I agree with 1, if one reads this post having no idea what the music of any of the groups (or individuals) sounds like, it is quite hard to comprehend.
However, it does not reach the heights of what was the most confusing (to me)exchange , conducted in English and which I haven't forgotten, in the history of my unfogged reading.
On re-reading, while I'm still confused, that wasn't as bad as the version in my memories.
There really have been some great threads in the past, no? I just went back and looked at the "superkoranic" one. Gracious. If y'all are going to be getting lots of visitors from CalPundit, maybe it makes sense to put up an "Introduction to the Cult of Unfogged" post. Just a thought.
I read the reviews and I know Ayler's "Ghosts" and Joe Harriot...actually both are in my rotation. But I still don't know what Wolfson's talking about. I am working on it Wolfson, give me five years.
For now, "Hallogallo" for comfort and Don Caballero for growth.
Vandermark's played with the NRG Ensemble before, so that use of the word isn't entirely unknown, I suppose. But still, when I hear the phrase "energy music," I think of Hi-NRG.
I have some Vandermark 5 (and some Gustaffson) on my "to listen to" stack right now. Can't remember exactly what it is. I should listen to it soon. Tim Daisy's been amazing everytime I've seen him with Triage/Dragons 76/Festival Quartet--last summer's Festival Quartet show was fantastic--but I haven't heard him with the V5.
I may be misunderstanding. This seems to me blatantly, ridiculously false. Are you joking? -- "short-circuiting and" means, given the expression "A and B", only evaluate B if A is true. But in a real-time dialogue with someone, when you hear them say "A and B" of course you are going to process B -- assuming you are not igoring your interlocutor which I guess is a possibility -- but I don't think you could hear him/her say A, evaluate it as false, and immediately start ignoring the conversation until s/he finished saying B.
Or did I just fall for BW's leg-pulling? Is his assertion of what he was talking about FALSE, so I should not pay any attention to what follows "and" in his post? A little too meta....
Yes, right, the NRG ensemble. Vandermark succeeded Hal Russell there, and in the Flying Luttenbachers.
TMK, I don't know what you're talking about. When I hear someone say "and", the first thing I do is somehow shut them up until I can evaluate the truth of their first conjunct. If it's false, I simply don't let them proceed.
Similarly, if someone makes a true statement and then says "or", and the first statement was true, I just leave before I can hear what the second disjunct would have been. Why should I waste my time?
bza is right. I think the origin of "energy music" goes back to the early days of free jazz, when Archie Shepp distinguished between "energy-sound" players and "post-Ornette" players (saxophonists only, pretty much). Brötz and Flaherty would be pretty paradigm (except insofar as Ayler and Sanders and late Trane are more paradigm). But it also makes sense to extend it the way that you do; particularly because I suspect that the non-jazz music you mention continues to emphasize sound and momentum over melody or even notes.
"Similarly, if someone makes a true statement and then says "or", and the first statement was true, I just leave before I can hear what the second disjunct would have been. Why should I waste my time?"
ben, I totally want to have your babies, even if I get fat afterwards. but dude, stop knowing so much shit about music. that's the den beste strategy of getting chicks. sure, up to a point, but the wolf eyes/flaherty thing? chicks are slowly backing away right now, except me, and I'm married, and a big nerd on the internet. pretend to know less, right up until the point where you actually contact an editor at the wire.
"What I'm talking about is, music that that makes you think of the Schopenhauerian Will."
Oh. Is this a goal of the musicians? "We're going to play stuff that only people who understand Schopenhauer will like"?
I did listen to Ken Vandermark, and thought he was OK (BBC Radio 3 plays his stuff and a one-hour concert about 18 months ago was pretty good, I recall) but I know nothing about Schopenhauer, so perhaps I'm missing the entire point?
You freak. I don't even understand your post. I just thought your comment count looked lonely.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03- 8-06 10:15 PM
Your comment brought a smile to my lips, Tim, and a joy to my heart.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 8-06 10:16 PM
I think the term is already taken; it's a synonym for "fire music," a la Shepp, Ayler, Gayle.
Posted by bza | Link to this comment | 03- 8-06 10:36 PM
But the use you're proposing fits pretty naturally with that...
Posted by bza | Link to this comment | 03- 8-06 10:39 PM
I agree with 1, if one reads this post having no idea what the music of any of the groups (or individuals) sounds like, it is quite hard to comprehend.
However, it does not reach the heights of what was the most confusing (to me)exchange , conducted in English and which I haven't forgotten, in the history of my unfogged reading.
On re-reading, while I'm still confused, that wasn't as bad as the version in my memories.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03- 8-06 10:44 PM
That was a good thread.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 8-06 10:58 PM
There really have been some great threads in the past, no? I just went back and looked at the "superkoranic" one. Gracious. If y'all are going to be getting lots of visitors from CalPundit, maybe it makes sense to put up an "Introduction to the Cult of Unfogged" post. Just a thought.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03- 8-06 11:13 PM
I read the reviews and I know Ayler's "Ghosts" and Joe Harriot...actually both are in my rotation. But I still don't know what Wolfson's talking about. I am working on it Wolfson, give me five years.
