church and I can't lie about the performance being a Dixon highlight. In fact, the robust energy came from one person in the room - and that just happened to be Leandre. Who knows, Dixon may have purposefully allowed her to "lead" the performance? I'm not knocking Dixon in the least. I find his work over the last few decades stimulating. "Berlin Abbozzi" and his dates with various bassists [Soul Note] are all essential listening, especially those who haven't come around to Bill's way of hearing the world.

Damon - fine, you talked to one person who was at the Dixon/Taylor/Oxley gig who seemed to think it was great. Most people there that night will tell you flat out, it was a disappointment; mainly a disappointment of expectations. I for one, still think that to be one of the better trio gigs I'd ever witnessed...no question about that. All expectations aside...

Your opinion, Tom. Why in the world would it make a difference where I was sitting? The acoustics in St-George Church were splendid. I heard every note. As a matter of fact, the audience around me enjoyed the concert immensely, and some were quite disappointed when there wasn't an encore. How could you possibly have talked with "most" of the people who attended that performance? You must admit it was quite heavily attended. I must have been sitting in the section of the audience that Damon's person was sitting. That would be my guess.

Sharon

Has anybody seen the Kool-Aid?

Wha? It's all gone? B-but who drank up all that Kool-Aid?

Oh grandpa Djll, is your diaper dirty *again*?

"Has anybody seen the Kool-Aid?

Wha? It's all gone? B-but who drank up all that Kool-Aid?

Posted by: djll at October 7, 2006 12:13 AM"

- You mean the grape HiC? No thank you, Dr. Maplewood.

"All of which confirms what I'd long suspected. That without great bassists, Bill Dixon's music would go unnoticed."

Bill was kind enough to send me a copy of Odyssey, a six-disc box set of solo trumpet works. Some of the most powerful solo music I've ever heard, unflinchingly expressive and technically mind-boggling. Gestures blend into pure sonic statements, much as the best gestural abstract painting displays action in pure color. For me, what has stood highest in his (released) discography has been the solo work and the scantly-recorded orchestras. I urge you to investigate the solos.

Thanks Clifford. The only solo Bill Dixon I have is the "Collection - Music for Solo Trumpet" (Cadence 1024/5), a 2CD set of his mid 70's pieces. But I shall take up your suggestion re the bigger box set, cashflow permitting.

the Cadence double CD material is also on Odyssey, Dixon claims that the Cadence CD release was a bootleg. I'm personally a much bigger fan of his small group work like Vade Mecum than I am of Odyssey, which felt like work to trudge through by the end.

@adcopywriter: The subject of this thread would seem to preclude the parlaying of ageist remarks, but I suppose good taste has never been the concern of any other anonymous poltroon on Bagatellen. And it's not even accurate (I use Depends™) – Dixon's older than my dad.

@the rest of you: I have Collection, too, and sorry to say it has done little to persuade me that six more CDs of Bill Dixon's solo trumpet music is going to help the case. It just doesn't interest me enough. Vade Mecum and Papyrus are slightly more interesting (and way better recorded) but there he's got good mates.

Notice I haven't actually said anything negative about Bill Dixon or his music? So spare me your fatwas. It's sad, but I've had offline conversations with two other writers who feel the free flow of ideas on Bags has been quashed by True Believers who can't accept a negative word about their heroes without getting crude and insulting. But in that sense it's not at all unique. You start out with a nice clean pool, there's room to swim around, and then the first-graders show up and leave Tootsie-Rolls™ floating about in the water.

If some foolhardy soul here would promise to cover my back, I'd be happy to present a more detailed critique, and then maybe this thread can get somewhere beyond the boring back-and-forth "It was good" - "It sucked" kind of pablum as well as the feeble wisecracks (mine own included).

Sharon - please note I didn't say a single negative thing about Dixon's performance in Guelph last month.
All I said was that there could've been some real dialogue happening, instead of two musicians standing on the same, common stage playing for themselves. I felt as if Leandre was the only one on stage that night who initiated that dialogue.

In terms of "most" people in attendance at Dixon's concert, I was refering to Dixon/Taylor/Oxley gig at FIMAV back in 2002. Please do a poll of "most" people in attendance that night to see what they felt about that one [myself not included]. As I'd already stated, that trio gig was one of the richest live experiences I'd witneseed in my lifetime.

By the way, you said rather sarcastically "my opinion"...damn straight...it's mine and mine alone...and I strongly feel I'm entitled to it, just as you're entitled to yours.
For some reason, you have this misconceived perception that I'm knocking Dixon's music, which I'm not. I have too much respect for the man and his music to do that.

Enough said.

"If some foolhardy soul here would promise to cover my back, I'd be happy to present a more detailed critique, and then maybe this thread can get somewhere beyond the boring back-and-forth "It was good" - "It sucked" kind of pablum as well as the feeble wisecracks (mine own included)."

-I'll cover your back as soon as you can play the trumpet as low as the tuba and musicians of same caliber as Wadada Leo Smith John Linberg, Barry Guy, Cecil Taylor and Tony Oxely rave (at length) to me about your playing and concepts.
Oh, and and after you Listen to all of his available music.
You seem to like playing at being a critic but you don't seem to want to put in the work.

I have not heard Odyessy ( I also don't get paid for writing), but I do know it contains newer work than "Collection", which I have on LP. As you can hear on Papyrus I & II his concepts and technique progresses.
I would not Assume Odyessy to be more of the same, and more that I'd assume Mututator represents your work now.

Dudes can say what they want.

I'm just speakin' my piece, as everyone else. Utter dismissal, though, doesn't really do anyone any good (outside of the obvious, like Najee).

This thought comes after three Manhattans, so please excuse...

Tom Sawiski says:
"All I said was that there could've been some real dialogue happening, instead of two musicians standing on the same, common stage playing for themselves..."

I wasn't at the concert, but I can certainly try to imagine...I'd like to make one point from an analytical perspective, and one who does know Bill's music quite well. Bill often chooses to create separate layers independently, and
if and when they come together, so be it (and all the better for the moment). We can hear this in many of his compositions, as well as in the later work of John Coltrane (and other contemporary composers). Sometimes what the public seeks as "dialogue" is not what is necessary at any given point in a composition, and the tension created by two independent "worlds" existing simultaneously, then meeting, is VERY exciting....In fact, the dialogue sometimes can border on the banal if not handled skillfully.

As far as this discussion thread: yes, everyone
is entitled to an opinion and "tastes", but opinions founded on research and study can often provide a "refreshing" addition to the simplfied ping pong.

Steve:

I take your point about "dialogue". What do you think is Bill Dixon's understanding of "interaction"?

Response to Graham, re: "interaction"

"The bass provides a sort of liquid foundational formation that does not gravitationally tie you down. It is good at revealing and highlighting a certain harmonic pinpoint when one is either being looked for or needed..." Bill Dixon

"The magic of playing has to do with how much everyone wants it to succeed. If you have five players in a situation where the music is being improvised and one is determined it is not going to succeed, it won't succeed even if one of the musicians takes control...
"Freedom as a philosophy is allowed as long as the respect for it and responsibility to it are adhered to and understood. When it becomes an Olympics, someone has to referee or take charge. The leader in any group is expected to know more definitively what everyone in the group can do singularly or collectively than they do. The idea of a meaningful communal music is a fallacy. There is no democracy. There are all kinds of ways to suggest the direction with the what, when and how of the material presented in performance—eye contact, hand movement, the nature of what you are playing and how it is being heard and ingested by the players, etc. When it doesn't work, one does what has to be done to make it work."
Interview by Frank Rubolino, One Final Note
October 2002
Bill Dixon

re: interaction in discussions
"While everyone has a right to his or her opinion, the people who are informed have more of a right."
Bill Dixon

Thank you Steve. In the light of the recorded evidence, I find the comment regarding the role of the bass to be especially significant.

