Russell Malone mocking avant-garde performance

[Encinitastubes]

I'm against disrespecting other types of music.

One post included a criticism of modern art for focusing on the idea behind the art rather than the craft of the art itself. How about focusing on neither, and just paying attention to the art itself. From a listener's perspective, why is the idea less important than the craft? I've taken my wife to see guitarists who she didn't like, despite my explanation of how hard it was to do what they did or how many hours of practicing it took. Alternatively, I've taken my wife to see guitarists who she did like and she could care less about my explanation of how hard it was to do what they did or how many hours of practicing it took. At least with the idea, you are thinking about the actual story from different perspectives.

How many of us at one time have been bored waiting for something or someone and simply closed our eyes to listen to what is around us. If you pay attention, you can hear incredible rhythms and a stereo spectrum unmatched by the most sophisticated system. There is no craft behind it, but the sounds can be incredibly interesting. I think John Cage was trying to capture the same thing in 4' 33''.

Why are 12 tones and less valid than 7? At one time, the human ear perceived those 7 like we the 12. Now days, we can even sharp or flat some of those 7 and it sound cool. Perhaps our kids will hear the 12 the same way.

Have you seen the video of Russell Malone talking about how Kenny Burrell got mad at him for disrespecting his audience by showing off his craft? Perhaps he should revisit that interview.... or not -- perhaps haters gotta hate.

[MarkRhodes]

sounds like a bloody taliban to me.

O, yes, we all know how much they treasure Michelangelo and Rodin....

[fumblefingers]

As an Art teacher, i always tell my students that when you're creating conceptual art, the art itself needs to be interesting enough that folks want to bother to stick around and find out the concept.

The music Malone is making fun of is unpleasant. But i do find it interesting enough that i wouldn't mind knowing the concept. At least then i could decide whether or not it was successful at conveying it.

As it is, taken out of context, it's not something i would enjoy hearing again.

Malone presented the concept of his rebuttal piece. It was juvenile and spiteful, and i lost a bit of respect for him because of it.

was it as bad as the Metheny KennyG rant?

[fumblefingers]

this is another Malone take on the subject, this example regarding Mary Halvorson

Easy does it: Musicians' quotes: About the 'avant-garde'

[mr. beaumont]

was it as bad as the Metheny KennyG rant?

Yes and no. No, because it was more "making fun of" than spitting straight bile like Pat's "G rant" (which i get, but it's kinda like kicking the fat kid with asthma at the playground in the gut). It was worse because jazz is a fringe music anyway, and here was a guy who's really achieved some success making fun of cats who play for free box of wine at art galleries.

To be fair though, the music was awful sounding. A guy doing a Derek Bailey impression and a vocalist impersonating an orchestral string player with really bad bow technique.

[AlsoRan]

I'm against disrespecting other types of music.


Have you seen the video of Russell Malone talking about how Kenny Burrell got mad at him for disrespecting his audience by showing off his craft? Perhaps he should revisit that interview.... or not -- perhaps haters gotta hate.

My friend, you have got to be a little careful when you quote people. When you go back and listen to that interview the problem was not Russell Malone showing his craft, I believe he said the problem was that it was not in the context of the music. Burrell emphasizes that you have to let the music dictate what you play and not "force" that part of your craft on it.

I take that to mean that they are certain songs that are appropriate for the high-end technicality that Malone displayed, but this was not one of them, in Burrell's estimation.

You may or may not agree with my take. Just my thoughts. We don't want to put words in folk's mouths, do we?

[mr. beaumont]

Hearimg Malone's take on Halvorson makes me think he does know shit from shinola.

Mary's recorded really cool stuff and stuff i think is pretty awful. But when it's good, it's really good.

[Cunamara]

"Think about honking if you love conceptual art" is a bumper sticker on a car I often ride my bike past. Makes me chuckle.

RM is an excellent player. I love listening to him, he can do just about anything in jazz guitar. He's put a lot of time into developing his craft and he seems to have a profound respect for the traditions of the music. Any art form has a tension between those who live within the traditions of the art and those who want to break out of those traditions. RM is in the former camp; Ornette, for example, was in the other camp. It rubbed off on Coltrane, Ayler, maybe Sun Ra, etc., and some of those cats got way more abstract than Ornette. Maybe they can play over changes, maybe they can't. I'm not sure to what extent that matters- if the art they want to express doesn't involve playing over changes, then why learn to play over changes? I'm pretty sure that Muddy Waters couldn't have soloed over "Stella By Starlight," but so what? t wasn't what he wanted to do and he sure as hell could solo over "Hoochie Coochie Man" better than me- and I *can* solo over "Stella."

There is a danger in thinking one expression of an art form is valid and another is not. The validity of an artistic expression is found in the experience of the audience.

I went to college in Winona MN 1977-1981 and then lived there for another five years afterwards. There was a performance artist named Billy X. Curmano in Winona then who did some things in the name of art. He drove around the countryside performing for cows. He had himself buried in the ground for three days (complete with pseudo-Irish wake and funeral, which he attended in coffin). He held a press conference to discuss a purported alien abduction which was attended by some brass from the USAF. Now he's branched out into music and "jazz," from what I see on the Interwebs Is it art? Beats me. Some people find it so. I kinda get it but not completely.

