I haven't spun my LPs of these in years... the last time I listened to Kontakte, I was struck by how hokey some of the juxtapositions sounded, and how forced some of the music seemed. But maybe that was with ears expecting to dislike the music.

Strangely, I've never had this problem with the Seven Days music, which, though similarly lorded-over, is still fresh and immediate in its clash of composerly/improvisational wills.

Couldn't disagree more. I think the Aus Dem Sieben Tagen box has dated quite noticeably - it's clearly a document, a precious one at that, of late 60s improv by classically-trained (as opposed to coming from free jazz) Europeans - compare MEV, Gruppo - whereas Kontakte is through-composed and there's no room for improvisation. If it sounds hokey to you it's probably because a) it spawned hundreds of second-rate imitations and b) you haven't heard enough electronic music. Kontakte is the real deal. Idem Gesang der Junglinge, Hymnen, Telemusik.

I agree with Dan W. I remember having bought one of the Harmonia Mundi of the Sieben tage at 99 bef in the bargain lp's dins 32 years ago. I think that the all Michel Portal crew importance in improvised music is/was mainly a Parisian buzz-trendy fashion. Although it doesn't detract of Michel's musicianship and Stockhausen ' incomparable composing skills, I understand very well why these french then-wannabe radical improvisors teamed up with Stockhausen. Don't forget that this Paris milieu is the same who created the Dernier Tango Soundtrack syndrome at the same time period with Gato Barbieri. Gato Barbieri's notoriety came out of his work in France with Jenny Clark , Aldo Romano and Don Cherry.
Some of Stockhausen's works (for improvisors) are simply poems. Ask Eddie Prevost or the late Hugh Davies what they think about . Nobody around Derek Bailey, Evan Parker , Hugh Davies,Phil Wachsmann, Eddie Prévost, Cornelius Cardew, Fred Van Hove and so would have accepted to work with the Master in such projects "towards improvisation" with him manipulating the mixing board and putting his name on it. Because of the ethic of the stuff. About the two origins of the early free improvisors , post acandemic or post free jazz, the distinction works not very well. Because many of them are in both camps or they have worked scores , concepts and investigated what the post academics and these composers were doing at that time. Charlie Parker didn't need to learn so much harmony like a Berklee school student (and Django Reinhardt couldn't read nor write music), because he was immensely gifted. The same with Braxton , Evan Parker, Derek Bailey and Fred Van Hove. They didn't need much tuition in music high schools.
They know much about the composing music world but I accuse most of these "great composers" to ignore them and to avoid trying to listen to them during decades. These free music masters are friendly people , most of these blokes's behaviour were like in a ivory tower. They appreciated "jazz soloists" as they were their servants.
Saying this, Kontakte, Mixtur are amongst the very best departure to create new worlds and this more than thirty / forty years ago. That is very interesting like Berio's works for instrumentalists or Xenakis way of creating scores for specific players and many other stuff. Hugh !

Stockhausen's output from 1956 - 1969 is pretty hard to match in terms of rigor, range, and expressivity. This is especially true of his pure electronic music, which is all the more amazing when you consider the stone-age equipment he (and his largely-uncredited assisants) used to create it.

I cherished the Aus Den Sieben Tagen stuff when I was young but I have to agree totally with Dan; now it sounds stuck in its time-period. What improvisors do today transcends and includes ADST, going well beyond it. I have the box set of CDs but never listen to it. I do go back to the electronic works, though. Kontakte is my favorite.

I like early Stockhausen a lot, but "Kontakte" isn't among my faves. Not exactly sure why--I guess I just think there was other stuff people were writing around the same time that was better. I think he was still getting his thoughts together at that time. Kind of a student work. But the early electronic stuff sounding like nothing else...

"I guess I just think there was other stuff people were writing around the same time that was better."
Really? I'd like to know what - offhand I can't think of any piece done between 1958 and 1960 anywhere as ambitious in scope or impressive as Kontakte, myself. So what are you thinking of? Berio's Omaggio a Joyce? (1958) Koenig's Essay (1957)? Maderna's Syntaxis (1957, as I recall)? Xenakis hadn't really got started in electronic music at that stage - Concret PH (1958) Orient Occident(1960)are fine but not on the same scale as the Stockhausen. Luc Ferrari had only just started with electronics - Visages V isn't bad - so had Kagel (Transicion 1, 1960) and Nono (Omaggio a Emilio Vedova, 1960), who didn't hit his stride in electronics until the mid 60s.
So that leaves who? Pierre Henry (imho, nothing great before Le Voyage, 1962)?
Do tell, Walt.