Damon Smith says: "I'll cover your back as soon as you can play the trumpet as low as the tuba and musicians of same caliber as Wadada Leo Smith John Linberg, Barry Guy, Cecil Taylor and Tony Oxely rave (at length) to me about your playing and concepts."

Sorry, Damon, but Tom doesn't have to do (or be in receipt of) any of those things to qualify as a critic whose opinions are, at least potentially, worth listening to. I think your comments are a little intemperate. He's entitled to say what he thinks about Bill Dixon's music, and if what he says is lacking in merit there'll be at least a dozen Baganauts who'll tell him so.

"Oh, and and after you Listen to all of his [i.e. Dixon's] available music."

Sure, that would only be just, and sensible. An exception may be if he confines himself only to the Bill Dixon music he knows, though that makes generalising about Dixon and his music rather a tricky/dangerous proposition.

Tom Djll says: "If some foolhardy soul here would promise to cover my back, I'd be happy to present a more detailed critique . . ."

Okay, I'll be that foolhardy soul. As someone who admires Bill Dixon's music, but isn't oblivious to its flaws (ALL music is flawed, no matter how great it is), I'd like to hear what you have to say.

"Sorry, Damon, but Tom doesn't have to do (or be in receipt of) any of those things to qualify as a critic whose opinions are, at least potentially, worth listening to. I think your comments are a little intemperate. He's entitled to say what he thinks about Bill Dixon's music, and if what he says is lacking in merit there'll be at least a dozen Baganauts who'll tell him so."

- I'm sorry, if you are going to be a critic and trumpet player you are going to need to do the homework on both sides before you "critque" someone like Bill Dixon's muisc.
A bunch of listeners stating opinion's are way different than those who accept money for writing about music.

Thank you, Brian. As I'm traveling this weekend, I won't be posting anything today. I also have a thesis on Bill Dixon by Andrew Raffo Dewar which I want to review.

Damon, I love you man, but your critiques of my writing have become schtick. You've been saying the same stuff for 5 years now. It's boring. Not the utterances of an improvising mind. Music critque (and enjoyment) isn't a numbers game. Somebody's always going to have a bigger record collection than you. So what?

Damon, sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by this:

"A bunch of listeners stating opinion's are way different than those who accept money for writing about music."

"Damon, I love you man, but your critiques of my writing have become schtick. You've been saying the same stuff for 5 years now. It's boring. Not the utterances of an improvising mind. Music critque (and enjoyment) isn't a numbers game. Somebody's always going to have a bigger record collection than you. So what?"

Well, you not doing your research has become schtick, admiting you have not heard Oydessy then offering to do critque of if his music is exactly the reason I have problems with what you write.
Critics need to have more information than record geeks, not less.

On the other hand as musicians, if there were a person who played exactly what we wanted to play, there would be no reason to pick up the instrument.

Damon: "On the other hand as musicians, if there were a person who played exactly what we wanted to play, there would be no reason to pick up the instrument."

Nor this.

"Damon, sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by this:

"A bunch of listeners stating opinion's are way different than those who accept money for writing about music."

Posted by: Brian Marley at October 8, 2006 09:45 AM"

-Meaning they have need to have higher standards.

"Damon: "On the other hand as musicians, if there were a person who played exactly what we wanted to play, there would be no reason to pick up the instrument."

Nor this."

- Meaning Djll's appoach to the trumpet is not the same as Dixon's. It is perfectly reasonable for a musician to think about another music playing the same instrument "I wouldn't do it that way", and take it in another direction.
and if you did find someone who did exactly what you wanted you could just listen to that person.

Damon--there is absolutely nothing in Tom's posts that indicates he's criticizing Dixon merely for not playing like him.

I think (from whatever side you stand on, pro- or anti- or just undecided) that Dixon's music would be far better served by the kind of careful, skeptical critique that Tom Djll is capable of writing than all the oodles of coercive but empty praise that Dixon has received from those in his circle or fanclub.

Ra! Ra ! Ra! ND.

(That's Brit-speak for "Right on , motherf*cker").

Nate, this idea of a fan club gives me heartburn. Does it mean that I'm not capable of making informed decisions about Dixon's work because I like it too much? I also consider myself fairly well listened and responsible--where does a person give up admiration for fandom?
Damon and Tom, is a public forum really the place to resolve matters of what I'm taking to be a personal nature? Tom, I'm a Dixon fan, sure, but I'd be very interested to see whatever you write about his work, as I've enjoyed your writing (and playing) a great deal.

Marc--I have absolutely no problem with your enthusiasm for Dixon or your thoughtful posts on his work--he couldn't have a better advocate. What I'm getting at is people who constantly insist on his genius in a fashion that seems more about boosterism and peer pressure directed at others, than about just liking the music itself.

"I think (from whatever side you stand on, pro- or anti- or just undecided) that Dixon's music would be far better served by the kind of careful, skeptical critique that Tom Djll is capable of writing than all the oodles of coercive but empty praise that Dixon has received from those in his circle or fanclub."

- I think if Tom does his research, you could be dead on. If he is going to blast out half-baked garbage after listening to less than a third of Dixon's discography it is not going to serve any purpose.
I am a huge fan of Dixon's work, I still do not think he or anyone else is above criticism, but when you are talking about a person who can pushed boundries and refined his artstic vision for over 40 years without wavering, it needs to be well thought out and well researched.
I will repeat this because it is worth repeating:
Profesional writers need more, not less, information than record geeks.

It's absurd for anyone reading this blog to think it is a proper place for a "serious critique" of the work of an 81 year old artist -whose career spans more than 50 years-who has documented his music and already subjected it to critical analysis by more than one generation of professional writers, musicians and academics.

There might be a person, fan, musician, professional writer, or academic in this group who is capable of writing such a piece, but that person would be a fool to publish it here.

Whether you love Bill Dixon or hate Bill Dixon he deserves to have his body of work critiqued in a proper forum with editorial oversight.

Review his performances. Review his records when they are released. But a a critical overview on Bagatellen? You've got to be kidding.

Keep saying whatever you want about all the musicians and music, but don't kid yourselves into thinking that it's a serious discussion.

Yes, but after a while just accumulating yet more recordings doesn't mean you're accumulating "more information", any more than the academic writer who pads the bibliography assiduously is actually demonstrating any real grasp of or insight into the topic. Setting the bar high for "having a worthwhile opinion"--e.g. owning massive amounts of the subject's work--seems to me largely a rhetorical sleight of hand, really just an excuse to discount the opinions of anyone but the diehard faithful without acknowledging that that's what one is doing.

Last post in reply to Damon not Joe of course.

Oh dear. We simple listeners of 60 years standing, who have bought most of Bill Dixon's recordings since 1964, with hard-earned European-taxed cash, and tossed in our two cents worth, (with particular regard to the bass), are not considered "serious".

I have bought my last Joe Morris CD.

I'm certainly not questioning anyone's serious interest in music on this blog. I respect the interest of most of the people here, although I don't agree with many of the statements they make. I'm just saying that you can't call it serious with regard to the kind of critique that is being suggested when people post with silly names, stupid insults, and unsubstantiated claims about the subject.

It seems like some here would just like to refute the claims that Dixon makes about his own music and call it a critique. It's not unlike saying that someone won't buy anymore Joe Morris cd's because they don't like me for what I've said, (btw, those who I haven't offended don't buy enough either) and not unlike saying they will always like everything Bill Dixon does because they love him. While they might be legitimate ideas from listeners and casual remarks by writers and musicians, they are not serious ideas, but they are typical of what happens on Bagatellen.