There's Derek Bailey- I just can't listen to him more than a few minutes. And heck, I'm a Deadhead so I feel like I *ought* to get this stuff, but I sometimes don't. Is it invalid as an art form because I don't enjoy it? Of course not. I think that's the point that Malone missed in his comments. He doesn't care for avant garde- nor, for the most part, do I- but that does not make it an invalid form of art. Neither he nor I are the arbiters of the artistic experience of others. If you experience something and it's art to you, whatever that means, then it's art.

[Encinitastubes]

My friend, you have got to be a little careful when you quote people. When you go back and listen to that interview the problem was not Russell Malone showing his craft, I believe he said the problem was that it was not in the context of the music. Burrell emphasizes that you have to let the music dictate what you play and not "force" that part of your craft on it.

I take that to mean that they are certain songs that are appropriate for the high-end technicality that Malone displayed, but this was not one of them, in Burrell's estimation.

You may or may not agree with my take. Just my thoughts. We don't want to put words in folk's mouths, do we?

Thanks AlsoRan. I went back and listened to the interview and I can see your interpretation, but I can also see mine. I heard him say that playing "out" might work in a different context, but he referred to the particular band and the particular audience in saying that you have to play to the context. I think, though, that we both support the point I was trying to make; ultimately, it's the music, not the display of craft it took to play that music. Thanks for replying - caused me to think!

[AlsoRan]

Thanks AlsoRan. I went back and listened to the interview and I can see your interpretation, but I can also see mine. I heard him say that playing "out" might work in a different context, but he referred to the particular band and the particular audience in saying that you have to play to the context. I think, though, that we both support the point I was trying to make; ultimately, it's the music, not the display of craft it took to play that music. Thanks for replying - caused me to think!

No, thank you! For taking my comment in the spirit it was given.

Every so often, I misquote someone and I find that I just had not been listening closely enough. I try to hard to get it right, so I hate it when I err.

But getting back to RM, your point is well taken and I agree.

I was kind of surprised, in these days of political correctness, to hear that Malone has come out against a genre of Jazz so strongly. Obviously, he has strong opinions, and does not mind expressing them (kind of like some of us on this forum, heh, heh).

[Stuart Elliott]

Malone has some interesting comments on a wide variety of jazz guitarists in this 2011 Jazz Times "Before and After" feature.

[princeplanet]

For those who take the other point of view, this short video ("why is modern art so bad?") might prove worth watching.

I urge everyone to at least go to the 2.50 point in this video. It says it all.

[princeplanet]

this is another Malone take on the subject, this example regarding Mary Halvorson

Easy does it: Musicians' quotes: About the 'avant-garde'

Malone vs Holvorson? I can't take sides here, because I'm not particularly moved by either of them...

[dortmundjazzguitar]

O, yes, we all know how much they treasure Michelangelo and Rodin....

look, your video is nothing but a recap of joseph goebbels' (you can google him) stance on "degenerate art". the comparison of several pieces of art reminds eerily of the 1938 exhibition of "entartete kunst" in berlin.

here's the nazi's definition of degenerate art: works, that " (...) destroy or confuse natural form or simply reveal an absence of adequate manual and artistic skill". sounds familiar, doesn't it?

in germany we've already had *two* regimes in the last 100 years, where the ruling dictators ordered what *real* art was and what wasn't. no thanks.

[princeplanet]

look, your video is nothing but a recap of joseph goebbels' (you can google him) stance on "degenerate art". the comparison of several pieces of art reminds eerily of the 1938 exhibition of "entartete kunst" in berlin.

here's the nazi's definition of degenerate art: works, that " (...) destroy or confuse natural form or simply reveal an absence of adequate manual and artistic skill". sounds familiar, doesn't it?

in germany we've already had *two* regimes in the last 100 years, where the ruling dictators ordered what *real* art was and what wasn't. no thanks.

Ah yes, but the days where it was deemed "progressive", "visionary" or even "heroic" to go against the grain in all the Arts, those days are coming to an end. The well needed "reaction" to centuries of conservative art (not all of it was) is now well due for a new reaction to that reaction. It's not a return to conservatism, but a return to the appreciation of highly skilled art, in addition to honest self expression.

Ideologies never last, they're cyclical. The "concept" is no longer enough, especially when it has been demonstrated time and time again that audiences and critics alike cannot tell the difference between an accident and a wilful work of art. It's not just students who mistake a dirty apron for high art.... In my youth I found the work of Cy Twombley exciting, I know find it ridiculous. It's the Avant-Gard that now seems old hat.

[NSJ]

look, your video is nothing but a recap of joseph goebbels' (you can google him) stance on "degenerate art". the comparison of several pieces of art reminds eerily of the 1938 exhibition of "entartete kunst" in berlin.

here's the nazi's definition of degenerate art: works, that " (...) destroy or confuse natural form or simply reveal an absence of adequate manual and artistic skill". sounds familiar, doesn't it?

in germany we've already had *two* regimes in the last 100 years, where the ruling dictators ordered what *real* art was and what wasn't. no thanks.