Stockhausen is a bit like Dylan or Ornette, the fact that virtually all of their work from the past 3-4 decades doesn't measure up to their early classics shouldn't take away from how incredible that groundbreaking work was (or conversely, how incredible their early groundbreaking work doesn't really give them a full pass for decades of later, subpar work, although I know I'm in the minority on this).

that being said, I'll only fully stand up for Telemusik and Hymnen myself. those two alone put him ahead of almost every other classical electroacoustic composer in my book, though.

My own favourite is Telemusik, but I was totally blown away a few years ago when I finally got to hear Gesang der Junglinge in full quad glory over a state-of-the-art speaker system in IRCAM. No stereo recording has ever done it justice. Anybody know if there's a quad recording available from the Verlag (he asked, too lazy to go find out for himself)?

I don't know. I guess I was thinking of Varese, Maderna, Xenakis, and Hiller. I don't care for the Luening or Ussachevsky that I've heard.

BTW, I too love 'Gesang Der Junglinge.' I think it's one of the masterpieces of its era.

Ah, yes the Poème Electronique's 58. But it's a bit nostalgic compared to Kontakte, wouldn't you say? All those gloomy cathedral bells..
Luening and Ussa are pretty primitive in comparison, imo. Haven't heard that Maderna piece for ages, but, as I said above, IX's best electronic pieces were still a few years away at the time (that said, Orient Occident kicks butt).
Heard Bouzel's Poésie pour Pouvoir, Walt? A bit dusty, the recording of it that I have, and certainly not on a par with the above, but a fascinating example of "the path not taken"..
(ps the Bouzel typo is deliberate - that's what George Benjamin used to call him)

Heard Bouzel's Poésie pour Pouvoir, Walt?

I'm not sure, but I don't think so. I'll rummage around the LPs tonight and see if it's collected on something.

Hmmmmmm, he said. Not sure if I'm convinced by any of all this ... Stockhausen, even at his best, always struck me as a little too pre-meditated.

"I'll rummage around the LPs tonight and see if it's collected on something."

To the best of my knowledge, it's only on that Col Legno CD (with Polyphonie X and other archive recordings)
http://www.cdmail.fr/gb/affich_fich.asp?refcdm=CDM174716

"Stockhausen, even at his best, always struck me as a little too pre-meditated."

Pre-meditated?? Well of course he's bloody pre-meditated, he's a composer! I don't get your drift, Graham. Name me a composer who isn't.

I find that the music Stockhausen made once he started meditating is the stuff I like least. His pre-meditated music, therefore, is the best.
It's simple logic.

Haha, pre-meditated vs pre-meditation.. nice one, Tom :)

Very good, djll!

Tut tut, Dan. You're a musician, you should know better.

A good composer is one who creates makes music which erases the listener's sense of listening to a composer.

... and if I may extend the thought, (since I've unwittingly become rather notorious around here for loathing movies ... are you reading, Derek?!), the same applies to actors.

A competent actor is one who leaves you with no knowledge whatsoever as to his own persona. So the DeNiros and Streeps are by the same token perfectly inept, and thus perfectly forgettable.

Graham,

I think your thoughts are valid as far as they go, but remaining just within your criteria for what constitutes "good" is extremely limiting. Sometimes it's fun (and valid) to be in the presence of an actor or musician or director or painting who's shouting, "ME! ME! ME!" Sometimes it's about the show being a Show. Sometimes I'd rather take Fellini over Bergman, Bennink over Bailey.

Let me ask you this: Do either of the following "types" fall completely inside, or outside, of your goodness fences?
- The struggling-with-the-gods improvisor, sweating, screaming, working like a dog to mine those nuggets of inspiration
- The ultra-relaxed, immobile, non-sweaty-brow-reality improvisor who seems to make little or no effort to amaze and delight the listener

Djlletante:

Thank you. Fine question!

If you'll pardon my immodesty, I wrote the answer in my liner notes to Barry Guy's "Ithaca" CD.