"Yes, but after a while just accumulating yet more recordings doesn't mean you're accumulating "more information", any more than the academic writer who pads the bibliography assiduously is actually demonstrating any real grasp of or insight into the topic. Setting the bar high for "having a worthwhile opinion"--e.g. owning massive amounts of the subject's work--seems to me largely a rhetorical sleight of hand, really just an excuse to discount the opinions of anyone but the diehard faithful without acknowledging that that's what one is doing."

- Right, Accumulating recordings is not enough, you need to actually listen to them.
There is no amount of double talk that can excuse a so-called writer for not knowing his subject.
Sadly it happens more often than not in creative music.

And Graham, Joe is a fair guy and great musician and teacher. His insights are valuable in this forum.
He is part of what makes me value it more than he does.
Not only that he make great cds, so you'd be missing out.

There is a recent review here by Derek Taylor of a new cd by the trumpeter Peter Evans. Evans is making a big impression in NY right now. What is very positive about Bagatellen (and the reason I log on) is that it covers brand new work, often before anyone else (except maybe Paris Transatlantic). I expect that like many others in the new wave of brass players, Peter Evans has been influenced by Bill Dixon. (maybe some of you know what impact Dixon has had on Greg Kelley and Axel Dorner, I don't, but there are many others that I do know about) Right now there are only 2 comments on the Peter Evans thread.

This is a great forum for reviewing new work produced by anyone and especially by new artists who don't have access to other forums. Also good for casual comments about music that posters like or dislike, but IMO not really the place for a full critique of an established artist who started out and earned his place a long time ago. No offense intended.

And Morris said "With editorial supervision." Seems like another Dixon book is in order. Dixonia did not cover the music itself, nor was it meant to do so. There's a lot of work to be done on Dixon, and on a huge number of the subjects (musicians, styles, transitions) we here care about.
Joe, I take your point as a good one!

The attraction of Bagatellen, to simple listeners like me, is that it is an open informal forum for us lovers of this area of music to express our two-cents' worth. We care greatly about what is very much a minority music, so the forum is that much more appreciated. To some degree however we're all a little bit in the dark. We often don't know the vantage point, experience, age, or knowledge level of any particular contributor. We often don't know who's a musician and who's not, nor who's in bed with whom or who has a financial stake in whom, so misunderstandings are bound to occur. Perhaps we don't even speak the same native language. By definition, it's not a forum for academic critiques, though these too are welcome. Any improvising musician is on his own road to musical discovery, with a vague beginning and no end. The same applies to us listeners - we want to share in the journey and in the discovery. That is why every spare euro I earn gets invested in new music, and that's why each month I happily part with a sum equivalent to the average person's monthly mortgage-repayment in order to hear good new sounds. And that's why we go out to hear live music. How much more serious can a simple listener, with no professional involvement in the music, be expected to be?

Yeah of course it's an "open informal forum for us lovers of this area of music to express our two-cents' worth" and we like Bag for that...
But also I love the regular geek (sorry critics') fights !

Like "I buy 366 records per year (one for each day of the year and one for the dog), how much do YOU buy ?", etc.etc.etc.

But the best fight EVER on Bag was about the Maneris when Mat's daughter's mother intervened, you know, and I-don't-know-who - didn't do my research, ll'get kicked by Damon :( - had to say he was sorry coz the gal was soooo crazy she was always coming in with her non-sense ... Yeah that was great !

And love also the anonymous-poster bashing ! Like "you coward give us your name we'll kick you in the e-mail box !"

Yeah, long live Bag !

U go, Fab!

Well if that's what you want, we'll try & dig up some more dirt to throw at each other. (Though that Maneri spat was ugly, man. Can't really believe you ENJOYED that..) Meanwhile, I agree with the sentiments expressed above. Yes of course this is not the best place for extended critical pieces (though Jeff Gburek has thrown one or two into the pot in recent times), and nor should it be a place for folks to brag about the size of their record collections, or about the size of anything else for that matter. In answer though to Damon's line about being paid to write, perhaps some of our contributing journalists would like to scotch the idea that we're somehow raking in huge amounts of money. You know how much a mag like Cadence pays, Damon, and if you want drop me a line and I'll happily tell you how much I get for writing for the other mags. Suffice it to say I'm not likely to retire from the day job just yet. Reminds me of the line in Fawlty Towers when someone asks Polly if she sells many of her drawings.. "Enough to keep me in waitressing."

hey thar fab, dont fergit all the kareer posishunning and self-promoeshun... "sorry i caint write for bags but i'm too busy finishing my book 'ten reasons miles would've dug my writing if he'd lived long enuf to read it' and 'as I wuz jes sayun to keeth row airport whooz a persunul frend o' mine...' and all that jass...

i dont post heer, but i'm addikted to bagutell'un like crack.

the gratest sho on erth

No fellow anonymous-poster, I won't attack anyone personnally.

I'm sorry if you have bitter feelings towards other bagsters, but it's none of my concern.

and your e-mail adresses are really gross. Try to change it.

However much you get it is clearly enough to make you do your research, Mr. Warburton, just as what I get (not much) is enough to make me do mine.
If one is doing it for love or even ego then that is all the more reason to do it as well as you can.
The point is the writers are presenting themselves as experts and authorities on the subject. I think it is not unfiar to expect them to be.

It is not about the size of ones record collection I have listened to and sold more recordings than I own.
When I started the only way to seriously study the recorded histroy was tracking down the old LPs.
Most people I knew were too cheap and lazy to do it.
At this point file sharing takes away those excuses.

My understanding of Dixon's work has to do with studying all the recordings I can get my hands on. It is a small but rich body of work.
For example, I am still finding new information in the Vade Mecums after 10 years or so.
Most of us who enjoy his work understand it from that kind of immersion in it.
We also understand the time, thought, work and care he put into it.
Dixon put time and effort into his body of work it is only fair that any critic who wants to approach it do the same.

bitter, why I ain't bitter mister fab, ya big ol' hippocrit, jes enjoyin' the show's all!

-- stand by --

-- researching, listening --

-- not stalling! --

"-- stand by --

-- researching, listening --

-- not stalling! --

Posted by: djll at October 9, 2006 03:39 PM"

- Sounds good. Who is going to be the editorial oversight?

This ain't no publication of record, dude. It's a free forum.

Don't distract me from my foolish task.

Does anyone else marvel at the way so many act as if "the jury is still out" about Dixon, Dixon's trumpet playing and Dixon's place in music?

This one says Dixon can't play worth toffee, that one gets a hearty laugh at the notion that Dixon deserves a Mac Arthur Genius grant.

I'm sorry, am I on crazy pills here?

Of course Dixon can play the trumpet. Of course Dixon deserves a Mac Arthur grant. If Dixon got the Mac Arthur grant there'd be a deluge of music--very very heavy music--that would keep everyone occupied for years to come.

Dixon's place in the music is like that of Ansel Adams and Minor Whites in photography. Yes yes, It's ok not to "like" Ansel Adams or Minor White's work, it's ok to like some one elses work better. Yes, there are other avenues of photography that don't bother with the zone system. But really now, only an ignorant ass would deny Adams' and Whites' total command of the craft (or 'technique') and their centrality in the medium. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR DIXON.

Dixon is a central figure in modern music. In that zorn debacle a few back, we were asked to close our eyes and imagine how empty the landscape would be with out john zorn. Without Dixon, who knows if there would even be a Zorn. Certainly we would all be the poorer. You love the music right? Read Dixonia. See if you can find a copy of L'Opera and read that (though I imagine most of you already have.)

Part of what makes Dixon (the person) and Dixon's music so difficult to grasp is the fact there isn't a speck of 'post modern' twaddle to be found. Born in 1925, capice? Where as so many others go wide and shallow, Dixon has gone deep, and has been following a single aesthetic trajectory faithfully the entire time, informed by a deep involvement with the strongest of voices in improvisation since the 60's.