And you willfully ignored completely the very important point about that "Jackson Pollock" piece.

I agree wholeheartedly with prince planet above. I saw the "Nazi degenerate art "exhibit at the art institute of Chicago in 1990 or 91. It was among the most memorable exhibits I have ever seen, with some brilliant pieces on display.

Modern Art has created some brilliant works. At the same time, a lot of the shenanigans accompanying some of it have revealed themselves to be complete and stupid, lowest common denominator shenanigans and clichés. We have reached the end of The school of " abstract expressionism", "primitivism" and "minimalism". That curtain has been raised, Wizard of Oz style, and the enfeebled and insipidly decrepit old man behind the curtain has certainly worn out his welcome.

[AlsoRan]

For those who take the other point of view, this short video ("why is modern art so bad?") might prove worth watching.

What got me about this video was that at around 5:12, the narrator states that art museums are a business, and if we don't attend these type of exhibits, it will help make this kind of art go away.

I disagree.

The art museums will just petition for more grants and aid from the government, and art such as the so-called "Piss Jesus," will still continue to be on display.

Truly, "we don't all think the same..."

[MarkRhodes]

look, your video is nothing but a recap of joseph goebbels' (you can google him) stance on "degenerate art". the comparison of several pieces of art reminds eerily of the 1938 exhibition of "entartete kunst" in berlin.

here's the nazi's definition of degenerate art: works, that " (...) destroy or confuse natural form or simply reveal an absence of adequate manual and artistic skill". sounds familiar, doesn't it?

in germany we've already had *two* regimes in the last 100 years, where the ruling dictators ordered what *real* art was and what wasn't. no thanks.

Dortmund, we are not all Germans. You may have a deep need to prove you are not a Nazi by attacking anything any Nazi ever advocated but the rest of us are not so afflicted. If you think Goebbels was the first person to prefer 'the old Masters' to modern art, you are deeply uninformed. As the video you deplore makes plain, the original argument was in Paris, not Germany. It has nothing to do with Goebbels or the Nazis. Further, the person in the video advocated nothing more than supporting art one knows is good. There was no censorship, no oppression, nothing like that. Here in the US, we have never had a a dictator, much less on who "ordered what 'real' art was and wasn't."

[MarkRhodes]

What got me about this video was that at around 5:12, the narrator states that art museums are a business, and if we don't attend these type of exhibits, it will help make this kind of art go away.

I disagree.

The art museums will just petition for more grants and aid from the government, and art such as the so-called "Piss Jesus," will still continue to be on display.

Truly, "we don't all think the same..."

I think you're right about this. And certainly, many contemporary works of art draw vast sums at auctions.

[MarkRhodes]

I was reminded of Roger Scruton Why Beauty Matters

Thanks for the link. I've read a fair bit of Scruton's work in philosophy and I am often amazed at how much I sometimes agree and other times disagree with him. Here, I'm much more with him than against him! ;o)

[NSJ]

Here in the US, we have never had a a dictator, much less on who "ordered what 'real' art was and wasn't."

Indeed not. Instead, we had things like "Jacksonian Democracy", and trails overflowing with tears. And you can bet your bottom dollar the NSDAP was truly inspired, marveled at it all and took copious notes " Manifestly", it was their "Destiny" to take copious notes---otherwise, no "lebensraum".

On the subject of modernity in art and music, NPR posited that the rubicon was truly irrevocably crossed in 1913.

Fishko Files: Culture Shock 1913

[destinytot]

Thanks for the link. I've read a fair bit of Scruton's work in philosophy and I am often amazed at how much I sometimes agree and other times disagree with him. Here, I'm much more with him than against him! ;o)

I've read a number of his articles on education, and I approve of much of what he's written (though not all). I think he's right that "Beauty Matters".

Re. the OP, I think Russell Malone is right - but he needn't have said so. Follow the money.

[fumblefingers]

Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Criticism is allowed. Some criticism is unnecessarily vitriolic.

when you play unconventional, even shocking, music, you need to have thick skin. If you don't, then you're either childishly naive or just plain stupid.

It takes effort to play that goofy shit. I think the practitioners know what they're doing, and have a pretty good idea of how most people will react. They're not into pleasing the masses.

[fumblefingers]

Indeed not. Instead, we had things like "Jacksonian Democracy", and trails overflowing with tears. And you can bet your bottom dollar the NSDAP was truly inspired, marveled at it all and took copious notes " Manifestly", it was their "Destiny" to take copious notes---otherwise, no "lebensraum".

On the subject of modernity in art and music, NPR posited that the rubicon was truly irrevocably crossed in 1913.

Fishko Files: Culture Shock 1913

we don't need no stinkin' NPR.

[Toddep]

There is plenty of great music and art. To me, as you delve into the realm of the avant garde, I like to think that there is a grey area or zone in which bullshit starts to pervade. This zone could be a little more to the left or right of the spectrum depending on ones taste, opinions, education of art, etc. And... As you keep going towards the avant garde, more and more, more bullshit is involved. Sometimes money and clever marketing make some of this bullshit seem like art. It isn't the same way for every body. One man's art is another's bullshit.