For now, "Hallogallo" for comfort and Don Caballero for growth.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03- 8-06 11:29 PM
Heh.Huh?Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 12:16 AM
Followed the link at 5. Quite a nice thread, but and is not always short-circuited, e.g. and in Ada (where cand is the short-circuited version).
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 2:36 AM
What I'm talking about is, music that that makes you think of the Schopenhauerian Will.
And of course in spoken English "and" is short-circuiting!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 6:51 AM
Vandermark's played with the NRG Ensemble before, so that use of the word isn't entirely unknown, I suppose. But still, when I hear the phrase "energy music," I think of Hi-NRG.
I have some Vandermark 5 (and some Gustaffson) on my "to listen to" stack right now. Can't remember exactly what it is. I should listen to it soon. Tim Daisy's been amazing everytime I've seen him with Triage/Dragons 76/Festival Quartet--last summer's Festival Quartet show was fantastic--but I haven't heard him with the V5.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 7:00 AM
in spoken English "and" is short-circuiting
I may be misunderstanding. This seems to me blatantly, ridiculously false. Are you joking? -- "short-circuiting and" means, given the expression "A and B", only evaluate B if A is true. But in a real-time dialogue with someone, when you hear them say "A and B" of course you are going to process B -- assuming you are not igoring your interlocutor which I guess is a possibility -- but I don't think you could hear him/her say A, evaluate it as false, and immediately start ignoring the conversation until s/he finished saying B.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 7:03 AM
Or did I just fall for BW's leg-pulling? Is his assertion of what he was talking about FALSE, so I should not pay any attention to what follows "and" in his post? A little too meta....
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 7:05 AM
Yes, right, the NRG ensemble. Vandermark succeeded Hal Russell there, and in the Flying Luttenbachers.
TMK, I don't know what you're talking about. When I hear someone say "and", the first thing I do is somehow shut them up until I can evaluate the truth of their first conjunct. If it's false, I simply don't let them proceed.
Similarly, if someone makes a true statement and then says "or", and the first statement was true, I just leave before I can hear what the second disjunct would have been. Why should I waste my time?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 7:06 AM
bza is right. I think the origin of "energy music" goes back to the early days of free jazz, when Archie Shepp distinguished between "energy-sound" players and "post-Ornette" players (saxophonists only, pretty much). Brötz and Flaherty would be pretty paradigm (except insofar as Ayler and Sanders and late Trane are more paradigm). But it also makes sense to extend it the way that you do; particularly because I suspect that the non-jazz music you mention continues to emphasize sound and momentum over melody or even notes.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 8:37 AM
Great! So, you two can decide between yourselves which of you will contact an editor at The Wire.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 8:44 AM
Why would we want to do that?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 8:52 AM
Beats me, you're the ones doing it.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 8:53 AM
"Similarly, if someone makes a true statement and then says "or", and the first statement was true, I just leave before I can hear what the second disjunct would have been. Why should I waste my time?"
ben, I totally want to have your babies, even if I get fat afterwards. but dude, stop knowing so much shit about music. that's the den beste strategy of getting chicks. sure, up to a point, but the wolf eyes/flaherty thing? chicks are slowly backing away right now, except me, and I'm married, and a big nerd on the internet. pretend to know less, right up until the point where you actually contact an editor at the wire.
Posted by alameida | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 9:36 AM
I actually like this song, and the one before it.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 9:40 AM
But alameida, you've no doubt read Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, so you know that there's really no problem.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 9:45 AM
Ooh, and this one. It's crunchy.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 9:46 AM
Ben, quick hurry, what's this one? First song in your last set? As Chopper says, it's crunchy.
Posted by Travis | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 9:49 AM
Lightning Bolt, Megaghost, from Hypermagic Mountain.
This is now Hella, though.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 9:51 AM
Playlist here, btw.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 9:56 AM
Excellent, thanks Ben.
Your show has been... enlightening.
Posted by Travis | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 9:58 AM
I'm going to have to figure out where I can purchase the Lightning Bolt album. Me likey.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 9:59 AM
I love it when the next dj is late.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 10:02 AM
Good show. Loved the cut off Soupsongs and the Reichel, too. So? How much of this will be on the test?
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 03- 9-06 10:07 AM
"What I'm talking about is, music that that makes you think of the Schopenhauerian Will."
Oh. Is this a goal of the musicians? "We're going to play stuff that only people who understand Schopenhauer will like"?
I did listen to Ken Vandermark, and thought he was OK (BBC Radio 3 plays his stuff and a one-hour concert about 18 months ago was pretty good, I recall) but I know nothing about Schopenhauer, so perhaps I'm missing the entire point?
Posted by dave heasman | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 2:51 AM
Oh. Is this a goal of the musicians?
I doubt it.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 10:27 AM