In light of the fact that Dixon has been concerned/invoved/obsessed with Jazz/Black Music/Improvisation for the last 60 years could it be that he is hearing music differently that say, those of us who have only been listening to the music for 20 or 40 years? Could it be that he is listening for (and realizing in his improvisations) things you only think to listen for after living this music for 60 years? In that light is it absurd to suggest there might be a bit of, for lack of a better phrase, a "learning curve" related to appreciating Dixon's music, and that some of his work might not immediately 'take?' And if so, is that a bad thing?

So one has to reach a certain age to be able to grasp Dixon's music ? It's a music for elderly only ?

Is that it mister sjz ...

But ther'z a contradiction in your reasoning, you said that there would be no zorn without dixon ... but isn't zorn still too young to fully understand dixon's music ???

The trouble with public expression of tastes(whether at bagatellen or someplace called "The Journal of ....."--a place which has (be still my heart!) nothing less than editorial oversight--is this. People who love something, even after hearing only one thing, not only get a pass but get free membership to a really fun club where there's dancing and free beer. People who don't like even a little teeny thing, even after they've heard every other thing at least nine times, will always just be thought to have missed the essential kernal and will be dismissed as dim bulbs. Plus they're mean bastards who are hurting the people, the music, art!

If you're tight, you're all right. If you hack, get back, get back.

The fans who write here have a passion and enthuiasm for music. They like music. Many of the "writers" do to. Some (not all, but some) of the "writers" here (they know who they are) seem to have an agenda that has grown out of bitterness and failure. It's obvious, so obvious.
I guess when there is no publication, not even the one's that pay nothing, willing to actually print your opinions, and you feel that your opinions are so valuable, you will put them anyplace you can and still act like it matters.Go ahead, pin your expert opinion up here on the pole. Tell us all how to think.

Joe, what’s with the quotes around “writers” & why not a similar qualifier around “fans”? I certainly don’t agree with a lot of what’s been posted on this thread, but I also don’t presume to know who’s anointed and who isn’t either. I would agree that Bags probably isn’t a viable place for “serious musical analysis”- too great a danger for the author’s hard work to not only be dismissed outright, but also done so with a pungent dollop of disrespect & invective. For that reason it’s often a case of “Why bother?” though I do hope Mr. Djll does decide to post his critique. Even if I disagree with his every word, I’d still like to read it.

Marc predicted the piefights in his inaugural post & so it is that they’ve come to pass. The beauty is that Bill Dixon’s music continues to stand unblemished by all the flying cream filling and custard. I’m glad that there’s been some actual discussion amidst the reliable melee, but all of the “I’m right, you’re wrong” nonsense quickly wears out its welcome.

Joe: "...they know who they are..."

Hands up, class--how many of you write out of a sense of bitterness and failure?

I was wondering that too, especially since it seems to be doubly obvious to Joe!

You see, Tom and Tom, if you don't like something--you're nothing but bitter failures trying (pointlessly) to tell the rest of us how to think. On the other hand, when you love, the world loves with you. Then, it's "passion and enthusiasm"--such nice things, both!

My advice? Do as Joe M. wisely suggests here (and as I have long ago done)--stop writing about music altogether. Why anybody should care what anybody thinks about this or that piece or player is (at best) mysterious, anyhow.

(I suppose, alternatively, you could take some "crazy pills" with sjz, but the damn things are so expensive and the rash is annoying.)

"And love also the anonymous-poster bashing ! Like "you coward give us your name we'll kick you in the e-mail box!"

Anonymity is great!!! Particularly on threads like this.

Suppose we call a truce by asking every contributor to identify him / herself: Performer, Listener, Writer, Whore etc ...?

"Joe, what’s with the quotes around “writers” & why not a similar qualifier around “fans”? I certainly don’t agree with a lot of what’s been posted on this thread, but I also don’t presume to know who’s anointed and who isn’t either. I would agree that Bags probably isn’t a viable place for “serious musical analysis”- too great a danger for the author’s hard work to not only be dismissed outright, but also done so with a pungent dollop of disrespect & invective. For that reason it’s often a case of “Why bother?” though I do hope Mr. Djll does decide to post his critique. Even if I disagree with his every word, I’d still like to read it."

How do you know I'm talking about Djil? I don't think anyone should chop up Dixon's work just to make a point that they can. I also don't think the meaning of his work should be embellished without facts either and I'm positive Bill Dixon would agree. Both of those things happen here all the time. The inner circle here is responsible for that. So my response Derek is please DON'T BOTHER. Don't trouble yourselves. Stop now and never write again. Do a favor for all the musicians and all the people who like music and who don't have to constantly criticize or revise the history of every part of it and stop now. Don't write another word about music ever. Try to listen to music just for pleasure.

Pick apart the government or someone rich and powerful. That would be a good way to flex those "writing" muscles. Leave the puny world of improvised music alone. Don't worry, Dixon and the rest of us be just fine without you.

"It's all beautiful, baby."

--THERE, that makes a really interesting, insightful read, eh?

Jesus, Joe, since you didn’t name names in your “they know who they are” round up, I don’t. I just mentioned Tom because he’s one who volunteered to offer some in-depth personal reactions to Bill’s music. Moreover, who said anything about chopping up Bill’s work? There’s a mile-wide difference between commenting on how music effects one personally and the sort of character-assignation you seem to be accusing the “inner circle”* here of committing on a regular basis.

My primary reason for listening to music IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN for pleasure, whether I also put pen to paper on it or not. I’m not trying to damage anyone’s career or sling mud at the world of improvised music (how’s that for a nebulous target). Quite the opposite in fact & I’d hope my "writing" reflects that. To even claim that I have anything even remotely resembling that kind of power or reach is laughable. It’d be great if you could give me some examples of where I (or others) chop up music or embellish it without facts, here or elsewhere.

No wait, scratch that, I have a better idea & one that will stave off another useless back & forth of airborne pies, how about never stopping by this godforsaken backwater place again & leaving “us” to “our” nefarious thumb-twiddling & hand wringing. To reiterate your own words, we’ll “be just fine without you.”

I dig your music immensely and will continue to do so, but this whole line of attack you insist on repeating just makes me throw my hands up in exasperation in terms of trying to find common ground.

[*if I am indeed a member of this villainous syndicate what penance must I undertake to have my name stricken from the roster?]

... and Joe tells me I'm not serious, when I've been passionately involved with this music for longer than he's been alive ...

Remember Derek, you've already censored my words here. You and Al have already sent me e-mails demanding that I stop posting my comments here. For people who are so eager to write your opinions about everything, you're not very good at reading opinions about your own work.
Apparently unlike you, I remember the earlier Dixon thread. So here I feel that it is important to post an early alternative view in this "open" forum. Sorry if that bothers you and your friends so much. Is this forum really as open as you want us to believe it is?.

No Graham I didn't tell you that you weren't serious. I said that this was not a serious forum for proposed overview of the life's work of an 81 year old artist. Read my words. I have a lot more respect for your passion for the music than I have for the opinions of the core members of this Bagatellen club. But go ahead an hate me if it makes you feel better. Join the club.

Joe, I NEVER censored your words. I do recall ASKING you to refrain from picking fights with people, but I never “demanded” that you stop posting here. I can’t speak for Al, but I can’t imagine him putting a muzzle on you either. And even if that were the case, it obviously hasn’t worked :)

You’re coming at things from so many angles, I can hardly keep track. First, you denigrate a still unnamed group of “writers” who you claim are disparaging Bill’s work & good name (& by proxy the world of improvised music in general). Then you switch gears and start poking holes in the supposed freedoms of this forum. Then it’s on to suggesting that we all hang it up & go home, a directive that carries more than a whiff of censorship itself. I’d love to read opinions about my work, concrete ones that state specifically the problems someone has with it. Not nebulous statements intimating that I’m out to damage some musician’s career or doctor the facts to fit my designs. Again, I’d greatly appreciate it if you could point me in the direction of a definitive example where I do these things.