"Improvisers have no place to hide - in a minute they reveal to the experienced ear what they do or do not know".

If the listener knows, then the answer is self-evident, no?

There's no way I can bring myself to agree with such cavalier dismissals (after cinema, Rogers takes on the theatre), and I disagree with you what you say about composers (curious to find out who you consider to be a "good" composer), but you sound so sure of yourself it'd be a waste of time trying to argue.

Just one man's opinion, Dan. We all have one. Feel free to toss mine into the garbage if you think appropriate!

Who do I think a "good" composer? See above.

No, I think these are serious questions here - as a composer myself (I still like to think of myself as one anyway, and I'm returning to composition with a vengeance now I've scaled down my activities with PT), they're questions that bother me enormously. I certainly don't agree with the idea of "erasing the listener's sense of listening to a composition" - it seems clear to me that listeners with some experience of new music are rather good at being able to spot if a piece is composed or improvised (though now of course, the boundary line between the two is getting ever more difficult to detect): my own recent work uses raw material sourced from improvisation and field recording and restructures it into something that (I hope) sounds more composed.. the idea being that I can keep the freshness and spontaneity of interaction between real musicians (there's no way traditional musical notation can come close on a rhythmic level to the kind of split second precicision one hears in the work of improvisers) and subsume it into a larger structure which is closer to models of "traditional" composition. If the job is done properly you should get "the best of both worlds".
I guess one of the things I about your post above that raised my hackles somewhat was - correct me if I'm wrong - a hint of the old Evan Parker line "improv's great composition isn't" (see his comments in the Bailey book).

I’m not touching that composition versus improvisation polemic with a ten-foot pole, but does EP still/truly subscribe to that way of thinking?

Graham, your artistic tastes have always struck me as sort of monastic: You know what you like & the rest be damned. So, your comments don’t surprise me. You mentioned DeNiro and Streep as examples of what I’d call transparent actors, meaning their own personas are easily visible beneath the characters they create/interpret. I think this is true of their later work, but mainly because of juxtapositions to the strength of their early work & the size of their current celebrity. The longer you’re in the acting game the harder it is to avoid/resist self-parody. See Christopher Walken for the epitome of this phenomena w/ Al Pacino sitting a close second. People like James Dean and River Phoenix are perceived as great partly because they didn’t stick around long enough to screw things up & partly because of perceived promise unfulfilled. Same is often true in the music world, IMO. Jimi Hendrix gets a pass; Carlos Santana gets the lash.

I like Streep.

"Same is often true in the music world, IMO. Jimi Hendrix gets a pass; Carlos Santana gets the lash."

true in general, but an awful example, as Hendrix was a far deeper musician/composer/conceptualist in his brief time here than Santana ever has been, and he should get a "pass" based simply on what he did manage to accomplish: the last great bluesman. maybe if Clapton had died in 1971, he'd be a better example.

Good points, all. Where do you put Bette Davis and Brando, Graham?
From Stockhausen to Santana.. great train of thought.
One funny tale; am writing liners for the forthcoming Earl Howard on New World (as Jon knows), and was Googling around for "Clepton" (the name of the piece), and came across a whole slew of Italian (I think) websites dedicated to the work of that great guitarist Erik Clepton
hahaha

Since when have I ever come up with anything other than an “awful” example in your estimation, Jon. ;)

A dead in ’71 Clapton might be a better example in fantasy land, but I’m talking reality. I’m maybe as big a Hendrix fan as they come, but think you sell Santana waaaay too short. Then again, and to put the shoe on the other foot, when do I not think you’re guilty of selling people short? :) Santana’s early stuff is musically, composerly and conceptually sound. Is it on par with Hendrix? I’d say “no way”, but it’s still damn fine work, though often as much for his own input as those of other members of the band(s). His later material, I’d agree, is a different story. And Hendrix as the “last great bluesman”, c’mon! There are plenty of others, even decades after his passing, that could potentially hold up to the rigors of that title, if someone were dumb enough to ascribe it. But the blues is another “dead” language, right? Aramaic to eai’s modern English. Okay, I'll cease with the potshots.

"Is it on par with Hendrix? I’d say “no way” "

precisely. the rest of your post can be ignored, irrelevant potshots and all.

That's your perogative & I think it proves my points well.