Post as many “alternative” viewpoints as you like. I’d just prefer personally that you do it without insulting me or anyone else & allow others the same degree of elbowroom. Is that too much to ask?

As for your respect, I thought I had it, but if I don’t, I’m not losing any sleep over the absence either.

Derek: Your interpretation of my words is wrong. Read them again. Again, sorry that my ideas bother you so much that they cause you to freak out.

I don't recall insulting you. If questioning the value of this web site, or the writing, or writers on it, or the quality of the opinions expressed can only be taken as an insult, or as picking a fight, then your forum is not as open as you claim. 'Nuff said.

As you propose guidelines or expectations for my posts, you should expect that I propose some for yours and your friends. Try living up to the ones I propose and see if that gets rid of me.

Joe: your interpretation of my words is just as wrong-headed. I’m not freaking out, just trying to figure YOU out. Read back over your own posts here and see if you can ascertain why I’ve responded in the manner that I have.

Erroneously claiming that I “censored” your words is insulting. Positing that I’m part of some “inner circle” whose aim is to “chop up Dixon’s work” and/or embellish facts is insulting. Suggesting that I (or others) have “an agenda that has grown out of bitterness and failure” is insulting. Does that make sense? I seem to remember you taking grievous offense at someone referring to your playing as “verbose.” How’s that for flying off the handle at what would otherwise seem a minor provocation?

Please feel free to question the value of this website. You’ve made it clear that you think that at best it’s a waste of time and at worst a pernicious agent (still trying to wrap my faculties around the latter claim). The only guideline that I propose for your posts is that you not pick fights under the thin guise of “setting the record straight” or holding me to some standard that you’ve yet to clearly delineate or show I'm in violation of. It’s a bit of a broken record & I’d rather just put the stylus back in the cradle than listen to it again. I’m not trying to “get rid” of you, just trying to figure where in the hell you’re coming from & why?

I’ll ask again in the plainest English I can muster, how specifically have I not been “living up” to your guidelines or expectations? And who exactly are these unidentified "friends" of mine that you speak of?

Again: Joe Morris is one of the best things about this forum.
I am not his best friend, but I spent a few days this summer making a wide variety of music (on guitar and bass) and took a workshop from him.
Yes, He can a bit of an old school hardass, but he is also a supportive mentor to a lot of musicians, not mention a really nice guy.
He has listened to and studied a huge amount of music and is great at being able to communicate that knowledge.
He played a lot of great and different things when was here but he did one solo, unamplified dedcated to Derek Bailey that was nothing less than masterful.

I'd like to ask everyone for just a bit more respect when dealing with MR. Morris.
I promise you would be hard pressed to find someone more passionate and knowlegable about this music.

par‧a‧noi‧a
1. Psychiatry. a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.
2. baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.

OK Joe (and Damon). Explanation welcome. Thank you. No, I've no desire to hate anyone, let alone a serious improvising musician, as an equally committed listener.

Damn, I cannot get through one of these posts without fucking something up.
At talkbass you can edit your posts when you do that.
Sorry.

" Performer [nope], Listener [yep], Writer [nope], Whore [euh... don't think so] etc ...? "

Mr Morris,

Before reading Bagatellen, I did know who Mister Dixon was, but I didn't know you. Were it not for Bag, I wouldn't have seen you in concert and wouldn't have buy your ceedees (not enuf of them, true enuf).

Some one this website will say that if I didn't know who Joe M. was, then I'm the one to blame. Maybe. Surely. I'm just a listner interested in improvised music, and believe me it's not with the two French jazz magazines that you'll get to know Morris, the Maneris, John Edwards and the rest, let alone the Onkyo scene, the Boredoms and Haino.

So you know Joe M., even if every poster doesn't love you (and I think you're wrong, euh... musically speaking at least and I'm sure no one hates you), thanks to your presence on this blog someone (me) came to know your work ... and appreciate it... even if i only know a small part of it. But yeah I don't buy a tenth of the ceedees some of you buy every year ... and I refuse to download music (though I don't say the same for movies) because i consider that it's like psychanalysis, you have to invest something moneywise to invest yourself in listening to the thing.

I'm a dilettante ? Yes, of course ! But if more people were as dilettante as I am regarding the music discussed here, improvising musicians and the record companies concerned (emanem, leo records, hat hut and the rest, even Erstwhile !) would be rich ...

Is my opinion worth it ? Don't know, but i'll give it anyway when I'm so inclined. And I promise, I'll refrain from giving it when it's REALLY not interesting.

Regards

I'll repeat it. This is not a serious place to review the life's work of an 81 year old artist with 50+ years of documented work. The comments posted by many of you about me prove that point. Mix up my words and call me anything you want. But when it's all over whoever reads this thread will know that someone here felt that Bill Dixon and anyone like him deserves a better situation for a critique of his work.
For the record, an entire thread of comments was deleted (censored) because of what I wrote on it. Remember?

Joe:

Do you know of a better forum where one might examine Dixon's work? If so, I'd like to know. Especially if it is one where a listener may contribute.

Joe, you’ve still yet to address my questions above or admit any sort of culpability in the way this thread has nose-dived, but that’s cool.

As far as the deletion of a thread (the infamous Maneri one, right?), believe it or not, I had nothing do with that action. That was Al’s decision & he had his reasons for doing so, I gather because of its swift & pervasive turn to extra-musical vitriol. I haven’t “censored” one pixel of your comments here & don’t intend to.

For my thoughts on Bill’s work please consult this link:
http://www.onefinalnote.com/features/2002/dixonia/

The piece is four years old, but I think you’ll find that we’re in general agreement on that score. I also agreed with your opinion that this place isn’t a viable forum for a “serious” review of Bill’s music in toto, albeit for different reasons. If you go back to Marc’s post at the top of this page you’ll notice that it is a positive & celebratory rumination on Bill and his work. How’s about we put this useless exchange to rest & get back to what matters, the music.

Again if you READ what I wrote it is all in response to comments posted by others. I have cautioned about the proposed "serious critique" the Tom Djil has offered. Also my words have been in reaction to the many comments about the alleged lack of negative words in critiques of music here. Marc's piece is very nice, but nice isn't allowed to fly for long around here.

One Final Note is a (was) a very good web site.

I’ve got no problem with you responding to what others write here. My problem arises when you start lumping everyone together into some like-minded “inner circle” or conspiratorial cadre without backing up your assertions on an individual basis. Making the allegations you’ve made about my motives/writing and then not backing them up with specifics chaps my hide. I’d assume you’d voice a similar reaction if someone called your motives/work into question without subtantiating their claims. Again, if you’re not going to respond to me on this level then let’s just call it a day.

I agree with you, OFN is a great website & I’m excited about its recent switch to a radio/concerts focus & a blog format, though you’ll notice that “comments” aren’t an option there (understanding your probable point that that’s a good thing).

Here, you're free to sound off your perspective, just as others are free to sound off theirs, right or wrong.

If you don't like it that is your problem. Obvoiusly I am not free to sound off without being accused of attacking people, or being paranoid. I have read awful things on this web site written about many people. I've never seen you go after any of those people that way you go after me. You can deny that there is an inner circle all you want. All one has to do is make a comment against anything pertaining to such an idea and watch who responds. It's always the exact same people. Everyone knows it's the truth.
You do a really bad job keeping the silly insulting stuff off this web site unless you think I write it.
The reason this is not a "serious" place (something you admit) is because you don't make it one. Yet you let certain people act like it is and write whatever unsubstantiated BS they want to write. You run it. You fix it. Then I'll stop commenting.