Don't let the door hit you on your way back to IHM.

you made a shitty point, I pointed it out, you agreed with the gist of my comment, everything else is extraneous and personal. enjoy your Bruce Hornsby collection.

and the word you're looking for is "prerogative". wasn't that one included in your special Thesaurus for Hacks with Lousy Taste?

How's that for an autocratic assessment? I forgot to recommend sampling a slice of our fresh-baked humble pie prior to your exit. Then again, maybe you should help yourself to several (pies that is).

Here comes Abbey playing the 'my taste is better than yours' game. Why use these forums to reveal your insecurities? I know your taste in music is so refined, I know you know the best pieces from every artist and which albums are the important ones. You listen to all of the artists that are the only relevant ones and we all must hear it all the time. I believe you know all of this but I don't believe you really like music. It is just fashion to you. Not that it makes your passion any less valid with yourself but why do you think all of us give a shit about what you say? Is it just for the sake of argument or is do you think that all of this equates with your name being up in lights?

my only point was that equating Hendrix and Santana is silly, like equating Hank Williams and Ernest Tubb, Bob Marley and Alton Ellis, John Coltrane and Charles Lloyd. Derek agreed with this, he just didn't want to hear it from me, very simple.

thanks for the analysis, though, it's always nice to read you ripping me every few months.

Silly is one adjective you could use to describe your 'points' but that isn't what I am talking about. However the name dropping is a little closer.

Thank you Dan, for nailing Graham up there, before the poison-darts game started up. He still hasn't answered either of us, though. He seems not to recognize that the 'composers who play' (improvisors) are performers, also. Not unlike the actors he brings up...

I just want to take a minute to point out that Jon's sometimes hardline attitudes and tastes actually produce a formidible body of work. I think it should be taken into account.
I've had several incredible listening experiences from the erstcatalog just this week.

I'll second the vote for "Hymen", I heard it "live" last year or earlier this year at the SF tape music festival through 8 loud speakers.
It was incredible.

I’m happy to hear things from you, Jon. Just not when they’re wrapped in a cellophane of contempt & animosity. It’s difficult for me to fathom why everything has to be so antagonistic with you. My initial potshots above were meant with measures of jest- hence the wink & smile. Once again, though, a healthy discussion gets curtailed by meta-fisticuffs.

The point I agreed with you on is that Jimi and Carlos aren’t musically on par, but that’s a condition of shades of gray, not absolutes. At no point was I trying to EQUATE the two in terms of musical prowess/depth. Not being on par with Hendrix in these areas is hardly a slam & as I noted above, I think Carlos has come up with plenty of great music since the start of his career. Who IS on par with Hendrix? I don’t know if that’s a question I can answer. Ultimately, whether they’re “on par” or not doesn’t diminish the original point I was trying to make, which I gather you grasped. Longevity in the game often leads to diminishing returns & a tendency toward self parody. You were quick to ascribe the tags of ignorable and “irrelevant” to everything that I wrote outside of what jibed with your opinion. The imagined mantle of “Last Great Bluesman” struck me as similarly irrelevant. Anyway, I’ll put down the cudgel and give the horse carcass a rest.

One of the really important things to me about Hendrix, as recently noted elsewhere, was his willingnss to actively make mistakes. The Dagger Records releases documenting his studio experimentations are full of them. What’s so rewarding is how they open up new avenues of investigation. Even when he’s indulging in what at first blush feels like a basic by-the-numbers blues jam there’s all kinds of instant-composing going on. I think Carlos harbored a similar improvisatory spirit early on.

“Jon's sometimes hardline attitudes and tastes actually produce a formidible body of work. I think it should be taken into account.”

Taken into account how in this particular case? As justification for a free pass to be a jerk? Miles could often be an asshole too. An equally strong argument for why it’s sometimes necessary to divorce opinions of the music from opinions of the man.

GW

I don't get how I'm the jerk here, I made a post about music and solely about music. Derek took it personally, and on and on we go, where the meta-discussion stops, nobody knows. I have been trying to post a lot less here lately and I'll go back to that, no problem.

Do what you need to do, Jon. As I wrote above it's not the content of your original post, but the wrapping it came in that I took "personally". That, and the hostile trappings surrounding your misinterpretation of my own point. Do you honestly not get my points here?

it didn't come in any "wrapping", it was opinions about music. I usually present them bluntly and straightforwardly, but that's all they are.

I understand, but it's hard to engage in a meaningful dialogue with someone when there isn't a modicum of mutual respect.

Abbey, your comment about Hornsby, the repetitive thesaurus and hack jabs you toss at Derek and your fucking tone that rings condescension and know-it-all attitude are just a few of my favorite things. You are surprised he took something personal? I don't know what that could be! Try and take a risk of your own and publish something with a little weight besides other people's work. You sure aren't suffering for lack of word so take a week off from the boards and put something together. Your endless over-participating on forums just reeks of self and label promotion to me and it frustrates me to see someone compare you to Miles, who was a real artist when you just run a label (and your mouth). A good example of your nothingness is when you make a header on a post on IHM and say 'go at it.' You take an attitude towards others but when they go at you you play innocent. I was just stating my opinion, man. But, really, you said it all yourself with, "I have been trying to post a lot less here lately." I can see you trying hard behind that monitor of yours afflicted with some compulsive disorder so I know I should just let it all bounce off me but "every few months" of reading your tripe I can't take it anymore. And, I know I am not alone. So, yes, take your own advice.

"Try and take a risk of your own and publish something with a little weight besides other people's work."

I'll ignore the part where you don't grasp my input into Erstwhile releases, and let you know that I have a 1600 word piece in the out-any-day issue of Signal To Noise on the weekend in Houston I attended at the start of June, with Loren Connors and Keith Rowe playing solo sets in the Rothko Chapel and Sachiko M/Sean Meehan playing in the midst of a Dan Flavin installation.

I will say that I don't see much inherently "risky" about music criticism, though, sorry. the risk, when there is risk, is generally in the art itself, not the analysis of it.

so, just curious, my belligerent friend Ted, what have you contributed to the world?

Jon, was it the the big installation in big carrige barn type building? Seeing that really made me get Flavin I have been a huge fan ever since.
I was just in LA to see the big retrospective. Obviously, for me seeing the Twombly gallery was huge.

Ted, my point about Jon is that he is spiky and opinonated but I see that directly related to extremely high quality of his productions, nearly one to one.
You can't really produce work like that and not feel strongly about music.
I admit I am just a bit worried about "Erstpop", but he has my full trust that whatever project he works on is worth hearing and is often amazing.
There is that phrase "put up or shut up", Jon puts up. End of story.

Look for the bare necessities
The simple bare necessities
Forget about your worries and your strife
I mean the bare necessities
Old Mother Nature's recipes
That brings the bare necessities of life

Wherever I wander, wherever I roam
I couldn't be fonder of my big home
The bees are buzzin' in the tree
To make some honey just for me
When you look under the rocks and plants
And take a glance at the fancy ants
Then maybe try a few

The bare necessities of life will come to you
They'll come to you!

Look for the bare necessities
The simple bare necessities
Forget about your worries and your strife
I mean the bare necessities
That's why a bear can rest at ease
With just the bare necessities of life

Now when you pick a pawpaw
Or a prickly pear
And you prick a raw paw
Next time beware
Don't pick the prickly pear by the paw
When you pick a pear
Try to use the claw
But you don't need to use the claw
When you pick a pear of the big pawpaw
Have I given you a clue ?

The bare necessities of life will come to you
They'll come to you!

So just try and relax, yeah cool it
Fall apart in my backyard
'Cause let me tell you something little britches
If you act like that bee acts, uh uh
You're working too hard

And don't spend your time lookin' around
For something you want that can't be found
When you find out you can live without it
And go along not thinkin' about it
I'll tell you something true

The bare necessities of life will come to you

"Jon, was it the the big installation in big carrige barn type building? Seeing that really made me get Flavin I have been a huge fan ever since."

yep, Sean and Sachiko set up facing each other about 60 feet apart.

"I admit I am just a bit worried about "Erstpop""

yeah, it's certainly not going to appeal to everyone, but I don't really care. I love this Magic I.D. record, I've been playing it obsessively again this week finishing it up. if it helps, there aren't going to be many releases on this sublabel, less than one a year, I'd think.

anyway, more Stockhausen, less personalities. if I had any idea that a simple comment about Hendrix and Santana would blow up like this, I would have just let it go.