I'm embarrassed for you, Morris. You're inarticulate, rambling, unfocused, and yes, paranoid...

...but entertaining! Keep at it man, I hadn't been reading this site for a while until you reared yr ugly head again recently.

Do you have any ex-wives who we can get to write in by any chance?

(Do I?)
___

I'm actually interested to read Djll's thoughts on Dixon(tm), since I admire both players, and haven't ever read anyone I respect bring any interesting criticisms of Dixon(tm)'s music.

np: Bill Dixon - Odyssey, disc 4

If you don’t like it that is your problem

Do you see how easily I can volley the same sentence back in your direction? How’s that for a dialogue? And for the record, I don’t “run this place”. If anyone can be said to “run it”, it’s Al, and he’s often away on submariner duties. Point me in the direction of some of these “awful things” you’ve read and I’ll take a look at addressing them. Sorry, but disagreeing with the claim of a musician’s greatness doesn’t qualify in my book.

Last time I checked, you’re still free to post here whatever you like. I’ve just asked (repeatedly) that you tone down the self-righteousness & ire. Asking ISN’T demanding and you’ve yet to comply anyway. In fact, you’ve basically told me to kiss off. Truth be told, I have neither the time or desire to police this place to your standards (whatever those are, as you still haven’t broken down your “guidelines & expectations” in concrete terms).

So sound off at will, Joe. I’ve stopped listening. I’d rather devote my time to finishing up a review of a new Irene Schweizer disc, one that is incidently pretty great.

I really liked Marc's article!

I'm no scholar of Dixon's work, but I like a large percentage of what I've heard. One of the central questions Marc asks is about why he hasn't heard more, why has Dixon's music remained so obscure after so many years of such vitality?

I have always assumed that it had a lot to do with his decision to spend so much of his life in the acadamy. One can't know for sure, but it makes sense to me.

I have noticed that many of Dixon's former students arrive in NYC (can't comment on other communities) with an exaggerated sense of entitlement, and an air of self-importance that serves to keep them embattled and unembraced by their peers. I could never understand it until I went to Bennington in 1994 for a concert marking the 30-year anniversary of the "October Revolution in Jazz." I met Mr. Dixon there and was knocked out by his music, and his gracious and positive attitude towards me and my collegues, but his lecture to the students and parents there left me sad. I vividly recall his saying, "when you come here, and study under MY tutalege, you leave here a legitimate artist."

Then it all made sense. If I'd gone through 4 years of that attitude I might have left college believing I was totally the SHIT, rather than thinking, "there's so much left to learn!" which is the biggest reason I continue to happily pursue improvised music. The musicians I have known personally who I honestly felt were masters were the ones who are still striving, still believing they have lots to learn. Great musicians with humility.

I'm not interested in the traditional notions of what makes legitimacy or authenticity. Life is way more complex and interesting than that. Many musicians who have posted on Bags seem to groove on a kind of martyrdom trip that I really can't relate to.

Many musicians make bad critics, not so much because of lack of research but because of their own personal baggage. Biggest problem I see with non-musician critics is bringing their own agendas to the task, trying to support an idea, or their feelings, by misrepresenting the music.

I think that with this music being so relatively unsupported it's nice to have more people writing and talking about it, rather than less. I don't care whether it's "serious."

awesome post reuben - way to get us out of the muck!

"So sound off at will, Joe. I’ve stopped listening. I’d rather devote my time to finishing up a review of a new Irene Schweizer disc, one that is incidently pretty great."

- The Luzern disc? That one is great. She is such an incredible player.

Derek - are you referring to "First Choice"? Not a bad little disc in her already prolific career.

As for where this thread has gone - it's a shame that people have once again 'kidnapped' it...then again, I'm guilty of doing the same on a few occassions.
The point that irks me the most is how useless all of this name-calling is. What purpose does it serve when the music needs to be discussed...?

thanks Reuben!

Cor

Thus sprach Reuben

"I have noticed that many of Dixon's former students arrive in NYC (can't comment on other communities) with an exaggerated sense of entitlement, and an air of self-importance that serves to keep them embattled and unembraced by their peers. I could never understand it until I went to Bennington in 1994 for a concert marking the 30-year anniversary of the "October Revolution in Jazz." I met Mr. Dixon there and was knocked out by his music, and his gracious and positive attitude towards me and my collegues, but his lecture to the students and parents there left me sad. I vividly recall his saying, "when you come here, and study under MY tutalege, you leave here a legitimate artist."

Here's another reading: after four years at Bennington college, hearing no end of failed musical 'experiments' (conducted by students and faculty in both the "white" and "black" music departments) juxtaposed against Dixon's music and the music of who came to Bennington to be around Dixon's scene (all those musicians eager to make the scene at the 30th Anniversary of the October Revolution, for example) what you (still?) percieve as "an air of self-importance" might have actually been FATIGUE--an exhaustion with and reluctance to get into those musical situations/experiments that from the outset promised to be nothing more than an aesthetic uphill climb where the musical rewards would (at best) be a redux of what had already been done in Dixon's ensembles and at worst, a redux of what had been DISCARDED in Dixon's ensemble class, sophomore year.

Believe you me, there is no end of living evidence to support the notion that Dixon's tutalage DOES NOT automatically result in 'legitimacy.' After all Dixon taught hundreds and hundreds of students over the course 30 years at that social experiment/all girls drama school.

That said, EVERY student of Dixon's DID emerge from his tutalege knowing EXACTLY what they did (and, more to the point) did not want to spend their time doing. That, I have found, is the real gift of studying with Dixon AND what pisses (other) people off the most.

Damon & Tom, that’s the one. I’ve really been enjoying it.

Hey sjz, I hear you loud and clear, and I would point to that as one of the enviable strengths of many ex-Dixon students I have met. Very enviable.

I do feel though that it's not what my original observation was pointing towards, and I think it's a totally seperate issue. The behavior I was referring to was the attitude I found many of these people to have about themselves, not their choices of projects, or level of activity.

Not that you pointed the finger, but I just want to say that neither behavior ever pissed me off. The one I mentioned made me feel uncomfortable. The one you mentioned makes me feel some compassion and respect.

I speak for no one else though!

another aspect of discussing Mr. Dixon's work is how few live shows he plays. I don't know if this has always been the case, but I'd be surprised if he's played more than maybe five shows in the last decade in NYC, and I don't recall a single one with a working small band ensemble, along the lines of almost all of his recorded work of the best 15-20 years. did he and Oxley ever play duo shows anywhere after the Papyrus discs came out? I would have loved to see one of those.

Interesting point Jon, and while I think he played some European dates with Oxley at the time, I haven't heard of any in NY. Doesn't mean they didn't happen--dunno.
Reuben, thanks for your post! I have never met a Dixon student, so I can't speak directly to the issues you raise. Dixon and I have had severe disagreements in the past, not only on how to interpret his work, but on what constitutes "good" or "commercial" music. Now I just don't talk with him about it much. My philosophy has always been to take what you need and leave the rest, like that old tune says, and God knows the man has a lifetime experience and contemplation to offer! I told Dixon that he should finish the UOS piece--after all, Schonberg's second chamber symphony ... he growled at me, saying he was in a totally different place now, which I knew anyway. Today, I suggested to Cecil that he do Love for Sale as an encore tomorrow night. "What!" he barked, paused, laughed and said "You're dangerous--dangerous man."

man dixon played a smokin set w/ oxley and barry guy in 97. some people mite not like his tiny taps into electronics w/ his trumpet, but man they worked perfectly against guy's expertly controlled volume pedalling (and everything else guy so expertly controls)
if memory serves, that was right around the time dixon and oxley were recording papyrus

the gig wasn't in NYC. the guy just doesn't play live much i guess

Actually I'd love it if Taylor started playing a few standards now & then. I like that period from 1955-1962 where he played them--"What's New" is a classic. -- Incidentally I recall that one review claimed that The Tree of Life is an unstated exploration of "Tea for Two". Haven't heard it--anyone care to report back?

Marc, rubbing shoulders with the giants, right on!

"Incidentally I recall that one review claimed that The Tree of Life is an unstated exploration of "Tea for Two". Haven't heard it--anyone care to report back?"

Whoa! I'm going to spin this posthaste.

Marc - out of curiosity, who is Cecil playing with tomorrow night?

Nate, Tree of Life is one of my faves & definitely my favorite solo Cecil. I never made that connection to "Tea for Two" though... hmmm. Wonder if that's true for parts of the Cecil box Two T's for a Lovely T too?

I think it's a solo performance. Others on the bill, but I think, like Amherst a couple weeks ago, he's on his own. Anybody know different?
Now listening to Tree of Life, and God I'd forgotten how beautiful that was!! I guess if I stretch my ears I can hear those halfsteps so integral to T4T, but I'm not sure I'd give a paper on it, and now that he's gone into cluster mode, I don't even hear that anymore!
Reminds me of when Dixon told me that he'd been thinking of Handy's "The Blues" as a point of reference when he did the thing with George Lewis at Vision Fest! I heard a recording of the show, but I would never have heard that third "from Blues' oboe opening" unless he pointed it out.

Marc - out of curiosity, who is Cecil playing with tomorrow night?

Now that I'm thinking about it, are the chorus of Tea for Two and The Blues really different at the opening?! A third and a second in juxtaposition ...

Reuben; Good job. Nice comments about your fellow musicians. Way to make friends with all the nice folks here at Bagatellen. You are right to lean toward them. You need them. You're really a stand-up guy. I'm sure all the players in Brooklyn will be happy about your comments about them for the pack of fellows here at Bagatellen. I really hope it helps your career. Good luck.

Damon Smith:

Thanks for the support. I will not forget it.

Joe

o noes, reuben's gonna be blacklisted!

I'm glad you posted again, Joe. Looking back at your posts and the surrounding comments, all of which I did not read, I'm feeling more and more that there's something about which I need to sound off.
First, y'all know I can't see, so I don't read every comment even when there are only 20 or 30, so 125 or so is way out of the realm of possibility. I saw Joe's comment thanking Damon, so I thought I'd go back and look over everything very carefully.
One comment, predictably with only a first name, jumped out immediately, saying that Joe rambles inarticulately. I have never known Joe to be inarticulate--never! We had a fantastic conversation last summer about Davidson, and Joe was very generous with his time and memories. Then, as on this thread, he was succinct and poignant where he saw injustices in the way some improvised music has been treated. As I stated before, I was especially enthusiastic about the idea that a serious critique of Dixon's work was in need, and that this website was not the place for such an endeavor. Then, something happened--somebody brought up the Maneri thing, the comments on which I've never read. It was inevitable, it seems as I read back now, just as it was inevitable that my piece on Dixon brought out a fair amount of hostility. Joe's writing reminds me of Frank Kofsky, someone whose contributions to the literature on jazz I've come to respect much more of late. Kofsky was intense, intent, above all, on setting the record straight about matters of race, music born from the travail of racial opression in this country, no matter how subtle as the years progressed, and the fact that often the wrong people were getting the credit for innovation.
Morris' position on Dixon's work is similar in that Dixon's many years of engagement with improvised music put him in a defacto position of authority. We're not talking about some failed amateur musician here, and the fact that Intents and Purposes also said "The Jazz Artistry of Bill Dixon" on the cover speaks to the issues of racial politics from which "free" jazz emerged. More I think about it, Joe was just calling the discussion and some of the ridiculously juvenile back and forth it's entailed as he sees it. such behavior does demean the site, making a mockery out of our supposedly "serious" dialogue.
Like Kofsky, Joe speaks in no uncertain terms, and I admire his courage. He has more experience with the writers here than I have, he has been watching and reading (not to mention listening and playing!) longer than I've been alive. I watched him be quite positive from word one, simply defending the work of a fellow improviser, and when he began to be insulted of course he got pissed! Do others get the kind of treatment he's gotten here? I value his opinions too much to have him be censored, or even the suggestion made that he be censored. I think Damon's quite right on this one--let past events rest now! He's brought too much to the music, not to mention to this discussion, to be dismissed as some kind of blowhard. it seems to me that Joe did not make this discussion ugly by himself; he was reacting, perhaps defensively but perhaps not, to past exchanges about which I know very little, but this doesn't diminish the breadth of his knowledge and his facility in expressing it.

Does it need to be said that the beginning of my last post was addressed to Morris, not Joe of the truncated identity? "Look it's people like you what cause unrest!"

Reuben; Good job. Nice comments about your fellow musicians. Way to make friends with all the nice folks here at Bagatellen. You are right to lean toward them. You need them. You're really a stand-up guy. I'm sure all the players in Brooklyn will be happy about your comments about them for the pack of fellows here at Bagatellen. I really hope it helps your career. Good luck.

Posted by: Joe Morris at October 11, 2006 08:00 PM
Damon Smith:

Thanks for the support. I will not forget it.

Joe

Posted by: joe Morris at October 11, 2006 08:02 PM

Let's hear it for the ability to put togeter a heartfelt dedication to anti-censorship and an almost simultaneous threat to cover the waterfront! Yikes.

Radding sez
"I have noticed that many of Dixon's former students arrive in NYC (can't comment on other communities) with an exaggerated sense of entitlement, and an air of self-importance that serves to keep them embattled and unembraced by their peers".

This is the comment I was referring to. That's a lot of good musicians you're talking about there.

My henchmen only break the kneecaps of failed writers. So look out
Horn!

Reuben Radding: "I have noticed that many of Dixon's former students arrive in NYC (can't comment on other communities) with an exaggerated sense of entitlement, and an air of self-importance that serves to keep them embattled and unembraced by their peers".

What Reuben says here seems to me to be fair comment.

Joe Morris: "My henchmen only break the kneecaps of failed writers. So look out Horn!"

What Joe says here about Walter Horn is not.

Tensions are high when the stakes are low.

Fair to you maybe, but not to those musicians he lumps together. Going back 20 years I have worked with quite a few musicians who studied with Dixon. They are all individuals. All the ones I know are great musicians with a deep commitment to being artists. Their studies with Dixon are a part of who they are, not the whole thing. They don't arrive anywhere in the Dixon luxury coach. They have to do the same stuff everyone else has to do to get a gig.

Poor Walter.

Failed???!!! Not even a gentlemen's C-?? Don't make me take back those nice things I've said about "Many Rings"!

Hey, remember that 11th Commandment that used to be bandied about in DC? It went, "Thou shalt never say anything bad about fellow Republicans."

The cool thing is, "Musicians" almost rhymes.

BTW, Brian M., Off-topic, but I was thinking about you the other day. I think I remember you saying you admire Virginia Woolf, and I happened upon a passage in "Jacob's Room" in which she says something about silence similar to what you've written on the subject. If you don't know it, I could email you the cite.

OK, back to Dixon, whose work I know precious little of. (But I've gleaned from this thread that Jon's "Mr." should really have been "Prof.")

"Tensions are high when the stakes are low."

Reuben, this comment is vacuous.

"Poor Walter."

Joe, your insults and sneers are often gratuitous.

Well considering that you wrote nice things about "Many Rings" I'll see to it that my boys only bruise your kneecaps.