That's why you felt you had to reply six more times.. Since when can you ever let anything go? And WHAT is this comment about Erstpop doing here? You're juggling your message boards there, Jon?! Simultaneously talking about yourself in six different places? C'mon, it must be way past midnight where you are, unplug the computer, get yourself a beer, watch a little teevee, check out a movie or a basketball game, take the wife out for a cocktail, but lighten the fuck up for Chrissakes..
(I BET you can't resist raplying to this either..)
More Stockhausen, less [sic] personalities, indeed.
xx Baloo

"Since when can you ever let anything go?"

pot, meet kettle.

Good call! Haha, that's why we're so much good value for money Jon. See you over at the other place later, maybe

Re your Evan Parker quote, Dan, on one of his PSI CD's (I forget which) EP also writes, " ... and as we all know, improvisation is just another form of composition" - or words very closely to that effect.

“pot, meet kettle.”

So this observation absolves you from culpability? I’ve lurked at Bags for quite awhile and have observed that, yes, Dan can be a shameless self-promoter with his posts here, dropping links to Paris Transatlantic like so many breadcrumbs. But the difference is he does it without denigrating other people or their opinions. There’s a big disparity between disagreement and denigration. It goes back to the respect that Derek mentioned above. I often get the feeling from your posts that you really don’t respect the people you’re interacting with. It makes for conversations doomed to degenerate into shouting matches and misunderstandings.

Also, you mentioned that you don’t think music criticism is a risky activity. What risks are there in what you do with Erstwhile, besides the obvious financial ones? I’m asking this seriously and out of curiosity. If it’s reputation, I’d argue that the reviewers here and elsewhere take similar risks by publishing their work and leaving it open for active comment. If they get things wrong or state their opinions poorly, their credibility suffers and the work they’re commenting on is ill-served.

You often seem to me to be the Orrin Keepnews of eai. Someone who has an undeniably important role in shaping/promoting the music, but also an inflated estimation of his own persona. It’d be great if you could take a jackhammer to that boulder-sized chip of hubris on your shoulder, it’s got to weigh several tons and be a pain to carry around. Give your poor physique a rest. I generally enjoy and appreciate your insights into the music, I just wish they didn’t come with the baggage.

GW

“pot, meet kettle.”

So this observation absolves you from culpability? I’ve lurked at Bags for quite awhile and have observed that, yes, Dan can be a shameless self-promoter with his posts here, dropping links to Paris Transatlantic like so many breadcrumbs. But the difference is he does it without denigrating other people or their opinions. There’s a big disparity between disagreement and denigration. It goes back to the respect that Derek mentioned above. I often get the feeling from your posts that you really don’t respect the people you’re interacting with. It makes for conversations doomed to degenerate into shouting matches and misunderstandings.

Also, you mentioned that you don’t think music criticism is a risky activity. What risks are there in what you do with Erstwhile, besides the obvious financial ones? I’m asking this seriously and out of curiosity. If it’s reputation, I’d argue that the reviewers here and elsewhere take similar risks by publishing their work and leaving it open for active comment. If they get things wrong or state their opinions poorly, their credibility suffers and the work they’re commenting on is ill-served.

You often seem to me to be the Orrin Keepnews of eai. Someone who has an undeniably important role in shaping/promoting the music, but also an inflated estimation of his own persona. It’d be great if you could take a jackhammer to that boulder-sized chip of hubris on your shoulder, it’s got to weigh several tons and be a pain to carry around. Give your poor physique a rest. I generally enjoy and appreciate your insights into the music, I just wish they didn’t come with the baggage.

GW

More Record of the Week posts from Marc, please. He has a knack for picking doozies.

Gene, you want my answer on that, feel free to e-mail me. I'm not playing "Defending Your Life" here simply because I thought that Derek's initial Hendrix/Santana statement was silly.

Fair enough, but I’d call it “Clarifying Your Perspective” not “Defending Your Life”. The latter smacks more than a little of melodrama. And as far as Derek’s comment being silly. “Silly” is a far more innocuous & friendly descriptor than “Hack with Lousy Taste”, bwtfdik?

How does one reach you anyway?

yeah, I got personal after he got personal. my e-mail is easy to find on the Erstwhile site, jon@erstwhilerecords.com will work.

Thanks, I'll try dropping you a line.

Regarding the whole personal thing, from the exchange I read above it doesn't appear that he meant any offense with his initial comments. But I could be mistaken.

“Jon's sometimes hard-line attitudes and tastes actually produce a formidable body of
work. I think it should be taken into account.”

no his networking ability and stockmarket money help other people produce work.
listening and editing is not the same as actually creating the source material. I hate how he,
and now other people starting labels up call all the albums on their labels their works. I
mean an editing opinion and ideas for combinations of players are nice input, but hardly
the same as being the actual artist making the substance. That is the hubris I find irritating,
the comments towards others on sites really who cares. I just find a vast miscalculation of
his own indispensability to the quality of the records put out. And when inevitably he says
his taste are what makes erstwhile so much more consistent than other labels it is hard to
argue when he doesn’t see that as a subjective view, since if you do not share those tastes
you will find the consistency rate much less. Also I wonder how much all this is inflated by
musicians who like to be flattered so flatter in return, and also have a very material reason
to flatter the producers ego.

also hendrix and santana suck equally hard. but streep rules and was hot as can be
especially in silkwood days.

FWIW, I don't just run Erstwhile, I've also curated two series of international festivals (often massive money-losing propositions) and I run ErstDist which is the sole US distributor for many worldwide labels.

it's easy to take shots from the sidelines, much much harder to contribute something of value yourself. as Keith Rowe likes to say, in the end, the work is what matters, and that's what should be judged.

Bingo! Thanks for trying to be a voice of reason & reconciliation here, Gene.

Jon, as I wrote somewhere above in this increasingly jumbled meta mess. I did not mean my initial comments as personal (hence the wink and smile that followed them). Though it does look like I forgot to include one after my “Last Great Bluesman” statement. My bad. I’d like to respect your opinions, but it’s difficult when they’re routinely communicated with such a blunt instrument & w/o what I perceive as reciprocity.

One thing’s for sure, “suckiness” seems to be as subjective a spectrum as they come.

actually, the one that got me going was "Don't let the door hit you on your way back to IHM.", my insults followed that.

can we lock this thread now? I get it, I'm not wanted here and I'll really do my best to stay away in the future. like I said above, I have been trying to do that for a while (and have asked writers not to review Ersts here for the last few years, since it always degenerates into this kind of silliness, largely because of the commenting system where anyone can say anything they want under a pseudonym). I thought that a short comment on Hendrix and Santana could be separated from my EAI persona. clearly, I was wrong.

"can we lock this thread now? "

Common Jon, so nobody is alowed to express their opinion about Stockhausen anymore? Just for your convenience?

I know you're very passionate about your releases, and that is a good (great!) thing, but after releasing it you have to let go, and cannot ask anybody NOT to review a erstwhile realease..... Djeesj...

and about Hendrix versus Santana. I think Hendrix is way overrated in general. I'd take Santana for sure, he takes risx, Hendrix doesn't.... So, there you go.

Cor

“Jon's sometimes hard-line attitudes and tastes actually produce a formidable body of
work. I think it should be taken into account.”

no his networking ability and stockmarket money help other people produce work.
listening and editing is not the same as actually creating the source material. I hate how he,
and now other people starting labels up call all the albums on their labels their works. I
mean an editing opinion and ideas for combinations of players are nice input, but hardly
the same as being the actual artist making the substance. That is the hubris I find irritating,
the comments towards others on sites really who cares. I just find a vast miscalculation of
his own indispensability to the quality of the records put out. And when inevitably he says
his taste are what makes erstwhile so much more consistent than other labels it is hard to
argue when he doesn’t see that as a subjective view, since if you do not share those tastes
you will find the consistency rate much less. Also I wonder how much all this is inflated by
musicians who like to be flattered so flatter in return, and also have a very material reason
to flatter the producers ego.

also hendrix and santana suck equally hard. but streep rules and was hot as can be
especially in silkwood days."

I am the one who called it his work, although I am sure he sees it that way. Yes, the musicians are important, but the attention to detail, and deciding who and when to put together and what to put out can be huge. I think people like Jon, Russel Summers, Werner X. Uhlinger, Martin Davidson and even Manfred Eicher and many other great producers are every bit as important to the development of the music as the musicians.
The only one of those guys I have worked with is Russ Summers from Nuscope, and the project came out in a hugely different way (positive) than if left up to the musicians.
I give these guys the same respect as a virtuoso instrumentalist.
Putting money into the music is no light affair either, a person willing to sink their own money into the music is far more rare that great artists in this music.