Thank God, the insult/comment judge has finally arrived with his box of special words.

"Reuben, this comment is vacuous."

Brian, may I quote you on my website?

You can, of course, Reuben. Though I hope to say better things about what you do as time goes on.

In this corner with the 98
Subject of suckers object of hate
Who's the one some think is great
I'm that one, son of a gun
Drivin' by, wavin' my fist
Makin' 'em mad when I'm goin' like this
Top gun, never on the run
They know not to come cause they all get some
Goin' quicker in the speedin' lane
Jealous can't do it and it's causin' them pain
Out the window, middle finger for all
Jealous at my ride, stereo and blackwalls
Suckers got the nerve and gall
To talk 'bout my car when they're walkin' tall
Pullin' away, every day
Leavin' you in the dust
So you know I get paid, on the mile ego trip
And 5-o tailin' on my tip
Watch me burn rubber, fall in my flame
This episode always is the same
Seein' no comp comin' like I'm blind
All left back, tailin' my behind
I go faster cops try to shoot me
They'll get theirs when they try to get me
I'll let go, my turbo
Run, I'm in the river cause they're movin' too slow
Laughin' hard at their attempt
So what if the judge charged me contempt
I'd rub my boomerang, feelin' proud
And I wouldn't even hear them cause my radio's loud

Cruisin' down the boulevard
treated like a superstar
You know the time so don't look hard
Get with it, the ultimate homeboy car
All you suckers in the other ride
When I'm comin' get to the side
My 98 is tough to chase
If you're on my tail, better watch my face
Smoke is comin' when I burn
Rubber when my wheels turn
Tinted windows, super bad
Lookin' like the car the Green Hornet had
It's the reason I'm ahead of the pack
It's the reason I left them back
It's the reason all the people say
My 98-O blows 'em all away
Understand, I don't drive drunk
My 98's fly, I don't drive no junk
No cop gotta a right to call me a punk
Take his ticket, go to hell and stick it
Pull me on a kick but, line up, times up
This government needs a tune up
I don't even know what happenin', what's up
Gun in my chest, I'm under arrest
Sidewalk suckered wanted to spill me
So I got my crew and posse
Step outside, got in my ride
Drove them around, looked around town
Caught I'm out there cold, ran I'm over and down
They didn't get me, that's the truth
Cause my 98-O is bullet proof

sjz's comments here deserve more attention. They are informed, insightful and fair. They contain an honest view of Bill Dixon and offer a balanced way to understand him and his music. He should write a book.

Kofsky was a really great guy, he used to come out to the Glenn Spearmann and Marco Eneidi Gigs, Sometimes I would be playing bass for them.
He was always really into the music.

I bet he was Damon. While I like certain musicians he doesnt etc. I have seen him go after some pretty severe bullshit put forward in the 1970s by folks like Virgil Thompson about Ornette Coleman, as one example. I respect that urge to fight sloppiness, I value it more and more.
Morris, I agree with you on SJZ's comments. Could you expand on what elements in those comments would be most relevant for a book, most likely but not necessarily a Dixon study? I look forward to your perspective.

Marc, here’;s the problem with the idea of “setting the record straight” – it comes out of the resentment of thinking that everyone else is wrong. Maybe you agree with them on some things, but the fact that you disagree with them about anything ultimately means that they need to be “set straight.”
Joe does want the record to be set straight, but he isn’t going to write a book that does it; he’s just going to mouth off on websites against anyone who isn’t “straight” in his eyes. And if someone else disagrees confidently that Joe’s version of straight is not really straight, Joe simply cannot handle it. It’s immature.

----------

Even though Marley's misguided attempt to categorise other people's comments is totally inane and Joe has the ability to call it out for its inanity, Joe does the exact same thing moments later by approving sjz's comments, giving him the golden checkmark as it were.

Damon is just kissing Joe's ass (and effectively! congrats! I love seeing the full circle!)

Steve, Thanks. Remember that I was speaking specifically about this thread and about my interactions with Joe, which have been positive. As for ass-kissing, I've never read much by Damon to suggest that he's particularly interested in kissing anybody's ass. The opposite I'd say--bless ya Damon, but it's true!
As for Joe writing a book, do you know he isn't? also, he's playing. He's teaching. He's making lots of records that I've really enjoyed. When others mouth off on this site, versed or not, we don't make them write a book to justify their words.

"Marc, here’;s the problem with the idea of “setting the record straight” – it comes out of the resentment of thinking that everyone else is wrong. Maybe you agree with them on some things, but the fact that you disagree with them about anything ultimately means that they need to be “set straight.”
Joe does want the record to be set straight, but he isn’t going to write a book that does it; he’s just going to mouth off on websites against anyone who isn’t “straight” in his eyes. And if someone else disagrees confidently that Joe’s version of straight is not really straight, Joe simply cannot handle it. It’s immature.

----------

Even though Marley's misguided attempt to categorise other people's comments is totally inane and Joe has the ability to call it out for its inanity, Joe does the exact same thing moments later by approving sjz's comments, giving him the golden checkmark as it were.

Damon is just kissing Joe's ass (and effectively! congrats! I love seeing the full circle!)

Posted by: steve barberry at October 12, 2006 10:29 AM"

- I don't see it so negatively. Like Joe I am not going to write a book and I am also going to "mouth off on websites". Like Joe my primary aim is playing my instrument and the music, that takes time. I have time for mouthing off, practicing and playing, I can't sqeeze writing a book in there.
However, we have both had first hand experience with a lot of the musicians and have studied the history extensivly.
You can go ahead call it ass kissing if you want, I call it respect.
He earned my respect at every turn with his playing and Knowlege of the music.

No one wants to address his original points, just the delivery and tone.

When did I "set the record straight"? Or attempt to? Or suggest anyone else do that? About What? Why does what I say scare you so much?

Watch your mouth when to talk about me Pal.

I am a wallaby in a sea of good cell-phone reception.

(quick marley - is this vacuous, stupid, irrelevant, obscure or just representative of the refracted communication that passes for such here)

Anyway Steve thanks for the instant analysis of my personality and motives. You're not the first to do it here but you are the latest.

I'm impressed that you think I have so much power that my checkmarks (as you call them) are golden. I never knew I was such a force. I am just putting out my ideas Man. It's amazing how they ruffle so many feathers. Absolutely amazing. People are insulted who aren't even in the conversation.

Some of these comments are jokes Steve. Jokes. Laugh along with me.

Steve Barberry: "I am a wallaby in a sea of good cell-phone reception."

I'll take your word for it, Steve.

geez- this place is becoming a rough neighborhood- i have strapped on my iron jockstrap before reading the posts here the last few days-

The only person in the last 24 hours who's made any sense in this thread was Dan. So much so, that I run out at lunch today to fetch my casette copy of "Yo! Bum Rush the Show".

i have strapped on my iron jockstrap before reading the posts here the last few days-

Confucius say: No need for an iron jock if you first take off the jackboots you’re kicking with.

Let's put this dead horse to rest, what say ye?

I have merely been reading the posts here- I assume Derek is not referring to me when he mentions 'the jackboots you're kicking with"--i aint been kicking noone, nor do i intend to start.it never fails to amaze me how often misunderstandings occur in this medium of communication

Hmm, “merely been reading”? Methinks not. Your signature sardonicism is well-represented above and on another recent thread. :) Anyway, let’s get past all that & move on to more interesting matters… please?

Joe nothing you say scares anyone.
We all recognize it for the good comedy it is.
I for one have been laughing with/ at you.
Why don't you laugh with us?
(I really enjoy the empty threat though! why not try kicking it up a notch?!?)

And on that hopeful, happy & humanitarian note, I hereby close this thread & commit its suppurating corpus to Davy Jones' Locker.