If Keith Rowe or Brötzmann got on here and were a little grumpy I think they would be treated differently. So my role in the discussion is just asking for a little respect for Jon and his work.

Calling Dan a shameless self-promoter is a a little lame as well.
When a musician puts aside his own career to write about others and publishes a website he likely pays for that is hardly selfish.
Seeing how it has the similar content it is only natural to post links here.
The same goes for Derek and the other Bags contributors.

I have learned a lot about internet flame wars, and ended up hating a great player for many years, only to realize he had some mental and social issues, like a lot of us nerds who like to discuss marginal music on the internet.

As far as Hedrix and Santana, I have enjoyed Santana more, the record with Alice Coltrane is pretty good, and his song is perfect in the Big Lebowski, clearly Hendrix was great but he is not worth the decades of terrible guitarists that can't get over him, not even for a second!

(Speaking of Jon's work, Avva just arrived in the mail, I am going to pop it in now!)

"Hendrix doesn't" take risk??? What planet you from, boy?

"Hendrix doesn't" take risk??? What planet you from, boy?

planet Cor Fuhler:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/fuhler

and what about you, mr, boy, girl, ms, grandpa , ant, aunte..... "Djlletante".............

anyway, the only reason I responded to Jon is because I respect him, and antisipate an answer I have to think about (and might be embarrassed about, uncovered etc), otherwise I wouldn't bother.....

Cor

Hendrix doesn't take risks ... he is dead.
Hendrix hasn't taken any risks in over 30 years - that he has been dead.
One can only speculate whether he would have taken musical risks in that time period, had he lived.
I believe this is part of Derek's point.

"Hendrix doesn't take risks ... he is dead.
Hendrix hasn't taken any risks in over 30 years - that he has been dead.
One can only speculate whether he would have taken musical risks in that time period, had he lived.
I believe this is part of Derek's point."

dear Sarah
these are not the risks we're talking about really, Derek made a (IMO) very good point by comparing Hendrix to Santana, related to their lifespan"
So, if you comment, mabye reaed the tread first....

People like James Dean and River Phoenix are perceived as great partly because they didn’t stick around long enough to screw things up & partly because of perceived promise unfulfilled. Same is often true in the music world, IMO. Jimi Hendrix gets a pass; Carlos Santana gets the lash.

- um, I believe I was reiterating the above. Taking risks = the possibility that one could "screw things up," whether in terms of quality of work or perceived identity.

Jon:

Since I find you here, (if you're still here!), I just wanted to say thank you for Rowe's "The Room". I won't ask you the obvious question (Why was it so short?!) because you've probably answered it a thousand times elsewhere. But my own simple solution to the question was to make my own CDR of it, on which the original CD plays twice in a Rowe. So at 78 minutes, I found it twice as enjoyable. I hope Keith is not offended.

Graham (not to further hijack this thread, but...), I've never quite understood concerns with the length of a given piece, long or short. "The Room" is 39 minutes long, presumably, because that's what it took for Keith to get where he wanted to go. If it was 9 minutes long or 79, what's the difference as long as it works as a piece? It's kind of like complaining that Vermeer's Lacemaker is too small...

"presumably, because that's what it took for Keith to get where he wanted to go."

Maybe Graham thinks it would be better if it were longer. With your approach, I'm not sure how one could criticize any aspect of any work.

A lot of the best artworks I have seen have been small works on paper, I have had lings I enjoyed far more than long term relationships,
and in my opinon the minutmen were the pinacle of rock music.
I do agree "The Room" is a beautiful release.

Graham can correct me is I took his post the wrong way, but I read it not as saying, "I think this work could have benefited from a lengthier treatment" but more as a complaint that, given the time capabilities of a CD, why wasn't there twice as much music presented. If i misinterpreted that, sorry. But it's a sentiment I run across routinely and always find baffling.

Anyway, no biggie.

Brian: No big thing indeed. I wasn't thinking so much of the possible max. playing time of a CD, ... more along the lines of: I didn't quite feel that Keith had said it all, (given what we've read about the Room itself, Cardew etc. etc). No doubt Keith felt he'd said enough, so no argument from me. Personally I do rather enjoy my twinned version of it. Maybe I just like larger rooms.